What did the Germans Think of the British and American Soldiers?
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- Did the Germans think well of the Americans and the English? Did they consider them good soldiers? What was it that stood out the most and hated the most about them?
Next, in this program, we are going to see different testimonies of German soldiers and marshals about the Western bloc allies. With this we will see a fairly accurate idea of what they thought of them.
👉👉Do you want to support the channel? You just have to watch another video. This will help You Tube to recommend them more to new users.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
🔴📣Other videos of interest:
- ✅The Werwolf: The Last Desperate Resistance of the Germans in WWII:
• The Werewolve: The Las...
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
💲Supports the channel:
🟠Support the channel on Patreon, now for only $ 1 and benefit from the benefits!
/ historiasbelicasquemer...
Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/quien...
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
🦅 Social networks
Twitter: / belicasque
/ historiasbelicasoficial - Zábava
👉👉Do you want to support the channel? You just have to watch another video. This will help You Tube to recommend them more to new users.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
🔴📣Other videos of interest:
- ✅The Werwolf: The Last Desperate Resistance of the Germans in WWII:
czcams.com/video/40EBZaszmEY/video.html
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
💲Supports the channel:
🟠Support the channel on Patreon, now for only $ 1 and benefit from the benefits!
www.patreon.com/historiasbelicasquemerecensercontadas
Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/quienestadetras?locale.x=es_ES
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
🦅 Social networks
Twitter: twitter.com/BelicasQue
instagram.com/historiasbelicasoficial/
The Germans didn't even know who part in was. Watch The Chieftains video instead of repeating bs.
aà
Fk no. Hate robovoice channels. Downvote all of you into Oblivion
I WOULD NOT SUPPORT THIS SHIT SHOW
A robot voice turns EVERYONE OFF! No personality. I didn't even get into the video because of it. Use your real voice or your channel will never reach its full potential
My grandfather was a German soldier. Here is what he said when I asked him his opinion of the enemy. “Never underestimate or show a lack of respect to men who want to kill you”
Never a truer statement made. Thanks for sharing.
Just to add other thoughts to this video . I was a British soldier post war, but I fought in four of Britains Colonial wars. While serving in Germany during the 1960s , it was my hobby to chat to ex WW2 German soldiers, I spoke German, I made friends among them. I went to see them one day while they sat in the local park and told them I was leaving. ' Wo gehen sie'? (Where are you going) said one. To war,! I said. He followed me to the end of the street and held my hand. Slowly he said to me, ' Take care my boy and come home safe to your folks.... This is just to show that we are all human and have feelings, I really enjoyed the company of these former German soldiers, and really wish I could meet them all over again.
Nice, such kind words always find a few hearts to touch and move, thank you.
Cool story and it is true
@@hanschouwman4536 I had many German friends and one polish friend. The polish man told me one day. "you are the only British officer ever to speak to me since I came to work in this barracks 22 years ago" I though that was sad too. History is interesting when it comes from others points of view. one or two Germans I detested however they were few.
You WILL meet them again, I died on the operating table for 3 minutes when I was badly wounded in Kosovo by an 81mm mortar. God told me you will meet all your relatives, friends, pets, and associates that have already passed!!!! I believed it then, and now as the greatest reward we all have...
This shows the great difference between men and women. We men can have a great fight almost to the death and no matter who the victor is, when treated with respect, come together as best friends. Women on the other hand hold grudges like they are their own babies. I think a lot of divorced men see this. That’s why I believe we all would have destroyed ourselves long ago if women were in charge of everything.
There is a documentary where a German describes his British capture. He said, we are in for it now, the way we treated the Dutch. But he said the British gave him chocolate, cigarettes and tea, said wars over for you mate. He said he was treated well and was so ashamed what he had done.
Bert Trautmann, who later became a legendary post war goalkeeper for Manchester City, was a German paratrooper who fought at Monte Casino amongst other places. At the wars end he decided to surrender and gingerly approached some British tommies who as it turned out were having a brew up. He was expecting them to shoot him. Instead one of them grinned at him and held out a cup of tea, saying ‘Alright Fritz, fancy a cup of tea?’
@@greva2904 If it were up to the soldiers, rather than the politicians, I think that there would be less wars, and the ones that we had might be less brutal.
I read an American memoir, and he said that the Germans followed the Geneva Convention to the letter, but the Convention says that the quality standard for prisoner rations was that they had to be equal in quantity and quality to what the capturing nation's own standards. The trouble was, by late in the war, their own soldiers rations weren't all that good. BUT, the American soldiers got their care packages, and that system was monitored by the Swiss Red Cross. Sometimes, they had some real treats that the Germans coveted, so the POW's could "buy" privileges and a lighter work burdens by sharing their treats with the guards.
@@greva2904 Vincent Speranza who is 96 years old and fought at Battle of the Bulge and his unit liberated Dachau concentration camp. He said “we stopped taking German POWs for a while after Dachau “.
@@jacqueslefave4296 The Germans Army and Airforce did a fairly good job of following the Geneva Convention, but the SS did not.
My German teacher in High School was in Rommels' Africa Corps in WW2. He was captured by the British. He said where he and his fellow Germans were captured was near a Farm in North Africa that was owned by a french Colonialist. The Farmer was glad to give the Brits some wine but refused to give the Germans any. He said a British Soldier poked the Farmer in the Butt with his Bayonet and exclaimed "Give these men some Wine too, The war is over for them and they are now our friends!" He said they all got Drunk together!!
My Dad was British Army Rifle Brigade 8th Army Desert Rats, He joined up in 1939 and was Front Line until 1945, And stayed in the Army of occupation in Hamburg Germany, He fought in the North African Desert, Italy, France, Germany, He had the utmost respect for the German soldier learnt fighting the Afrika Korps, The only General he ever mentioned was Rommel, Later as a soldier during the occupation of Hamburg he got to know the German People, He said to me the Germans are the same as us English you could not tell us apart until they talk, I never forgot that Years later I served in British Airborne Forces and would often train with German Fallschirmjägers, Great Lads.
I was a U.S Army soldier stationed in Ansbach Germany in The Early 80s.....My Grandfather was German from Dresden never got to visit the city while I was There because it was behind the Iron Curtain......But yes German people were outstanding.
Sound like a nazi sympathiser
If servicemen of ANY country end up in a bar, they mostly will have some beers together and get on, fine given a translator or common language.
The leadership and owner class make wars, grunts just get to carry them out.
@@stadiamak692
"There are no other people so estimable in their singularity yet so detestable in their plurality"
One German = fun drinking buddy, one million germans + armor = we need tactical nukes, STAT!
I’m American but my Grand father was 8th fusiliers Royal Armored Core. Radioman on a Sherman Tank..I’m sure he fought with him through N.Africa.
I think the last sergeant was right: America was in no hurry to lose troops a la WW1, not with Soviets punishing the East. As for "brave troops being led by donkeys", the Wehrmacht was led by the greatest strategic ass of all.
Germany and Hitler in the Second World War confirm for all time the truth that a flawed grand strategy cannot be overcome by tactical or operational excellence further down the chain of command.
The comment "Lions led by asses" came from WWI and the press coverage of the brave but doomed Tommies being fed into the meat-grinder by arrogant mediocrities like Field Marshal Alexander Haig, of the British Army. He'd started out as a general but was apparently a good self-promoter since he was later promoted to field marshal and given a peerage for his "success" in wiping out most of an entire generation of young men due to his inflexibility and arrogance in the face of the new developments heralded by that war. Insanity, it has been said, is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. If his sending those boys over the top again and again into German Maxim MG fire isn't the definition of insanity, I don't know what is. In fairness to the British, he wasn't alone in being late to adapt to the new realities of that war. The French Army high command were so inflexible and dogmatic in their approach that French Army regulars mutinied for a time in 1917.
I don't think that quote is about strategy though. It refers to Commanding Officers who had initiative.
@@sjsm8578 - On what basis do you make that claim? Do you have a citation or historical source to back up that statement? That's how the pros do it, and I am one.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 lol. Citation? that German soldiers believed they had more initaitve than Americans?
@@sjsm8578 Ahem, "over the top into a meat grinder" seems more a tactic than strategy.
My father was in the German army as a draftee from 1936 to 1945. He fought in Poland, France Russia and was also at Normandy on June 6. and fought against the American army during the battle of the bulge. He told me that when they overran the american lines they found packages in the fox holes but could not read what was in them. When the translators arrived my father was stunned to find that they were packages of pancake mix. He could not believe it. When he got back to Russia and reported to his company commander the commander said "oh you're one of those cowards that ran from the Americans" to which my father responded "Major you have obviously never stood up to the Americans, let me tell you, when the American army goes to war they bring their own toilet paper". Subsequently the Allies started bombing and the Major having heard the stories of what happened at Normandy asked my father to drive him to a place where he could observe it. My father told him he would under one condition, that the major would do exactly what my father told him. They drove toward the direction the bombers were coming, pulled off the road to hide the car under some trees. As the bombers approached and blocked and darkened the sky the Major remarked "Unbelievable, can this even be possible?"
So the comment "when the American army goes to war they bring their own toilet paper" sums it up perfectly.
So many stories, I will be recording them for the benefit of my future descendants.
I had read of similar accounts of German soldiers when they captured American soldiers or overran American positions (even going back to the First World War) the German soldiers would despair because, when they fully realized the implications of the American soldiers having untold comforts (chocolates, cigarettes, comic books, toilet paper) even in the FRONT LINES - they realized they were fighting an enemy that was so resource-rich that they could afford the fuel, expense, and cargo space for transporting such luxuries to be enjoyed by their common soldiers.
@@b.santos8804 My Uncle Micky, a comms specialist in the Wehrmacht from 1938 until early 1945, knew that the war was lost when he saw that the Allies did not bring any horses to Normandy, only endless amounts of transport vehicles which, when they were damaged or broke down, were just pushed to the roadside and replaced without a thought.
The shoe does not care what the roach has to say when it gets stomped.😶😶😶😶
I love this story! Eight of my uncles fought around the globe during WWII. Miraculously, they all came home but had varying degrees of PTSD that was never named and, obviously, never treated. The ones who served in Europe spoke with heartbreak about the European women and children suffering from deprivation, and they did what they could to help them. In 1980-81, I spent time in Bavaria and learned from residents who were children in Germany during the war that they eagerly looked forward to the Americans coming through because our boys gave the children whatever they had. Those kids, who were in their thirties when I met them, reminisced about the deliciousness of the chocolate, chewing gum, and ice cream and the playfulness of the “enemy” American soldiers.
What they thought of the individual soldiers was less relevant than what they thought of the weaponry. Germans were astonished that a squad of American soldiers had a radio and could call in an artillery barrage on them. As one German is supposed to have remarked, “This is the way a rich man wages war.”
Oh yeah? The Japanese Navy high command: apparently some high officers started having doubts when they learned the US Navy had an Ice cream ship. I kid you not. The USN had so much extra tonnage that they could affor to comission an ice cream ship for the pacific troops. Google it. I think having an ice cream ship is probably scarier to the ennemy than a couple of carriers...
@ rico567 - Your comment is apt. The way I remember that quote is from a Stephen Ambrose book, maybe "Citizen Soldiers," and the German is remembering being marched to the rear under guard towards a POW camp, past miles and miles of supplies, ammunition and other war material.... stacked alongside the roads because there was no more room in the warehouses and ammo dumps. The Germans were astonished that the U.S. Army could basically reconnoiter by fire, meaning that the men and the tanks and TDs had spare ammo enough to shoot at anything even remotely suspicious and ask questions later.
In some of the worst house-to-house fighting once inside Germany, the U.S. Army learned to advance by clearing structures one at a time, and then blowing a hole through the wall into the next one over, and repeating the process - over and over again. That way, they stayed out of lanes of enemy fire, including from the greatly feared 88mm dual-purpose AT/AA guns, and the superb MG42 machine guns. No other army in the world could afford to fight that way. Most would have had to spend men instead of ordnance.
It must have been a different way of looking at things for those Germans who'd fought in the East where life was so cheap that the Red Army cleared mine-fields for a time early in the war by marching men through them! They did it because Stalin's political officers and NKVD "blocking forces" were behind them waiting to shoot anyone who did not advance as ordered. That's always been their way of war, to spent some of her vast numbers of people and some of her vast open space in order to buy time to change the course of the conflict. That and old man winter. They did it against Napoleon and they did it against the Germans, too.
But Americans, since they lived in a society which regarded life as precious and not cheap, had to find ways to attain their objective militarily without wasting the men's lives conspicuously or irresponsibly.
Can't help it if you Krauts didn't come prepared.
@Captain Blacktooth - The superb series "Band of Brothers" captures that dynamic well, in the final episode or maybe the second to last one, when some Easy Co. men are watching the Autobahn, and as bumper-to-bumper U.S. Army vehicles of all kinds move one way, toward the lines, into Germany, miles upon miles of them....in the median, miles upon miles of German POWs march into captivity.
The earliest successes of the Blitz convinced many observers that the Wehrmacht was more-completely mechanized than it actually was. Newsreel footage featuring rapidly-advancing tanks, half-tracks and trucks and Stuka dive-bombers, couriers on BMW motorcycles, etc. When the reality, as you point out, was that most of their army either went into battle the old-fashioned way - on foot - or using horses. Trucks or trains if they were fortunate.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 During Napoleons campaign in Russia, the French lost at least twice as many men as the Russians. The Russians didn't do human wave attacks by that time's standards. They avoided losing battles as well as they could. They won by letting the French vastly overstretch themselves, die of hunger and get stuck in the mud of rasputiza. All in all the Russians fought a pretty smart war.
You seem to be referring more to the world wars. And tbh in the great war all nations fought like idiots in that regard, like Douglas Haig.
And well, WWII was Stalins war at the eastern front. And Stalin didn't care much about losses, only about production and recruitment numbers.
The Western Allies could be described as overly cautious but that was entirely deliberate. Haunted by the massive losses in WW1, they tried as much as possible to avoid casualties by the use of material support. Better to loose a hundred tanks than a thousand men.
They also had the red armydoing most of the fighting. Montgomery planned, prepared, reconsidered beforemovingbut h was successful.
Thegermans had the same ww1 experience but opted for a rapid movement strategy.
@@ravarga4631 Montgomery has often been criticised for waiting until he had sufficient forces and supplies in order to ensure victory. I remember a newspaper columnist in South Africa who had fought at El Alamein saying, in his column, that he didn't think that was such a bad thing and neither, he imagined, did the rest of the troops waiting for the off!!
@@davidtuer5825 - exactly! They were probably grateful that his caution was more likely to spare their lives.
@@28pbtkh23 General Patton wasn't exactly economical with his troops, so I understand.
My father who was an MP, was stationed all over Germany immediately after the war. He would take POW's out of confinement and guard them, in order for them to work on whatever needed done at that time. He explained to me that when he was at a POW camp near Leipzig, which is where he spent the majority of his time. At first they used to make fun of his/our last name because it means "shepherd" in German, not knowing he spoke German...while he confronted them about it they were very shocked at how disciplined he was. I'm assuming it's because he didn't beat or shoot them, like the Jerry's were accustomed to doing for year's. Over time they opened up to him about their experiences and thoughts on certain issue's. The main one that has always stuck with me, was their absolute disdain for America and our army. But as the fuhrer's spell wore off, they admitted they actually didn't know anything about the State's or the people including the military. They conceded that they believed anything the regime said without question and with fervor. Now that the war was over and they started understanding the truth of thing's, their entire existence became a thing of confusion and despair....some went as far as offing themselves for what they had done. And other's he became friend's with, who he kept in contact with even after returning home.
A militaristic ethos was bred into the German youth when the Nazis attained power for a evil purpose. The opposition was mainly conscripted from citizenry of allied nations with different aims just keen to finish theconflict forced upon them. The Nazi propaganda machine would foster national contempt/
Frighteningly similar to what we see in society today. So many individuals believe everything that is said to them through the television, and by their political leaders without paying any attention to actual evidence and the real world around them. Not to mention the blatant ignorance of history.
It was the Canadians who the German troops dreaded the most.
@@AK-dd9od
I can’t remember who said this, but didn’t someone say something to the effect of that they wish they could have Canadian infantry, British pilots and American tankers?
Good story!! Thanks
It was calculated that the Western Allies could beat the Soviets to Berlin, but Eisenhower said "what's the point of loosing hundreds of thousands of lives, just to divide it into 4 when we get there"
Ike is among my favorites but dang, how could he let the cowardly De Gaulle march triumphantly into Paris? De Gaulle cowered in England for four years while American, British and Canadian boys died to liberate France.
@@gilmangus83 a bit ignorant given that the Legion fought hard at Gazala and Alemain and the FEC played a key role in breaking the Gustav Line with their attack into the Arunci Massif.
Eisenhower had to do what his boss, FDR, told him to do.
FDR, basically, gave Eastern Europe to Stalin as a gift.
@@gilmangus83 I don't think he did. De Gaulle blatantly disobeyed orders and took it on himself to be the liberator of Paris.
Your dislike of De Gaulle is slightly unfair. What exactly do you think he could have done if he had stayed in France? . He would almost certainly have been killed, jailed or placed under house arrest. So he really didn't have any other option than come to England.
@@marktwain2053 Churchill always said that it really worried him how easily FDR was 'taken in' by Stalin.
I knew an old guy who was an infantryman in the Italian campaign. He was assigned to bring a captured German officer back from the lines. The officer asked him if he would show him the "belt fired artillery" we had.
That German asked his Canadian captors if he could see their "automatic cannons."
Australian here.
I shudder to think what would have happened if the Germans or Japanese had access to the numbers of men and the material which the allies were able to produce. Actually, if they only had access to the material alone I reckon WW2 would have had a much different outcome.
I am continually amazed at the fight both countries put up right until the very end.
But they never had access to those resources and nor would they, not even from the beginning for a number of reasons. Indeed, the only reason the Axis Powers attempted their reckless gambles to dominate the world and got as far as they did is because they believed their own propaganda, thinking that the Western Powers were decadent, weak and lacking resolve, or in the case of the Soviets 'Judaised and corrupt. In time they became disavowed of these notions, which they would never have entertained had they faced a united front from the start and not been seduced by a combination of appeasement (Britain and France), isolationism (the USA) and collusion (the Soviets). Once that alliance was ranged against them the Axis were doomed.
Had Germany been allowed by Hitler to encircle and bypass Stalingrad, and Moscow, swinging South to capture the oil fields....maybe.
High octane gasoline from the U.S., and un-bombable manufacturing in America and the USSR are what really won the war.
You don't give your people enough credit.
@@clintfalk well...they produced it. The country really came together back then. It's a shame they can't now.
Germany had more weapons at the end, but lacked fuel and means to deliver because of allied Air power.
The British had to be cautious because if they lost a division, there was none to replace it. The British Army by the end of the war had pretty much run out of men. For example, look at the 1st Airborne Division after Operation Market Garden, it was never fully reconstituted and disbanded in November 1945.
1sy airborne Division wasn't reconstituted after market garden because there wasn't a need,or opportunity,for them. After D-day they weren't dropped anywhere until market garden. A waste of well trained troops.
@@Trebor74 British units were heavily engaged right upto and after the war. 6th Airborne Division was transferred to the Middle East on internal security duties after the war and not disbanded until 1948. There was also the war against Japan and forces were being transferred there. The fact 1st Airborne was not at full strength by May 1945 shows there were manpower shortages.
@@Trebor74 1st Airborne were not used on D-day. that was the 6th. The only operation the 1st ever did was Market. They were not reconstituted as there were too few left, shortages of available men and the time it would take to train them to operate as Airborne. 6th Division made one more drop as part of Operation Varsity (24 March 1945)
Why are you replying to his idiotic video. There are two anecdotal and unverified stories that are somehow used to make general statements. I got one for everyone. Never ask a loser how good the winner is. The krauts got their butts kicked, after they terrorized most of Europe. We got most of them though.
@@patrickkelly6691 actually 1st Airborne were in North Africa and Italy prior to Arnhem - but not as a whole Division
Many years ago,(late 80's) while attending a US Army NCO school, one of the courses included a quote allegedly from a Wehrmacht WW2 training manual. I may be paraphrasing, but it was along the lines of "The problem with fighting Americans is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos every day!"
Erwin Rommel said that.
Yes, when I was stationed in Germany after the war I was a Sergeant in charge of a radio relay company and I was given the job of setting up a radio relay connection between Herford and the North coast. I had 14 sections but needed 18. I got two American and two Canadian. I had published a written order to each unit not to erect aerials in farm yards, the Americans did and one of them was electrocuted and died. They tried to blame me but I produced the copy of the order I had circulated. I got rid of the Americans and got two others.
This reminds me of a German Army saying that was told to me and excuse me if you’ve heard it before and I’m mis quoting.
‘When the English bomb the Germans get down. When the Germans bomb the English get down. When the Americans bomb, everyone get down’
@@forbiddenrecallskillinguss4012 .....while everyone, except the Axis, were praying that we enter the war.... we should have kept out of it, just like we should have kept to of the first war...
@@johnmosby2631 Britain should have stayed out of the war. Unfortunately it was neither England’s nor America’s war. We should have left them to it and I believe the world would be a better place.
I've read many books about the European Theatre. Here are some insights from the German perspective on the Anglo-Americans, not mentioned in this video:
-In spite of the mystique of the Nazi Wonder Weapons like the V2, the Germans didn't think the British or Americans had worse military technology than they did, overall.
-The Germans respected the British slightly more because the latter were seen as slightly tougher fighters than Americans, and they were "classier." At the same time, the Germans thought of Britain as a more classist society than America, and they believed the lowest class British people were profoundly ignorant. They proudly contrasted this with the more egalitarian socialist society the Nazis had created in Germany.
-To make their people fear and hate the Americans as much as possible, Nazi propaganda emphasized the presence of black troops and large numbers of "mixed race" men in the U.S. military's ranks. After the U.S. military established a firm foothold in France and started advancing towards Germany, it was common for Germans to feel anxious over the prospect of blacks, half-blacks-half-whites, and swarthy men with some mix of non-Nordic heritage in the U.S. Army coming to rape and kill them. Such troops turned out to be a much smaller percentage of American forces than the average Germans had been led to believe.
-The Germans thought small minorities of powerful Jews controlled America and Britain, and had tricked them into fighting with Germany. Since the Middle Ages, Britain had been one of the friendliest countries in Europe to Jews, and thus had attracted a large and prosperous minority of them. The U.S. population was almost 4% Jewish in 1940. The Nazis pointed out that several key advisers high up in America and Britain were Jewish and were outspoken anti-Nazis in the lead-up to WWII.
-The poor performance of U.S. troops in North Africa in 1943 enduringly shaped German perceptions of American fighting ability. This was a mistake, since the U.S. Army should have been expected to make rookie mistakes early in the war, as anyone would. The Germans still clung to the stereotype in 1944, even though U.S. troops were more effective by then and had learned from their early errors.
-The American military was seen as rich and well-supplied. German soldiers marveled at how the U.S. forces never ran out of artillery shells, bullets, or gas. Captured American rations were highly prized because of how superior they were to German ones. After overrunning many U.S. positions and taking thousands of prisoners early in the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans were shocked and demoralized to see the vastness of the American supplies, and the good condition of the U.S. troops and their equipment. At a time when the Wehrmacht was scrounging whatever equipment it could get it hands on and its men were clothed in hodgepodges of uniform combinations and personal equipment, the Americans still had standardized weapons, vehicles, and uniforms.
-The Americans were considered to be more mobile than the Germans. A typical U.S. unit would have more vehicles and more fuel than its German counterpart. This allowed U.S. units to retreat faster and more completely if the battle wasn't going their way, which played into German stereotypes that Americans were less courageous than they were.
I've also read that the Germans were stunned by America's logistical strength, such as the railroads from factories to the coastline. The German high command dismissed reports of 4-mile long freight trains being pulled by one locomotive as pure exaggeration by spies...but it wasn't. Germany's agents were likely seeing Union Pacific's 4000-class steam locomotives, nicknamed "Big Boy". Several of these 600 ton monsters survive today, and one actually has been operational in the last few years!
"-The poor performance of U.S. troops in North Africa in 1943 enduringly shaped German perceptions of American fighting ability. This was a mistake, since the U.S. Army should have been expected to make rookie mistakes early in the war, as anyone would. The Germans still clung to the stereotype in 1944, even though U.S. troops were more effective by then and had learned from their early errors."
But compared to any other forces in the west, the Americans where still the weakest.
Outside of individual elite units like the airborne divisions, obviously.
Better then the first Americans who entered North Africa in late 1942 of course - but still not up to the quality of British or Canadian troops who had years more training and often combat experiance as well.
Which isn't a reflection on americans soldiers in general, it's just that they where greener then everyone else.
@@Rattenkriegs Funny thing is, in the Korean War, the Brits and Australians were praising the heck out of our troops ("Raw and young, nonetheless they still push on, despite bearing the brunt of the fighting" is how one of their newsreels apparently described American soldiers). We definitely came a long way and learned a bunch of strategic lessons in those WWII years (though Korea and others would teach us more). Interestingly, the US Marines were deeply respected by other nations from 1942 on, a testimony to their grit and remarkable discipline (while the Army was still growing).
The Germans used Pervatin, a early Methamphetamine. The British used similar drugs in North Africa. The British found that it made the troops ultra aggressive and they made spectacular advances. But it also made the troops more 'gung ho' and the loss rates were just unacceptable.
So from the German point of view, a whole generation of brainwashed, drugged up killing machines are going to make spectacular gains, but also suffer horrific losses. Once the novelty of 'Blitzkrieg' had been understood by the British, Americans and Soviets the sheer weight of numbers and the massive industrial effort, using a 'free' labour force rather than slave labour that did everything they could to hinder the German war effort the war was only ever going to go one way. I think it was Roosevelt that said " I don't think Hitler understands just what a free Democratic people can achieve".
Excellent exposition. Very insightful. As an aside, when I was a young soldier at Ft Bliss in the late 70s, I observed Iranians, Japanese and Germans in the training brigade. The Japanese were far superior as soldiers, the Iranians slothful and the Germans relaxed
I found this video VERY INTERESTING. My dad told me a few stories about his service during WWII. He was a VHF Crew Chief in the Atlantic Theater (THE WHOLE NINE YARDS) North Africa to Sicily to up through Italy into Southern France then into Germany (9 CAMPAIGNS). I'm PROUD OF MY DAD.😉😁👍
From what I have read and watched, the German soldiers were most impressed with how well the allied soldiers were supplied with food.
Get real mate . It’s all about the cigarette raton 👍
...and cigarettes!
As I and others have said, amateurs focus on tactics, experts concentrate on logistics.
@Dan Beech sounds sick
In the movie Patton the one German officer was impressed that the Americans has fuel to ship a cake
A good example of the value of artillery is the US beach landings in the Pacific.
It was noted from behind the lines that shore bombardment prior to amphibious landing destroyed little of the enemy emplacements. So they shortened the bombardment saving ammunition. But the casualties on the beaches increased. Study showed what any veteran of such landings could have told them. That those shell holes provided cover for out troops from gunfire and shell fragments.
The reason the bombardments didn't work in the Pacific is because the Japanese were dug in and hidden in Caves. They didn't come out until the bombardments ended.
@@lloydhills7416 Yes, the bombardments were less effective against enemy troops dug into caves. But lacking the cover provided by shell craters Allied troops were vulnerable to fire from the enemy when they came out of their tunnels. The pre-landing bombardments resumed do to the loss of Allied troops.
The beaches at Normandy on D-Day were supposed to have been bombed to provide craters for cover for the soldiers on the wide open beaches. Unfortunately, the timing of the bombers was off by a few seconds and the bombs were dropped inland instead. No cover!
What that really shoes is the value of naval power. Naval gunnery has always been fearsome and the US owned the Pacific by 1943.
@@williamtell5365 What I find disturbing with modern US navel ships is the reduction of both number of guns and more dependence on missiles. The US has opted for rapid firing, by use of auto loading systems, guns. Perhaps the lesser volume of fire is thought to be offset by modern targeting systems. This means a more complex operating system where any number of things can go wrong and shut down the gun. Instead of having three or four turrets with five inch gun each modern destroyers have two turrets with a single five inch gun each. One turret goes down and 50% of the firepower is lost. So the ability to provide shore bombardment is much less.
The Army and Marines had the same question about self loading main guns in their tanks. The self loading gun was dismissed, though the Soviets did deploy a self loading gun, in favor of keeping a man to load the gun. The man was more reliable than auto loaders and in critical situations could keep the tank in the battle.
I recall a remark by a German on the Eastern front claiming that he realized Germany would lose the war when he found rations in a Soviet position that were marked Oscar Meyer, Chicago!
Napoleon said that an army marches on its stomach. We Americans were the Soviet stomach fillers. My dad served in the Pacific, but my uncle served in the American Merchant Marine. He delivered to Northern Russia, port of Archangel. They delivered armaments and grain, usually wheat. The Russians always asked for cigarettes and chocolate, and whiskey if they had it. But the service that was returned in beating the Germans was worth it.
The most valuable thing that they delivered was trucks, cargo and fuel trucks. Amateurs talk tactics, experts talk logistics.
@@jacqueslefave4296 I'm thinking that spam and cigarettes were just as important as trucks.
@@brianwalsh1401 They had jokes about Spam, too, but they ate it. Nicotine is known to quell hunger pangs, too, in fact a lot of fashion models take up smoking to help lose weight. When on the eastward invasion, the Germans would hunt down Russian soldiers hiding in the Priepet Marsh by sniffing out the Turkish tobacco they craved.
I read the same once about Germans capturing a batch of Coca Cola in North Africa. _We can't get fuel and ammo across the Mediteranean sea but they get non-essential supplies all the way across the Atlantic and to here !_ The Axis said. Don't know if true but it really could be.
@@Twirlyhead Coca Cola used its political influence to have its product declared "an essential wartime material". With that, they were able to circumvent sugar rationing, and hold sway over their competitors. They even managed to keep sugar rationing in force after the war for a few years, and Pepsi was arranging sugar smuggling from Cuba as late as the early 1950's. Additionally, the government built Coca Cola plants overseas, and after the war, they sold the plants to Coca Cola for the cost of the scrap steel. It's a pretty good business when you can get it. Chroney capitalism at its finest.🤑
"The artillery does the killing and the infantry does the dying." WWII GI saying.
Maybe so but you need the person with a weapon to occupy that space.
It is inevitable that an army from a democratic state, which places a higher value on the rights of the individual, would have a different attitude to an army from a totalitarian state where the rights of the individual are subordinate to that of the state.
*laughs in WWI*
That's ignorant nonsense. The very opposite. The US had more resources of all kinds. That was all. The Soviet went into full war economy by mid 1942, and the US followed. Germany, the 3rd Reich, did not initiate a full war economy until mid 1943 and didn't turn into a full war economy till mid 1944. 50% steel Nazi Germany made during the war was for civilians, and 70% industrial capacity during the war till 1944 was used for civilians. In contrast, the aerial bombing of civilian targets in Dresden was such a master piece of the "democratic state".
@@SummerStory101 in 1940 america produced something like 70% of global oil and the industrial might of the untouched US was breathtaking. It is one of the weaknesses of the 2020s US in global conflicts is that our leadership does not care about complete destruction of US manufacturing capacities.
@@ryanshaw4250 Yes, correct. By now the US has discovered way more oil than in the 1940s. We are the largest oil producer in the world, but it's the tyrannical radical left Democrats who are ruining America today, not Putin and not the dead Hitler.
My Dad was a medic and part of the 508th Medical Recovery Company. When his unit was reassigned to Patton's 3rd Army the speed at which they traveled was unparalleled. When the 508th got to the Rhine River, before crossing and according to my father, he said on a day when the wind was blowing across to the American and Allied Side, he said you could smell the Germans because they were so dirty and the average soldier didn't take baths. When the 508th crossed the Rhine and were into Germany, they picked up wounded Germans and from the sight of them he said they were pitiful and had the fight beat out of them. They accepted food and clothing and stayed captured. Not true of the SS wounded. They were constantly trying to run away and get back into the fight and often fought with Whermacht Soldiers calling them traitors and said they should be shot for not trying to get back to the fight.
My Great Grandfather was in Patton's 3rd army. He was tank driver and foot soldier, and from stories I've heard, he was also in the Battle of the Bulge. At some point he was injured and the pain was so great that he contemplated shooting himself, but the thought of his newborn daughter (my grandmother) kept him from doing it.
If Patton had been given outright command and Bradley and Montgomery were told to let him drive we would have captured Berlin by the start of 1945. Czechia would have been freed and not endure 45 years of occupation. Austria would also have been free of any Soviet occupation they had to endure with the West for another ten years. But it is what it is.
Was Is It The Same Speed 😁😁😁😁😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣
That The US Armed Forces Showed The Whole World While Fleeing👌😁😁😂😂🤣🤣
Korea
Vietnam
Iran
Iraq
Afghanistan
😁😁😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@bittoochatterjee2661 Our politcians lose wars, not our soldiers. If it weren't for the American soldier Paris would be a Berlin suburb and South Korea would be a Japanese slave state.
If I was a soldier at the time, I would put more faith in leaders who were too conservative because they cared about the lives of their troops than in a leader who was more aggressive because he didn't care about his people.
We got stuck in Anzio because of overly cautious leadership. The road to Rome was open and clear for the first few days after the landings. Cautious leadership allowed American troops to become surrounded and led to a lengthy stalemate. 2 men who would have became my uncles died there.
In the civil war timid union generals prolonged the fight costing thousands of lives
@@bevo1120 Exactly! Took 3 years before we put Grant and Sherman where they should have been from the start.
you should rethink this really. In WWII the best defence you had was innitiative. The Generals you would have wanted to serve under were Rommel, Monty or Patton. These guys knew that you had to keep your innitiative and force the enemy to react rather than act on their own. If the enemy is caught in an infinite loop of reactions, he cannot male his own moves to cause big casulties on your side. Sometimes risks have to be taken to avouid big losses.
Rommel is a good example of this. During the invasion of France, he kept the innitiative and took out several risky atracks, but eventually this saved thousands of German soldiers as it sped up the invasion and avoided a lenghty stalemate.
@@tinknal6449 To be fair, Grant was too busy securing the Mississippi to cut the Confederacy in half to worry about Lee.
When I was young we had a ex German POW who would come around and repair our electronics ... TV's, Radio's etc.. I was into reading about WWII so I asked him what the Germans thought of American troops. He said, "The German solders would often say that we (the Germans) had the Italians but the British had the Americans so it was a fair deal." Pretty insulting. I was a kid and wasn't used to hearing something so blunt like that.
I read a similar account about a German officer being interrogated having been captured in the early days of the North African campaign.
When asked by his American captor what they thought of Americans he said we think of you what you think of the Italians. As the war went on their opinions would change.
@@pigmanobvious I heard a similar story from an old German soldier many years ago. No doubt in the beginning of the war when our American soldiers wanted to Africa their performance wasn't the best and they also did not have a very good Commander at that point. However things change fast and the Germans ended up getting defeated and captured. As the war progressed American training got better and better and the Americans fought every bit as good as them Germans did. As a matter of fact if you read about when Germany first invaded Poland their performance wasn't very great either they had a lot of discipline problems with the soldiers and so forth because they were not experienced. I'd like to know what army could have done with the American army did in the Pacific just about single-handedly?
@@jasguy2715 there were a couple of German vets around when I was a kid in the 70’s. One was even a WW1 vet who had his thumb shot off. He was our school janitor. Another was our cattle AI breeding tech. He was in the HJ and fought in the battle of Berlin! Geez I wished I had picked their brains more.
The Germans lost the war. Their consolation was to claim they were defeated by overwhelming numbers and technology. The truth is... if you cannot win a war, don't start one.
@@davidlawrence3106 absolutely correct! Even Goring in the beginning before the invasion of Poland and Russia stated the Germans didn't have enough planes they didn't have enough bombs they didn't have enough of everything as we can see how fast the German army was on the defensive!
- My dad was a POW rescued by US troops & helped them in their advances in the area since he was familiar with it being on trucked work details all over the area.
- He was shocked at the lackadaisical attitude the American troops had in advancing into hostle combat areas.
I think some American troops had the fatalistic attitude that if their number was up their number was up.
@@Anon54387 Speaking from personal experiance all American front line troops feel like their number is comming up in every enemy engagement.
@@mydogbrian4814 you fought in wwii?
@@jimbob465 No, I fought in the jungles of *Nam.* And in combat, you always have the feeling of impending doom & your number's up just around the corner.
"Lackadaisical"? Whew. You learn something new everyday.
No one ever said that either the British or the Americans were lions led by donkeys. This is a quote which is said to have originated from the First World War by the Germans about the British. But the author of the book later admitted that he had made the quote up.
Reply it was made up by Alan Clarke.
Mark Jamison didn't say anything about the quote, either. He said that based on his observations, the quote accurately described the situation he experienced.
The quote is from the battle of the Somme. 60% of the British army in 1916 were school boys, hence losing an entire generation. Lions led by Donkey. 1914 was the most pointless war
No many,many authors atributed it to Ludendorf
My dad interrogated a captured SS Colonel towards the end of The Battle of the Bulge, who had nothing but contempt for him and all US troops, at the end of which my dad only smiled.
Short conversation. SS Officer: "you suck at soldiering".... Interrogator: "Yet, here you are".
@@finitatem: Also what beat the South, the Indians, Germany in WWI, and Japan... Germans never recovered from the loss of Junkers Transports after invading Demark. Part of the bloody nose, even though winning, what would cost them dearly.
Hell, they were behind the replacement power curve after Battle of Britain, and still saw no problem in new adventures...
@@finitatem: Your comment centered on the logistics aspect of it, and you are right. My comments being centered on that, apparently that sailed over your head... And I WILL seriously cited that in the campaigns against Native Americans... It was a classic study in a force that has logistics support that can stay in the field full time vs a force that relies on hunter-gathering for their logistics.
There was one case that defied that, in Geronimo driving them nuts for 25 years. Though he was confined to keeping his force alive, and didn't make any gains he could maintain in the military sense.
US combat prowess in the field did not win WWI or WWII, It's logistics support damn well did... It was directly instrumental in keeping allies in the fight, and causing the enemy to spend a lot of effort trying to interrupt it...
Pacific Theater? Engineered to the point we could interdict their logistics at will, and they weren't able to return the favor.
@@finitatem AND the ability to use it.
So many people are saying the Germans didn't respect American soldiers during the war, I'd like to point out one simple truth, we won. Allies -2, Germany and the Axis -0
The biggest factor of the Allied victory was air superiority. The Wehrmacht lost the war not to the fault of its soldiers (who were among the finest ever assembled for war), but due to the lack of control of the sky.
It doesn't help when your leader is a bipolar madman.
Ah yes the Heer with all its excellent 18 year olds whos only experience is in Raping civilians or getting overrun anytime they met equal forces. Why look at them so well lead at Bastogne and Kursk getting absolutely crushed by the enemy when on the offensive.
@@patricklarry6645 True mate. But then again Stalin was even more F'd up than Hitler by all accounts. Unlike the Führer though, he had relatively unlimited resources. I think we. (British and Americans) fought the most prudent way to avoid needless casualties yet still beat the Germans. Gen. Omar Bradley, Mark Clark and Monty were among our best.
@@pneulancer Stalin let the generals make the major decisions. Hitler always interfered. Big difference.
@@patricklarry6645 Exactly. Stalin was a tyrant but Hitler was an idiot. Stalin's willingness to listen to his generals won him the war; Hitler's refusal to do so lost him the war.
What the average German soldier thought of our guys really is immaterial. Their opinions made no difference to the outcome.
Exactly. The Germans also claimed that they were the better army in WWI and were cheated out of victory. History however shows that the Germans lost two major wars to British and US troops in the space of 27 years. Whether you consider German soldiers to be the best in the world or not - the winning of a war is the only thing that actually matters. There ares no second prizes for effort or even cool uniforms.
One of my uncles fought in north Africa and Italy, and he was wounded twice. He had nothing but admiration for the German soldier as a fighter and honorable when they surrendered. He loathed the Italian soldier for their pathetic behavior as soldiers and worse behavior after surrendering, which they did in droves. His words about the German soldier "they would fight the hell out of you." His brother, another uncle, lost his life in the Battle of the Bulge when the howitzer he was firing blew up. RIP soldiers.
Yes and some British and American soldiers were murdered by german forces also
If you look at the way the Germans distributed their divisions against the Allies in Normandy you can clearly see which of the British/ Canadians or Americans they considered to be more of a threat...
Or was it the Americans, since the supreme Allied commander was an American, who deliberately assigned themselves to the best-defended areas? I mean, it would have been kind of a dick move for Eisenhower to have gone "Dang, look at the defenses at 'Omaha' beach! We'll get slaughtered like lambs! I think I'll assign the British and Canadians to that sector, hehe. It's good to be the king."
@@rbrtck That makes no sense at all and anyway I was not talking about D-Day itself.
On D-Day the Germans did not know where the landings were going to happen, never mind who was landing on which beach, so could not have allocated units based on their opponents. However, after the beachhead was established they could (and did) allocate units to sectors dependent on who they were fighting.
@@douglasherron7534 battle of Caen springs to mind.
@@spidos1000 Operations Epsom, Charnwood and Goodwood were all tough fights but if you look at a general map of the situation, with divisional level formations, located all of the German armour is in the British/ Canadian sector (i.e. 2nd & 21st Panzer Divs, Panzer Lehr and 12 SS Panzer Div) through most of June and July.
The Germans assigned more divisions to the British/Canadian sector purely due to geography: the Caen sector was the shortest route to Paris, and also seemed the most obvious place as to where a breakout would occur. Topography also played a part: the Nazis could defend the bocage in the US sector with fewer divisions.
Years ago I spoke to an old woman who's father fought in WWII. We are South Africans and she and her father are from British descent. Her father was taken prisoner in North Africa. He told her that Allied POWs there were treated much better by the Germans than by the Italians.
There is an account of some British prisoners being denied water by their Italian captors in the desert. On seeing some Germans approaching in vehicles the British flagged them down and complained to the German Officer. He ordered his men to hand over their water bottles to the British. Don't know what he said to the Italians. The Germans could, of course, easily acquire more water bottles.
The Soviet strategy was to fight a war of attrition which they knew they could win. The Western Allies fought a war of material superiority, which they knew they could win.
And we needed sufficient material superiority to let the Russians know that they can't have western Europe, too.
Germany produced twice as much explosive as the Russians.
The British produced three times as much explosive as the Germans
The Americans produced ten times as much explosive as the Germans.
Where the Russians sent a man the Americans sent an artillery shell.
The comparative mortality rates of the Red Army and British and American armies reflect this.
@Dan Beech The Soviets lost more men before Stalingrad because they had guns but no ammunition. Ammunition was a lower priority than artillery manufacturing (guns look more impressive than ammunition (Mayday parade effect)).
The Soviets also lost 60% of their ammunition manufacturing capacity because it was in the Ukraine.
Ammunition for their existing guns started arriving from the United States in late 1942.
German WW2 Strategy: Attack in fast pincer maneuvers.
British WW2 Strategy: WW1 tactics with a twist
French WW2 Strategy: Defend the wrong place.
Russian WW2 Strategy: BURN IT! BURN IT ALL! FIRE AND BRIMSTONE!
Great summary !!
I had a friend who was a USMC machine gunner. He was an old guy. Dad was a German that emigrated to the USA post WW2. He fought on the Eastern Front and the Western Front. He wasn't afraid of Soviet Artillery but was deathly afraid of American Artillery. Mostly because of the accuracy and intensity and the VT fuses that gave them airburst capability.
The Katyusha (not sure if I spelled it right) didn't scare him? Looks deadly on videos.
The Red Army used massed artillery fire to tear gaps in the German line that their breakthrough units then poured through. Had your friend's Dad been under one of those barrages he'd have changed his opinion, assuming that he survived. However given the length of the Eastern Front not every German unit experienced such intensity of artillery fire. Also the fighting in Normandy was exceptional in that the Allied armies were so constricted in the bridgehead that most of their artillery plus naval gunfire up to 15" shells could be directed at any spot around the perimeter. They had so much artillery support available that barrages were known to be called in on individual German soldiers! Also the Allies used a technique called Time on Target whereby fire from different batteries with different calibre guns (including infantry mortars) were coordinated so the shells arrived more or less simultaneously. It's easy to see how this would impress German soldiers who hadn't experienced one of the Soviet breakthrough bombardments.
@@stuartm2106 Soviet artillery was little better than a WW1 barrage. After the initial bombardment, coordination for new targets was poor. The US ARMY used the first primitive computers to plot artillery shots, giving gunners and plotters pre-calculated books to speed along the aiming. They could also coordinate fire up to division and higher to shoot one little spot in a hurry. Soviets couldn't do that.
US Marines did not fight in Europe in WW2
Russian voice….doubt accuracy
In WWII the American artillery used proximity fused shells, allowing air burst above any German soldiers hunkering in areas that were protected from impacting ground burst shells.
I would REALLY rather have a live person narrate rather than this electronic voice. In the future please??
I agree! Halfway though, I just quit watching it. Couldn't handle it anymore. I just can't take a robotically narrated video seriously.
Agree… 15 seconds in and I’m done.
Exactly that, or at least a better voice. Though tbf, the video didn't start with what was in the title, so I couldn't be asked to watch the whole thing. Can we call that clickbait?
My father fought his way from Normandy to Germany via the Battle of the Bulge and Operation Market Garden. He had a high opinion of "Jerry". When the Falklands War started he remarked, "I fought against real soldiers not comic opera troops." During the occupation of Germany, he found Jerry had similar opinions of the British.
So what about the British Soldiers that fought at Arnhem and in the Battle of the Bulge ?? The British participation in the Battle of the Bulge was suppressed by the Americans for propaganda purposes to perpetuate the myth that the US fought alone there . And don't forget the the several British Armoured personnel carriers that were destroyed by US A10 Tankbusters in the first Iraq War in '92 killing several soldiers , the US forces are generally good fighters but none too intelligent .
@@PhilipKerry The British said: if the RAF attacks, all Germans have to seek cover. If the Luftwaffe attacks, all Americans and Britisch have to seek cover. If the USAF attacks, everbody has to seek cover. This says it all.
@@georgmeyer7221 I have heard a similar version of this previously. However, there was no USAF in WW2.
@@vvt7825 OK, I wanted to make it easy. To be precise then, it was the USAAF. We have here a phrase for that. It is "Erbsenzähler", that means literally translated "peas counter". The equivalent in English is bean counter as far as I know.
@@georgmeyer7221Greetings, I was not aware of where you hailed from. It was a way of giving you a atta boy, thumbs up or other expression of approval, in a way that is a little more creative. So sorry if it came across a being nitpicky.
German POW's in the states gained weight and up to 11,000 chose to stay in the US rather than being sent back too Germany. They were served beer, played soccer, and generally were treated extremely well.
There is no game called soccer. It is football
@@alberttoiletbrush871 Might want to check others for that conclusion. Put "top soccer leagues" into google and see what comes up. Try "soccer moms" as well. I understand that in other countries, it its referred to as Football, but here in America it's soccer. "Toiletbrush" looks and sounds like a foreign name. I only knew one other toilet brush in the past and his name was Harry Toiletbrush and his sister was Stinky. But they were American, did you know them.
@@JeromeGardiner that's silly Yankistani talk
@@alberttoiletbrush871 Total obfuscation, not Yankistani. Simple calculus here, bud?
@@alberttoiletbrush871 "Soccer" is a British-invented term for a game derived from the original "football".
"The mistake is when they mistaken a Nazi for a German, and a German for a Nazi,
they both aren't the identical thing".
Reality.
My mother is German. Her mother, my grandmother, went through WW2. They had hardly nothing to eat for 5 years. Then, after the German surrender the American army came to the little town they lived in. They were afraid of the Americans because they didn't know who they were. As it turned out the Americans had food, medical supplies and medications they desperately needed. Simple things like antibiotics that they had done without for so long. There were doctors but doctors can't cure without the proper medications.
@Notion Yes
While im sure that your story isnt a lie, my grandmother faced something entirely different. Hagen, her hometown, was mass raped by americans. They didnt aid anyone.
That just shows that whatever army is fighting a war, its more than likely that they have a history with war crimes. American atrocities (overall allies) are not really looked at.
I agree, America was cautious and tried to win with superior logistics. Stalin was reported to be furious with the US for waiting to pile up huge amounts of equipment and supplies in England before invading France. At the same time Russians who didn't have the luxury of waiting were dying in huge numbers in Stalingrad and Kursk.
Maybe if Stalin hadn't been so paranoid and purged his officer corps during years before the war, his army wouldn't have had to throw men into a meatgrinder.
The US fought a war in numerous fronts, two oceans and bolstered their Allies with Lend-Lease.
We wanted to make sure that we could not only defeat the Germans in the west but also halt the advance of the Russians once Germany was defeated, which was by far the biggest threat of the two. Time was on our side, and we wisely used it to our advantage.
Boo-hoo, Stalin couldn't conquer all of Europe like I'm sure he wanted to. Woe is him. He still took like half.
@@luciusvorenus9445 Stalin probably had a good reason, as any strong, smart officer would naturally have wanted to kill him.
We did win with superior logistics. That was both smart and professional (if you can do it, which probably also means you're smart and professional).
Hmm, you mean his former allies he signed up with?
From accounts that I’ve read, the Germans rated the British artillery as the most formidable, with the American artillery a very close second. Their reasoning was that the UK and US military was fast and accurate. The Russian artillery they regarded as less dangerous, as it was far less accurate. It may well have spectacularly plastered a large area, but it was far less likely to actually hit what it was aiming at.
Right now this seems to be the situation in the Ukraine. The Russians are hitting buildings in Kyiv but they're not necessarily military targets or have any military value. I'm not there so I can't confirm this suspicion, but hitting apartments doesn't seem like it will help them take the city. American doctrine seems to prefer smart munitions that can be fired or dropped and then guided towards a target. Do the Russians have smart munitions?
6400 mils in US aiming circle. 6000 in Soviet. Hence the reduced accuracy.
i think you are making that up, the russian artillery was like gates of hell opening up
@@jamesi2018 in his book Panzer Battles, General Friedrich von Mellenthin said that while the Soviet artillery was impressive, its employment was poor. He said that many times entire Soviet artillery regiments would expend huge amounts of ammunition on areas that German forces were nowhere near. He said he thought this was mainly due to poor recon and communication.
@@schizoidboy Of course the Russians have smart (guided) munitions, and they seem quite accurate, scoring direct hits on apartment highrises and other civilian targets.
I'm a patriotic born and raised Brit, but my amazing grandmother who was truly an incredibly strong yet dignified and friendly woman was a 16 year old civilian in Germany when the war broke out. She was not a soldier and didn't take agree with Hitler. But during the British blitzkrieg her home and town was bombed to hell by the British. She instantly lost both her parents and two siblings as well as other relatives. The town was a pile of rubble. Despite this she did not hold onto hatred. A few years after the war ended she sought a new life in England. She actually had to hide her nationality for a while because tensions were still high. She ended up marrying my Jamaican allied ww2 engineer grandfather who was only here as stationed for the war but managed to transition to civilian life and remain. I cannot even imagine the life's they led back then...how she kept her sunny personality is incredible.
An army officer once remarked to me that every nation that fought the Germans believed there was a quote from Rommel saying their soldiers were the best opponents. These ones circulate locally. I’ve no idea of they are really his:
"If I had to take hell, I would use the Australians to take it and the New Zealanders to hold it.
"If I'd had one division of Māori, I would have taken the canal in a week. If I'd had three, I'd have taken Baghdad."
No mate the quote about using 'Aussies to take hell and keep it with NZs' is made up, but Rommel undoubtedly rated the ANZACS highly, very brave lads. The US 82nd Division were superb at Nijmegen in trying to cross the river, and the British Paras at Arnhem were extremely highly-rated by the Germans. The Polish Paras too were superb, as were the Canadians. But Rommel rated his own Panzer Divisions most of all, and they were probably the best soldiers overall, perhaps because they were highly-motivated and driven by fanaticism.
i heard it was japanese soldiers, german officers and american supply chains.
But thing is, these were only few of numerous divisions allies had. So many divisions didnt even do fighting at all.@@OldWolflad
Absolutely, the Germans, The Brits, and the Americans had very good divisions and some very poor ones. Those with volunteer armies were on the whole more consistent @@AndyP998
Wow, no one wants to see themselves as being inferior, so all criticism was based upon an elevated view of themselves. If we had more material and more men we would have won the war. I see it his way slow and steady, lower casualty rates means less pain and misery for American families. My dad fought in the war, and he was more impressed about how serious each soldier was and how proud they were to be Germans. He said that they died like men, but dead is still dead.
Napoleon Bonaparte said " there are no bad soldiers, only bad generals. And he knew what he was talking about.
But he lost-surely!
My grandfather - a German draftee of the Wehrmacht - once said to me: "I can't say anything negative about the Americans. They've treated me well. But the Russians I don't trust!" That was back in the late 1980s, if I remember correctly.
Another interesting video thank you for the information.
Ty
Hmmmm, a difficult one, most British generals were veterans of WWI and were acutely aware of the slaughter that took place, which made them very cautious, added to which, the British could not afford to suffer too many casualties because they lacked sufficient replacements.
In his written history of WWII, Churchill wrote about how he was worried sick about the D-Day landings, he recalled the human wave slaughter in the WWI human wave attack battles, particularly the Battle of the Somme.😓
I read an article years back where the author said Britain lost so many young men in WWII that they had never recovered from the war.population wise.
This is what people such as the Americans don't understand. US joined the war when the slaughter was over and thus thought it was easy. The average American today thinks US was the saviour and it was such romance. "We saved the world's ass"... yeah not for free or at the beginning. Dk heads
@@robertwatson818 No. Does Britain look underpopulated? See the Wikipedia article Demography of the United Kingdom. Of course, the population declined a lot from 1914 to 1918, from almost 43 million to about 39.6 (according to the article), but it recovered fairly quickly.
@@cornwallforever5305 Your knowledge of WWII is apparently selective. I don’t know if the USA can claim to have saved the world, but it saved Britain’s ass for sure.
The difference within our Germanic tribes is that American's ancestors first left Germania and went to England (Anglo-Saxons), then came to the new world. Some stayed in England and some stayed in Germania. Then in the 20th century war breaks out and we fought within our own tribe.
You left out the Celts and the Britons.
@@hellskitchen10036 Yes you are correct Britons and Celts came to the New World too. But they're not Germanic tribes, they're Celtic. I am referring (Germanic tribes) to the fact we fought with our own tribe.
German General Blumentritt, Chief of Staff was interviewed after the war by BH Liddell Harts in his book "The German General's Talk", regards the different qualities of British and American troops, he said : - "The Americans attacked with zest, and had a keen sense of mobile action, but when it came under heavy artillery fire they usually fell back - even after they had made a successful penetration. By contrast, once the British had got their teeth in, and had been in a position for twenty-four hours, it proved almost impossible to shift them. To counterattack the British always cost us very heavy losses. I had many opportunities to observe this interesting difference in the autumn of 1944, when the right-half of my Corps faced the British, and the left-half the Americans".
Really,Rommel never said that after running the Britsh off the continent,neither did Guderian or Manstein.Balck always had the advantage of building fortifications before the attackers arrived. And his side lost 2 world wars - so he is what we call a L-O-O-O-SER. One army had to travel 3500 miles of ocean so another could trave 30 miles of channel. So keep repeating your Royal Rubbish
@@bigwoody4704 "Royal rubbish"? I never said Rommel said that. It was General Blumentritt. Don't take it out on me because you don't like what he said.
Rommel did say the British tactics were very static, maybe it is a reflection of the caution and desire not to waste British lives following the slaughter of WW1. Rommel stated: - ""In open desert warfare, we were - as all previous actions had shown - considerably superior in training and command to the British. Although we could expect that they had learnt tactical lessons, they could not have removed all the shortcomings since these had their cause less in their command, than in the ultra-conservative structure of their army, which although excellently suited for fighting on fixed fronts, was far from suitable for fighting in the open desert. At El Alamein my endeavour had been to escape from the rigid static warfare, in which the British were masters and for which their infantry and tanks had been trained, but I failed to gain the open desert where I could have exploited our tactical superiority in open desert warfare".
Regards Montgomery, who I know you admire (: - , Rommel said : - "Montgomery had an absolute mania for always bringing up adequate reserves and risking as little as possible. The speed of reaction of the British command was comparatively low. Later on however, at and , he showed real stature and had obviously overcome his urge for exaggerated caution. But at El Alamein, he showed himself to be very advanced in his thinking, he worked out the essential rules of the front for himself and proceeded to shape his method of attack accordingly, even though he was calculated. and more of a strategist than a tactician. He deserves immense credit for his overseeing the invasion battle, it would be difficult to accuse him of ever making a serious strategic mistake."
Regards British troops, Rommel wrote: - "The Guards Brigade were clearly overwhelmed but with the bulldog tenacity so characteristic of the English, its heroic soldiers refused to admit defeat". He also stated: - "The British Guards Brigade evacuated Knightsbridge that day, after it had been subjected all morning to the combined fire of every gun we had. This brigade was almost the living embodiment of the virtues and faults of the British soldier - tremendous courage and tenacity combined with a rigid lack of mobility. At one battle this division had mauled our German units".
@@OldWolflad I would think, that Rommel would even qualify Manstein as a static leader. :D
My dad had an uncle who was a B-17 pilot. I'm not sure he ever saw a German close up, but the war had done a great deal of damage to him, psychological.
He completed his 25 missions but some of them were pretty harry. In one he returned as the only person aboard who was uninjured. And blood was dripping from the plane through the bullet holes.
To put things in perspective the Russians lost more men in one battle, Stalingrad, than the british AND Americans combined in the whole war, that speaks volumes about soldiering to me!!
What that speaks to indirectly was the Soviet value of individual lives. It's the most damning feature of communism in all its forms. Individual lives and their happiness are secondary to the needs of the state.
USSR lost so many lives because THEY DID NOT CARE.
@@armorer94 absolutely not! What it meant was these people fighting for their lives, they had no choice but to accept massive casualties or speak German forever
Do you realize the Russians killed 100's of thousands of their own soldiers...and civilians...it wasn't just the Germans killing them,it was their own also..
If you don't you better look into it...
@Dan Beech that’s your perspective on that battle, what the Russians did won that battle hands down and they went on to win the war and defeat the Germans right into Berlin
Great video. What the Germans did not know was that WW I was not the only motivation for UK caution: Market-Garden also inspired caution on Monty’s part. Another factor which the Germans could not have known was the Americans’, especially Omar Bradley’s, conviction that the Germans were defeated, having little will to go on. Market-Garden cured Monty of this. Not even the debacle in Huertgen Forest could sway Bradley. His hubris allowed Hitler to initiate Wacht am Rhein, as Bradley discounted intelligence reports of a German buildup. And so there existed at least one “donkey” on the Allies’ side.
I served in Germany 79 to 81. We have a Facebook page. We have German civilian members. One reported towards the end the German soldiers their relatives escaped the British and went to get captured by the Americans. German POWs that were sent to America had fond memories of how they were treated.
Amazing. I did not know this at all.
I recommend this one that we just uploaded. We have hired someone for the voice at last.
czcams.com/video/YyeUKXPm3Yk/video.html
The Germans didn’t understand that the allies value their soldiers more then the Germans value theirs. The overly cautious attitude of the alliance was on purpose and the allies could afford to be cautious. the allies attitude in general was slow and steady, the allies weren’t starving for supplies. The Germans were tyrants in a hurry because their can’t afford prolonged war, as a result their troops suffer huge loses
SUGGEST YOU READ, "THE GERMAN WAY OF WAR". GERMAN BATTLE TACTICS ARE FAST & FLUID; THERE IS A REASON, GERMANY THE SIZE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, WAS FIGHTING AGAINST THE WORLD. "IF WE DON'T WIN IN 72 HOURS, WE WILL NEVER WIN." THAT IS WHY GERMAN BATTLE TACTICS ARE EXTREMELY VIOLENT AND ALSO WHY THERE IS ALWAYS A QUICK COUNTERATACK RIGHT AFTER THEY LOSE GROUND.
One of the things my dad would mention about the Germans was that they were too specialized. He said that what he observed was that a foot soldier just couldn't go over and help with artillery if one of the artillery men went down. He did say also that if we didn't win when we did, we'd all be speaking German.
germany could never invade north america, you need an actual navy for that.
What a lot of people don't realize is that the US Army was working under the 99-division establishment for the US Army for the whole war, plus the 250,000 US Marines in the PTO, the USAAF, and the manpower deployed in the USN which was larger than all other fleets in the world combined. Also, the US Naval Fleet Air Arm was one of the largest Air Forces in WWII by itself. All of these forces stated above were split between Europe first, but with the majority of USN forces in the Pacific with all of US Marine Corps. When you add that to the fact that a huge chunk of our available prime manpower was left in the US for economic reasons. But the most limiting factor to the US in soldiers and airman in the ETO was shipping. Everything we needed to function in combat had to go 3,000 miles across the Atlantic in ships to even just fight the Germans.
I always love it when the loser tells everybody how pathetically bad the winners were.
It's fun to look at the many accounts written in France long afterwards about how they didn't lose to Wellington at the battle of Waterloo.
Even when alive, Napoleon couldn't forgive us for defeating him economically before then.
well the best troops were the GERMANS,,READ UP MAN..YOURE THE ONE THAT'S PATHETIC
@@LuisRodriguez-nk6xf no need to shout Luis makes you sound like one of the 'master' race which I am sure you are not. The German troops were good so were the Russians (lie in the snow all day and get up and attack at nightfall) The truth is they were all lions led by donkeys which is how one German General described the British
@@lufe8773 And the donkeys all cozied up in their plush shelters sending the lions out to be destroyed. Still holds true today. Rich idiots start wars, poor people fight them.
@@funkster007 Yes that's the truth of it long gone are the days when the Kings and Generals had to fight themselves (pretty much ended when guns became available and they might be killed even though they wore armour). Before that they were like tanks against peasants who were only armed with basic weapons. Have a good day mate
I worked for the US military in West Germany. I was in a mountain guesthouse talking with friends when a man introduced himself. To cut a long story short, he recognised my British accent in an American dominated area. He told me he had fought at the hellish Eastern front, and were forced back to Germany under relentless Russian pressure. His commanding officer knew the war was lost and ordered his men to follow him to British lines to surrender, where they were well treated. His commanding officer said only death or torture waited for them with the Russians, at least with the British they had a chance. That scene at the end of Band of Brothers where the German general thanked his men for their service put me in mind of that conversation.
Another interesting story, my uncle was in Italy via Anzio - never saw any combat and grew annoyed when people mentioned him being a war hero. Said the only German soldier he met was on guard duty with him "and he made the best mug of coffee I ever tasted." Italy was already conquered by this point. The Allies recruited Germans to assist in security, check points etc because they had superior local knowledge and in many cases, better language skills. "You couldn't find an Italian that spoke English anywhere" my uncle said. In a strange twist, his grandson studied Russian to masters level and was fluent in other languages. I've always been more interested in the social history of war more than the big battles or weaponry. Hearing people's opinion brings wartime experience alive above all.
when the germans shot with their artillery the brits went into cover when the brits fired their artillery the germans went to cover
when the americans shot their artillery both the brits and germans went to cover
that sums it up
Yawn. Sounds like a dud!
No it was a common joke amongst the Wehrmacht and the SS I heard versions of it from a few veteran's I interviewed.
@@andrewaustin6369 no shit
American here. I've heard similar things about our bombing. Keep in mind that these were mostly young men that had been trained quickly and rushed to the front.
It was similar with supply drops, frequently German soldiers feasted on American K-rations, chocolate and cigarettes. Sometimes they dropped into civilian areas and the local households ate well for the first time in quite a while.🙄🤐
Lol, well you did burn down our capitol.
My Father was in the infantry in the 2d Division in WWII. He never questioned the fighting capability of the German soldiers, as he held the German soldiers in very high esteem. He used the term for the Germans, "the finest soldiers in Europe."
I read the book 'It never snows in September "
A fantastic book about about Arnhem and Market Garden from the German perspective
The SS who fought there, remember faulty Intel led to the allies dropping a parachute light Infantry division smack back into the middle of where 2 veteran SS panzer divisions were refitting and resting, said after that the British 'Red Devils " were exactly that, devils, and by far the toughest and best soldiers they fought against during the war on any front
They actually gave them the upmost respect when capturing them, something the SS weren't always known for.
Interestingly they also said they were almost finished themselves, so hard was the fighting and so psychologically uncertain were they, as they constantly watched the sky, If another airborne division was suddenly going to appear and swing the battle
Remember they didn't know, this was a totally reasonable expectation considering their total lack of Intel and the allied resources and capabilities in aircraft and manpower they had witnessed up to then
So they said it was in reality a really close run affair despite it being seen as a military disaster from the allied side, the Germans were close to throwing in the towel themselves, they were extremely concerned they would be surrounded by allied reinforcements
Yes it was a veteran German commander Wilhelm Bitrich who said fighting the British Paras was the hardest fighting he had ever known.
The notion that the Germans were in awe of Patton is an American myth. Most ordinary German soldiers could name half a dozen Russian generals, they new who Montgomery was and recognised the name Eisenhower but Patton was unknown to them.
Even most German generals didn't know much about him *. . .*
Yeah Patton took up very little time amongst the Germans but all kinds of heroes are needed in wartime some are real, some are exaggerated and some made up same as it's always been.
Photolsca
Blame Hollywood for that.
Sometimes you would think that the only country fighting the Nazis, was the US.
Hollywood propoganda you see.
@@letoubib21 I think that the Germans studied ALL of the enemy generals very carefully.
That's just BS. They knew who he was and they knew that his army killed and wounded tens of thousands of their fellow soldiers as he ran through their lines.
Man for man they feared the Brits uniform the most cause it was worn by Poles and other conquered nations.
Yep, the Poles were good and their thanks was after VE day they were told to bugger off in three days since Stalin said so,
Exactly this, British, Anzac, Canadian, Indian, Poles and many more nations fought in the same uniform and with the same weapons and all had reputations for marksmanship, standing and fighting and good with a bayonet which for the regular enemy soldier that would be what they would base opinions on.
Once again the Canadians are left out ! A quote from a German Major captured around Falaise , " the Yanks and Tommies we can handle within reason but you Canadians come at us in the middle of the night with tanks , flamethrowers , everything ! You scare the bloody hell out of our troops " !
They could think whatever they wanted. They still got their assess kicked.
The Germans lacked a clear POV on the war. Their strategy was based on speed and shock, trading men's live for time and space, but when it failed, as it failed on the eastern front or at the Battleof the Bulges, it simply costed men for no gain at all and it doomed them as one of the things the german didn't had was men.
The Germans' rep was built on a "preseason" of facing woefully inferior opponents, running up their kills and practicing their tactics: Belgium, Holland, Poland, France, etc. By the time the US got into it, the Krauts had most of Europe and it is ALWAYS harder to dislodge an entrenched enemy when he is dug in. But we were able to nearly wipe out an entire generation of those bastards.
wrong, the german system lacked oil. without oil, flanking and maneuvering necessary for blitzkreig to work became impossible for a mechanized army.
@@ryanshaw4250 Not only oil.
They needed truck, and already in 1941, the werhmacht plundered the West Europe to use them in barbarossa but didn't had enough spare part to repair them.
The german couldn't sustain a long war from the start. The werhmacht army had need of very good NCO to keep on going. But you had need to train them
By 1942, those NCO were, most of them, dead or severly injured, and the german needed the surviving ones to man the division.
One of the best exemple is the SS Totenkopf division who was overall good in eastern front, but had it's NCO and Officer reaffected to the new HitlerJugend Division and whose performance was quite bad immediately after that in Normandy.
@@alpharius4434 meret ya in the middle, they needed mobility.
My grandfather joined the British army at the age of 16 and fought in the Somme. Sadly he was shot and taken prisoner. He told me as a young boy of his experiences and also emphasised the fact that the British soldiers held the German soldiers in high regard, and apparently vice versa. Their was a mutual respect. He also said that the British had no respect or faith in their leaders! They were regarded as literally hopeless! That backs up what the German’s shared in this video. By way of example, you just have to look at the cock up by the British commanders of the Gallipoli campaign in 1915.
The natural element of the British forces has always been the sea, and as an American, I think we inherited this from our British heritage. I hate to say this, coming from an army family, but in our wars the Navy has always outperformed the army. I also think somehow that the prowess at sea translates to the air, which is why both the British & American air forces were better than the Germans, whose natural element is the land. Air combat is more like Naval combat than land combat. What the British & Americans have in common is that we ask our army to be strong enough to hold the enemy army in check long enough for our greater strength on the sea (and, in modern times, in the air) to win the war. This is what happened in both World Wars. While our armies eventually do win on the ground, this happens after a long struggle of attrition in which the enemy army is eventually strangled by the lack of resources, which is a result of our control of the seas.
I read one assessment of the US troops (I wish I could remember the citation) by the Germans, that in the Battle of the Bulge they were impressed by how the American small units turned around quickly and fiercely defended their positions and improvised tactics to meet new contingencies. In another article, I read that Rommel was impressed by the Americans ability to adapt to new situations and tactics.
Americans had the ability and necessity to adapt quickly and for the lower level leadership to step up and improvise. Germans typically had issues with leadership, waiting for superiors to give orders before responding.
Yes and Germans thought Americans acted unpredictably without strictly following doctrine
Was that before or after Kasserine ?
@Stanly Stud that's been said and rightfully so. Having lived in Canada it was brought to my attention the war started in 1939 not 1941. What's also overlooked is 75-80% of all German military assets were expended on the Soviets alone.
@Stanly Stud Not anymore than you Brits think it is all about you. I have been through the British Museums and have seen the displays related to both World Wars.
My late Grandfather during WW2 was a British Commando , 1Commando throughout WW2 he came across the Germans ( Part of the Job Description ) Hence Hilters Commando Order after the Raid on St Nazaire .
The close in fighting was much more common in the Pacific. I would love to hear what the Japanese soldiers thought. Albeit there weren't many survivors of bushido.
Yes. Bushido was a hellish nightmare for all the rest of Asia - and the world, really. My father - who saw some hideous HELL in the WW2 Navy, would not join my mother in a 1970 tour of Japan, feeling that she hadn't seen the real nature of the Japanese people, as he had.
I agree(d) wholeheartedly.
@@shamanic1 Luckily, she can still go to Auschwitz to see the true nature of Germans/Europeans/whites, I suppose. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have a thing or two to say about Americans, as well. Or maybe we humans are all the same in that we have within us the capacity for both great evil as well as good.
Most of the Japanese were probably extremely racist, and believed that Americans/whites were brutal savages with no humanity or civilization in them at all. And of course the feeling was mutual, as both sides were fed similar propaganda that appealed to people's lowest instincts to inspire deep hatred and anger. Feelings changed after the war, especially because Americans did not enslave and exterminate the Japanese as they were kind of expecting, and instead helped rebuild Japan, but many on both sides who experienced the horrors of war firsthand hold onto their racial hatred. All I can say to that is if Japan's behavior in WWII represents their "real" nature, with everything to the contrary being fake, then the "real" nature of those who still hate them must therefore be represented by Hitler and the Nazis, which, after all, were of their own race. One can't be true without the other--either both are true or neither is true. I think neither, because potential is not always the reality, and feelings and perspectives can change if you let them.
The Japanese took 80,000 into the Battle of Imphal and Kohima. In hand to hand jungle fighting they retreated with 20,000. It was the largest defeat in their history to that point.
One Japanese veteran was quoted as saying about the US Marines: “It was no disgrace to be beaten by such men”.
In this video material you mention the great general Patton. What is your opinion about him? Maybe create a video material here.
Some German quotes from World War II regarding the Americans... I cannot remember who actually said all of them.
“The reason the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices it on a daily basis."
“Americans are good fighters with nerve and recklessness.” -Arunlf Oster, Lieut. of Reserve
“The Americans were what might be called bad prisoners. A group of 14 were brought in one day and when asked about their units refused to talk. They refused to work and talked back to the officers, much to the annoyance of the officers and the concealed delight of the men.” -Paul Heinman
"The girls are to blame, but one must not forget that the gentlemanly enemy are a decidedly forward people. Fresh beyond bounds.”-Letter from Gertrude Bisseldt
"Whichever way you set up your defense, the Americans will attack from the direction you'd least suspect."
And my personal favorite,
"Studying the American doctrine is wasted time as the Americans don't seem to know it and those that do, refuse to follow it."
Clearly, the most powerful asset that the Americans brought the war was logistics and supplies. Lots of guns, ammo, artillery, food, gasoline and diesel, etc. The sellers of war bonds in the United States had a rallying cry ,"bullets and beans for our boys". I feel for whomever was downwind an hour or two after those beans were served.😱😂🤗
"Only the BEST barroom brawlers, no slackers allowed."😋
That's the way we operated in Vietnam. We would run into resistance and we called in artillery and or air (fighter bombers or gunships) to pound on them awhile. The NVA would usually grudgingly pick up their shit and leave. If they were real stubborn and would not cooperate we would retire to a safe distance and let really big airplanes with really big bombs visit with them. We would usually return the next day before the dead bodies or the pieces thereof began to stink the area up and see what kinda mess was left.
Yes. And we lost. The ferocity of the Vietnamese ought not to be forgotten. We Americans waved off the French experience in Indochina, which, had we taken it in, would have instructed us to mind our own business.
@@shamanic1 Yeah but the Vietnamese lost something like a million men vs 50,000 Americans. They had something to fight (and die) for, we really didn't. Plus I'm not sure how much of are true strategy in Vietnam was to win, rather than not piss off the Russians and Chinese, as well as years of channeling money to the military-industrial complex, and finally as a training ground for US officers. I think that's one weakness coming out of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Russians are really inexperienced compared to the US military.
I once spoke with a German paratrooper at length. He fought in Italy against American and British troops. He thought the Americans were overly cautious and the British just kept coming, no matter the casualties. He also said they wondered amongst themselves what took the Americans so long to defeat Germany. He said they knew they were beat in 1944. For example, they were moving their equipment with donkeys and had no vehicles. The Americans had every type of material in abundance.
What took so long is the US and Russia both wanted complete and total surrender and Hitler was not going to surrender at all.
@Dan Beech
"They don't like it up 'em"
Corporal Jones is alive and well, WW3 now not in doubt :)
I think the German paratrooper answered his own question. If he knew Germany was beat, then so did the US. SHAEF figured that there was no need to expend more lives than necessary to hasten the end of a war that was already decided anyways. After all, Germany made the mistake of moving too recklessly in the east and they paid dearly for it.
The British in Italy were commanded so aggressively because of Montgomery, whom was aggressive and callous about his troops beyond Patton's own aggressive tactics and desire for quick offensives. The British found themselves in a lot more sticky situations in the Mediterranean due to Montgomery's tactics and rivalry with Patton. As it was the run up Italy was the biggest meat grinder on both sides in Europe, not counting the Eastern front.
Funny, I've seen accounts of German soldiers who said the opposite. That American soldiers would just keep coming no matter the casualties, and use a lot of artillery in the process, and the British would be overly cautious.
I have read many accounts and talked with people who were on both sides, this does not agree with what I have come across. To start with artillery. The impression given is that the question was how much artillery each side had between Russia and the west. The difference was more in how it was used. Russian use of artillery tended to be on a massive scale and on a broad area. In the west, there was a much more concentrated use where large numbers could be concentrated. Germans who initially fought in the East and then later against the western allies stated they never faced the concentration of fire in the east as compared to the west. Also because the logistics were much better the west was able to bring artillery closer to front line use and importantly supply it. The comment about bliz is also misleading, As with most tactics and doctrine it only works when your enemy does not expect it or prepare for it. Regarding Patton, he is hardly mentioned in German documents produced during the war and there is doubt the Germans were aware or even paid attention when he was supposed to command the imaginary war. All this stuff about him came after the war was over. Regarding the individual troops the comments, I have heard from Germans who fought each was US soldiers did not keep up with their armour making them vulnerable(I knew one German who as a 16-year-old destroyed 4 US tanks because they had no infantry support). In training, Germans were taught American soldiers had the initiative but were noisy, had poor field training and fieldcraft. British soldiers were described as very well trained and competent but limited their operations unless directly ordered. Moral at least as found by one German officer was poor with the exception of Patton's command among Americans, and the British seemed to regard it almost as a game. US logistics was universally admired by both Germans and British.
Keep in context the Very Young American army came in late, was not battle harden, had questionable leadership for the most part. I agree if it was not for the US logistics, from vehicle recovery to ammo supply, the Allie’s would not have had as much success.
@GG Rene Planners and strategists need to know HOW we won the battles. WHAT could have gone wrong. Lessons Learned is key. Average blue-collar Joe only cares that we won.
You did a good job!
One suggestion; there are better artificial voice programs that would enhance your video.
I'll explain. My main channel is Spanish, I do not have an adequate level of English to narrate them in English and I put them like this so that you have all the information available. In the next videos I will put better semicolons and the quality will improve.
My Main Channel: czcams.com/users/maximoyeclafeatured
Rommel knew what he was saying. The American logistics was just simply unbelievable and the Brits were a tenacious army,well disciplined and tough BUT ask the Germans what they thought of the Canadians in both World Wars and they'll tell you they were terrified of them. Do not take my word but do some checking and you'll find I was right.
They called the Canadians STURM TROOPERS, and had a lot of respect for the Canucks, Canadians were also the First to march into Rome even as a British offiers tried to hinder them sin ce they were considererd COLONIALS and the British saw themlselves as superior. Canucks also liberated Belgium and the Netherlands after the British-US blunder by Montgomery. Best Allied soldier was French Canadian Leo Majof from the regiment des Chaudières-Appalaches, he was the real Rambo.
About 20% of the "Canadians" were actually Americans, many wanted to join the fight but the United States hadn't joined the war yet, so they would walk over the border and go to a Canadian recruiting office, and as long as they were fit, they didn't ask too many questions.
@@jacqueslefave4296 - over 50 % of “ Canadians” in the CEF in WW1 were born in the UK and enlisted in CEF in Canada on the outbreak of WW1. Not sure about WW2 ? Similarly South Africa, Australia and NZ had a high proportion of UK immigrants in its ranks. Or were second generation Brit’s with British on their parents side. My home town( North Wales) has 900 people on its Cenotaph from WW1 out of a town of then 7000. At least 10 + have the mark AIF or CEF on them.
LoL I think Rommel was quite ok with using German soldiers who were undoubtedly the by far best in the war in every respect. All he could wish for was to get the unlimited supply and superiority in quantity which they Allies had but that’s about all.
@@jacqueslefave4296 actually most French-Canadians were fighting in the US Armed forces refusing to fight for the FRANCO-PHOBIC English king, there weren't any Americans in Canadian armed forces...sorry to burst your bubble it was the other way around and Yes Québec Premier René Levesque enrolled into the US Armed Forces like many others and they were also used behind enemy lines in France since speaking French and English, also the Storm Troopers were how the Germans called Canadians fearing them since some got the bad habit of scalping German soldiers. Few French Canadians and Natives had defeated US revolutionary general Benedict Arnolds superior force at the battle of Québec, Arnold fled leaving 400 dead and wounded US soldiers behind. so much about never leaving somebody behind, also Colonel George Washington had surrendererd to French-Canadians in the French-Indian wars..., as a general G.Washington was the only general in history who lost all battles but wan the war.
Another factor to keep in mind is that the allies had already divided up Europe at the Tehran conference and the lines they were allowed to advance to already decided well in advance. So basically they were waiting for the Soviets. Eisenhower had been appointed by Marshal who in turn had been hand picked by Roosevelt's brain, Harry Hopkins. If Hopkins wasn't a Soviet agent of influence he may as well have been and certainly conducted ALL US policy with the clear aim of supporting the USSR above all other concerns. This helps explain the hostility to supposed "mavericks" (in reality professionals with other ideas) such as Patton and MacArthur.
Read Major Jordan's diary, and any doubts about HH not being a Soviet will disappear
The Red Army destroyed 75% of all German military personnel fielded in WWII. So you find it unreasonable that Stalin would want to see his Red Army in Berlin at war's end? Considering the extensive cost to his own country starting in '41. Normandy started in '44. His loss was your gain. Why would you hit a gift horse in the mouth? Oh, that's right... in fantasy land, Patton marches to Moscow all on his lonesome before Christmas. Meanwhile, more learned people on this topic than me or you have come to a near unanimous consensus that WW3 would have resulted in a stalemate at best, even with the U.S. using the A-bomb tactically on the battlefield, since the B-29 wouldn't have the range to hit vital targets in the Russian interior. But of course this grand scheme didn't come to fruition because there was a secret Soviet agent hiding under every child's pillow.
@@wgreiter I don't argue with a dorbelist.
@@vvt7825 I wasn't talking to you... I was addressing the original poster.
“Arillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl”
-Frederick the Great
It's worth remembering that artillery has been the deciding factor on the battle field since it's invention.
It breaks castle walls, ending the feudal system, and can be operated (like any gun), but men only briefly instructed, ending the archer and mounted knight's dominance.
That German survivors attributed their defeat to the use of artillery may indicate their ignorance of reality, rather than the moral superiority of the winning side.
Yep, it's insane how the gun has changed the evolution of warfare forever. I can't remember the exact dates during Japan, during the Samurai age and dawn of gunpowder age, so something around ages of dynasties, a Japanese lord basically recruited peasants and farmers compared to people trained to be a warrior from birth because he knew how effective the weapons were, and he was right, these poor farmers who had no idea how to swing a sword in combat would kill a hardened warrior.
WWII was when it sank in among political creatures that when you run out of soldiers, you lose. Perhaps for the first time in all of history. The last WWII veteran in political power retired a generation ago, and it shows in the recent return to hideously expensive wars that surprise their instigators with how damaging they are in their own countries.
While some commanders still used men to soak enemy fire in WWII (all the national leaders were guilty of it), others actually used their brains and used the surrounding landscape to soak enemy fire instead.
Units in the British Army were broken up to find men for front-line formations by 1944 and while volunteers and conscripts could find themselves in coal mines in Britain, they could volunteer to go to the front from there in 1944 and 1945, and many did.
The quality of US rifle formations dropped significantly after the invasion of France. The TV series 'Band of Brothers' shows the main reasons quite well.
The Germans were filling formations with lower quality troops, after sometimes 30% casualties per engagement.
Their artillery shrank at the same time, while their ability to make war materiel also shrank.
Arguably the Germans had collapsed by the end of 1943, but excellent defensive tactics and carefully-chosen counter-attacks prolonged the fighting.
This man narrating reminds of of my 9th grade history teacher that could put you to sleep in seconds and I loved history.
I think it was a robot voice.
I'll explain. My main channel is Spanish, I do not have an adequate level of English to narrate them in English and I put them like this so that you have all the information available.
My Main Channel: czcams.com/users/maximoyeclafeatured
Hard to say really.
German soldier seem to be the best all round. disciplined, determined, had the flexibility to make independent decisions while being able to follow instruction and orders. Up and down the chain of command.
Americans were at their best at a squad level, and the British in a divisional level. The allies seemed to fail in a spectacular winning fasion for most of the war. And most of their decisive victories came more from their air and material superiority.
Germany could of easily won the war if they had something as reliable as the Shermans with Krupp guns, and a steady supply of oil and planes and the industry to support it.
Uh that's wrong. Germany had a centralized command meaning they had to ask for and wait for an answer. Hitler on D Day is an example. He had to give the orders but his staff was to scared to wake him up. The US has decentralized command meaning down to the officers in the field had the flexibility to act in any manner they saw fit.
Serving with the British Army Of the Rhine (BAOR) in the 60s, i rarely came across any Germans who admitted to fighting against the British or even the Americans. They were happy enough to admit to fighting the Russians. I did have one German who worked in my office, who when I asked if he had ever been to the UK said 'No, well sort of, I've been over it. London, Coventry, Birmingham, Southampton. I was in the Luftwaffe!"
It’s probably fair to say there’s a difference between soldiers who are defending their homeland and soldiers who have been drafted and sent overseas in a foreign land.
yeah, and those defending their "homeland" had been drinking the kool-aid for years and were completely indoctrinated.
Their "homeland?" So France is the "homeland" of the Brits? Or Belgium? Or Italy?? Look, Monty was legendarily cautious, EVEN acc. to Churchill! Reminds me of the Union General McClelland in the Civil War.
@@northwestprof60 those countries are simply where landings would occur to establish beachheads and ports for supplies logistics to fuel the push towards Berlin, but everyone, even Hitler knew the ultimate target/Goal was Berlin itself. That doesn't mean the liberation of other cities en-route was un important; but even the timing of the Liberation of Paris was a question mark until it occurred because Patton felt it would delay the advance into Germany too much and allow the Nazi's to regroup for the defense of Germany and counter-attack. General Degaulle basically begged Eisenhower for Paris' Liberation and Eisenhower finally agreed so the Allied forces marched in and freed Paris then pushed on towards Berlin via the Ruhr. Holland, Belgium and France were basically geographic pawns, not the goals per se. And of course all of that was somewhat paralleled on the Eastern front by Stalin's forces who had their eyes firmly set on Berlin as the PRIZE. So damn right the Wehrmacht was fighting for their homeland because they knew Germany was going to get SACKED and if the allies had the blood grudge to settle that the Russians did all of Germany would have been utterly burned to the ground but of course the Allies actually helped rebuild Germany ultimately and establish order there and were focused first on a straightforward unconditional miltary surrender not absolute annihilation which would have been hard for Nazi's to comprehend prior to and up to june 6th 44, given their kill everyone in the way and Take every damn thing you can philosophy/practice.
History is written by the Victor
Who was this "Victor" guy, I never heard of him before?
@@adambaum9732 maybe you should start "digging" then..
Just as dodgy was the constant and concerted German propaganda machine who were past masters at it
I read that whenever there is a war video.
@@supaloc You capitalized the v in the word "Victor" as if this were man named Victor. The silly and incredibly ignorant former President, Donald Trump, makes these same grammatical faux pas in nearly every sentence of his tweets and messages.
My uncle served early in WW II. He wrote home about his first encounter with British soldiers. He wrote The Brits say, "There's only three problems with the "Yanks," They're over-paid, over-sexed, and over here!" To which the Americans replied, "There's only three things that trouble the Brits. They're under-paid, under-sexed, and under Eisenhower!"
Subscribed.
Ty Tonic
The Canadians always faced the elite SS units or their airborne and they could not contain them. A German commander (Rommel??) said give me Canadian troops and American production and I will hold the Rhine forever. A German elite paratrooper always made master warrant officer in rank or equivalent in what ever army he was in the German, French Foreign Legion and finally Canadian. He was part of the rescue of Mussolini, was at the Battle of Bien Dein Phu in Vietnam joined my sister regiment in Canada because they were the best he ever faced in combat.
@Stanly Stud I was addressing the WW2 record not your negative experience. The current army is a shadow of what it once was. They have gone "woke". I would bet that politically they were very acceptable and that is what really matters to our current PM. Check out the WW2 record.
@Stanly Stud My father was a paratrooper in the 1st Fallschirmjager division. He fought against Canadian, US and British troops in Italy. He regarded the Canadians as the best he faced.
It was give me American Officers ans British Soldiers.
@@robkenyon6830 Nope, that is not accurate. The historical record (unless changed by revisionists) is that the Germans put their elite against the Canadians and could not contain them. That is a fact.
My regiment during WW2 we were inside the tanks and British Gurkas rode on the outside during the Italian campaign. They ate more cat steak than regular rations.
@@borismissiuna6422 depends on his time frame...i read on YT comments by right wing Yanks trashing their armed forces since 1945 as weak, soft etc..complained the US had an obsession with polishing equipt, cleanliness and rank..needless to say, he did admit he had never served, so was one of the Trump type military experts/ keyboard commandos.
The question seeks an answer with a broad brush. Elite units on both sides had exceptionally well-trained, disciplined soldiers. Rank and file soldiers on both sides ran the gamut from highly skilled and heroic, to outright incompetent and cowardly. Interestingly, German soldiers often fought alongside those from the same locality. Some have argued it gave them more incentive to work together and to look out for each other's well-being. Conversely, American and British troops were most likely composed of jumble of men from different regions, with their own attitudes, dialects and prejudices. In American units, "green" recruits were looked at with a certain amount of distain, whose inexperience jeopardized everyone's safety. It's important to note that these were all relatively young men, tasked with inconceivably hazardous and stressful activities. Even if they survived, many were burdened with a lifetime of physical and mental scars.
Re: "Some have argued it gave them more incentive to work together and to look out for each other's well-being. Conversely, American and British troops were most likely composed of jumble of men from different regions, with their own attitudes, dialects and prejudices."
Amidst the generally successful story of the U.S. Army in the ETO in WWII, lies a significant failure, namely the replacement system by which the War Department and the Army replenished units which had suffered combat losses. The "Repple Depple" - "replacement depot" system - was a mess and did not well-serve the interests of the individual or the units themselves, let alone the entire army.
It is much smarter and more combat-effective for replacements to be funneled into their units as a group who have trained together and who know and trust one another. Worse yet, men who'd trained together for months, sometimes years in the case of the paratroopers and other elite formations, were threatened with assignment to completely different units if wounded and being returned to the front. This is related in "Band of Brothers," where a number of the men go AWOL and check themselves out of the hospital in order to get back to Easy rather than risk being sent someplace else and to be with people they don't even know.
Exigencies of the service and wartime being what they are, it is sometimes necessary for men to be fed into the system piecemeal, as was done. But this should be a last resort, rather than the first option.
Germans knew the Australian and New Zealand soldiers were the real deal great fighting men
Let me know when they wiped out 80,000 like the GIs at the Bulge or the Russians on the Eastern Front.If someone takes YOU prisoner of course you'll say they are the best if you know what's good for you. But largely a myth weren't any better or worse than other nations depends on the individual
@@bigwoody4704 well best American division was Japanese /Americans it's the breed of the the man also thats why Aussies and kiwis were tough no crap soldiers most enlisted in 1939 that's when ww2 started for the. allies battle of bulge would of been a massacre if Piper had enough fuel there would of been more than 20 OOO GI killed out right that's were the Japanese /Americans won most of their decorations their never say die or surrender attitude came to play just like their relations fighting for the rising sun in the Pacific it's the make of the man Russians had no choice one step back and you would be shot and your family sent to the gulag they were expendable pieces of meat thrown into a meat grinder the Germans on the other hand had been trained well equipped well and wanted to prove themselves on the battlefield even when facing unbelievable odds they managed to fight and very seldom gave up. .unlike some of their axis countries Aussies managed to turn the Japanese around in Papua New Guinea with out much in the way of vast air support or artillery just mostly with bolt action rifles bren guns a few 20 pounders and mortars sheer guts and determination just like the kiwis in North Africa and Crete fighting German paratroopers when they run out of ammo with shovels and bayonets 28th Maori Battalion used their bare hands and rocks knives just like they had hundreds of years ago real warriors.
What you must remember is that the Germans DID NOT start the war that was the British Prime Minister, Chamberlain, who declared war on Germany because the Germans took back that part of Poland which was stolen from Germany in 1918.
I thought history showed that Britain declared war on Germany long after that event, say, September of 1939 with the invasion of Poland.
I read a comment of a German soldier that "Tommy" was slow to move but when dug in very difficult to dislodge. The Americans were quick to move but if encountering strong counterattack, were quick to move in the opposite direction.
I also read this assessment, in "The German Generals Talk" by B.H. Liddell Hart. One German commander, I believe von Rundstedt, described Montgomery and his armies as deliberate to the point of plodding (Montgomery elsewhere has been described as master of the set-piece battle), and Americans as acquiring a good sense for maneuver warfare.
@@americanmade6996Now you mention it, I may have read that in Liddell Hart's "The Other Side of the Hill."
The Germans were moving pretty fast in the 'opposite direction' in 1944/45-mostly to get away from the Soviets and surrender to the western Allies. Payback is a bitch and Hans knew the Russians were seeking plenty of it.
In the latter part of the war, it was fairly typical of many allied soldiers that the war was being won so why die just to speed it up a bit.
I was a chief of fire direction in both m198 towed batteries and m109 self propelled batteries back in the early 80s. The FDC or Fire direction center tells the guns where and what to shoot or as we used to say we were the brains of the artillery. We were mos 13E, gun crews were 13B, FOs or the forward observers were 13F and officers were 13A. By the time I was getting out we had added the BCS battery computer system with tacfire before that as my job title said I was a Canon Fire direction specialist and as an NCO a chief computer. We used charts, RDPs GSTs GFTs and the trusty old TFT, all that was supposed to be replaced in by the BCS but as I was faster than the computer I rarely used the data from the BCS. I could plot firing data faster with a chart, rdp and a TFT much to the horror of higher ups who freaked out when they found out I was only using the BCS for show. Later on I caught a glimpse into a more modern FDC and everything had been computerized, talked to a 13C(which didn't exist in when I was still in the army) and they had never seen a proper chart setup and had no idea what to do if the BCS went down, they couldn't fire. So as a bet I dug around in an old chart box, got some chart paper, a TFT and an RDP and an old grid square, set it all up and showed them how to plot accurate firing data without the BCS and I beat the computer easily. I also showed them how to trim down times by basically forgetting all that bracketing nonsense. I trusted my data to be accurate to within 50 meters and always was. Sadly my wife went blind and I had to get out just some months before the first gulf war so I never got a chance to use my training in combat. That used to bother me when I was younger but now I'm glad I never had to go, it was a bogus war we know that now but at the time we still believed the BS our own government was shoveling out. I respect all the guys who fought but I am glad I didn't have to kill some poor Iraqi for no good reason. That's just my opinion. If I were younger I'd be volunteering to go to the Ukraine and fight some Russians, that's who I had always trained to fight years ago. That's who we should have fought going back to the end of ww2.
I'm not an expert. Our boys were fighting in a foreign land. They were fighting and dying on land not their own. Defending a land not their own. With no material gain or booty. America's effort turned the tide in WW I and II. I talked once to a Brazilian Admiral. He said American logistical supply is amazing. Americans could order "toothpaste" and get it the next day !
The Americans take credit for the ending of WW1. However, after the battle of Mont St, Quentin the German army was done. That victory belongs to another nation, check it out.
I do not wish to overstate the help the US gave. I do not wish to understate it as well. The British and French carried the main burden: I agree.