German Defense from Norway to Greece
Now, when it comes to Western Allied Invasion of France in Normandy, June 1944, quite some time is usually spent on discussions why the Germans did get the landing area wrong, namely assuming an invasion at Pas de Calais instead of Normandy. Yet, I think we should take more extended look at the whole situation, for this we need an expanded timeframe and also a look at map that shows on how much coastlines were still under Axis possessions even in May 1944. As you can see that was quite a lot of territory that needed to be covered. Now, if we look at the situation in Summer & Fall 1943, there are several issues.
Special Thanks to vonKickass on helping out with the thumbnail.
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» patreon - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Wagner, Gerhard (Hrsg.): Lagevorträge des Oberbefehlshabers der Kriegsmarine vor Hitler 1939-1945. J. F. Lehmanns Verlag: München, 1972
Horst Boog, Gerhard Krebs, Detlef Vogel: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg. Band 7. Das Deutsche Reich in der Defensive - Strategischer Luftkrieg in Europa, Krieg im Westen und in Ostasien 1943 bis 1944/45, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart 2001.
Germany and the Second World War. Volume 7. The Strategic Air War in Europe and the War in the West and East Asia 1943-1944/5. 2006.
Schramm, Percy E.: (Hrsg.): Kriegstagebuch des OKW 1944-1945. Teilband I. Eine Dokumentation. Bechtermünz: 2005.
Lieb, Peter: Unternehmen Overlord. Die Invasion in der Normandie und die Befreiung Westeuropas. C.H. Beck: München, 2014.
Jacobsen, H.A.: 1939-1945. Der Zweite Weltkrieg in Chronik und Dokumenten. Dritte durchgesehene und ergänzte Auflage. Wehr und Wissen Verlagsgesellschaft: Darmstadt, 1960
Citino, Robert M.: The Wehrmacht Retreats: Fighting a Lost War, 1943. University Press Kansas, USA, 2012.
Cambridge History of the Second World War. Volume I: Fighting the War. Cambridge University Press: UK, 2015.
Ball, Simon: The Mediterranean and North Africa, 1940-1944, in: Cambridge History of the Second World War - Volume I, p. 358-388
Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg - Band 6 - Der Globale Krieg
ENGLISH VERSION: Germany and the Second World War - Volume 6 - The Global War
Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg - Band 8
ENGLISH VERSION: Germany and the Second World War - Volume 8 - The Eastern Front 1943-1944: The War in the East and on the Neighbouring Fronts
#MilitaryHistory #ww2 #1944
If you like in-depth military history videos, consider supporting the channel: paypal.me/mhvis --- patreon.com/mhv/ --- www.subscribestar.com/mhv Merchandise (T-Shirts & Posters), check out my store: teespring.com/stores/military-history-visualized
could you do about some fortifications in the pre second world war like the construction of El Fraile or Fort Drum
Good video. You did not add into map liberated territories in Yugoslavia. The liberated territories were covering 1/2 to 1/3 of the whole Yugoslavia. There was good communication with the partisans and some logistics help was given to them. Also, the liberated territories in Yugoslavia had a direct route into land and there would be no need to a single soldier during the landing. Here is a wiki link where you can see where those territories were and how easy it would be to land into a friendly territory. sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodne_teritorije_u_Narodnooslobodila%C4%8Dkom_ratu Not to go much into details but the partisan movement was strong during that period of time numbering some 500 000 troops. Such force combined with the knowledge of terrain and with easy landing would had been a major boost to allied war effort.
How to defend the Reich in 1944? von Rundstedt - as always - had the right answer "make peace you fools!"
"It was noted for Italy that some areas were mountainous". The understatement of a century - it's like a British officer wrote this. :)
Fighting up through Italy was a very stupid idea. But they got some amphib experience and know-how from Patton's operations.
@@harrymills2770 not that very stupid though, why on tactical level you are completely right on strategic it was actually a win because not only they kick Italy out of war but a front was even more spread now for already overstretched Germans who needed to send good amount of troops to cover the area, troops which i am sure would be far more precious on Russian front, also elite troops...
@@harrymills2770 I think that's the whole point. America needed to prep for D-day, and Italy (along with North Africa and Sicily) helped with precisely this.
@@hastalavictoriasiempre2730 Did you even listen to this video? They had 3x more troops in Norway/Denmark than Italy...
@@KuK137 Still better than nothing.
I was initially watching this with the subtitles on and I lost it when I read Pasta Calais. I needed a good laugh.
Alex V for me it says “the plastic layer”
They should have posted signs on all beaches saying "No oil or tea behind this point". Boom, no more Americans or British coming to invade, problem solved.
@Johan Jacobs True. Operation OverSorry, the Canadian branch of Overlord, had already been planned out by that time.
So the USSR reaches the English Channel in late 1945...
Keep the Canadians out by posting signs saying, "Tim Horton's the other way. Sorry."
@Johan Jacobs Just a sign 100m after that "Please dont invade"
The Normandy beaches were the last example of the Germans failing to get up before dawn to put their towels on the sun-loungers. Not a day has passed since that they’ve not remembered this lesson.
The Mulberry Harbours were the wild cards that the Germans did not expect. They had seen the components being manufactured but could not work out there usage. Accommodation blocks, floating warehouses, nothing made sense. There were several US generals who argued against using the Mulberry Harbours, saying that supplies could be landed over the beaches using landing craft. This is absurd because landing craft were in short supply and once beached had to wait for the next tide to go back out to sea. The pier heads meant that all types of ships could unload quickly and efficiently and then return for more without waiting on the tides. As the storm two weeks after D-Day showed, it was vital to have a good port to protect the shipping and vital supplies. Port Winston proved vital to the success of D-Day and beyond especially given the difficulties encountered in trying to clean up the Channel ports following German demolition operations.
Tonnage unloaded with or without Mulberry Harbor The surviving British Mulberry B was eventually able to unload 6,000 tons per day while the Americans landed 15,000 tons a day at Omaha and 8,000 at Utah without an artificial port.2 According to Chester Wilmot, "Undismayed by the destruction of their artificial harbour, the Americans applied to the development of the Omaha and Utah anchorages their tremendous talent for invention and organization. In defiance of orthodox opinion they beached coasters and unloaded them direct into Army lorries at low tide.…. during July the Americans here handled more than twice the tonnage which passed through the British Mulberry3." link below LST's (Landing ship, tank) built by USA: 1,000. By UK: 6. worldwar2headquarters.com/HTML/normandy/mulberries/wreckedMulberry.html
As I understand it None of the ports in Montgomery's AO were captured until Antwerp which could not be used until the estuary was cleared by the Canadians in late November. The others were by passed and became self supporting POW camps to the end of the war.
Man, I'm so happy to have found your channels! History gold. Thanks a bunch, Bernard.
British landing in Portugal to attack France wouldn't be the first time would it ;)
Que compilation of Sean Been shouting "Bastard"
@@MrBigCookieCrumble "I've shot officers in flecktarn uniforms, grey uniforms, green uniforms, black uniforms and even white uniforms. Doesn't matter who you are, if you're a bad officer you're better off dead!" - Last words ever heard by Bernard Montgomery ;)
@@MrBigCookieCrumble : Now THERE's a series they need to re-make, but this time with a budget for more than 5 British uniforms.
@@harrymills2770 Right after they remake Firefly
Obviously France was the correct decision but Portugal would have worked too.
Nothing is like coming home from work, grabbing a cup of coffee, a sandvich and realise there's a new MHV video up.
☺
I wish you could have mentioned the defensive plans on the eastern front like the Panther-Wotan line.
ah i see youre a man of culture aswell
You predicted the future.....
Video starts* General Military history visualized appears from the background.
Great video! Could you sometime do a video on when German high command generally felt that the war was lost. It would put some of the back half of the war efforts in context of having reasonable expectation of success or just delaying the inevitable. Love your channel!
The realists (or logisticians) knew that Barbarossa was a gamble that would fail.
When was the 1st time they tried to kill him. Start there
@@demonprinces17 crazy idea cause that was before invasion of France ... In november 1939 the first bomb attack had taken place in munich's famous Bürgerbräukeller by Georg Elser. Hitler left unexpectedly the location 15 minutes earlier to catch a train to Berlin when his plane could no longer start due to fog. In 1939 and 1940 the germans were following Hitler more than ever due to his success. He went through France in 4 weeks with a fraction of losses of great war. Wouldn't make any sense to discuss cause there were no such expectations of an inevtiable defeat then. That started not before december 41 when Hitler declared war to US while german troops were running in first defeats around moscow
@@robertohlen4980 Look, in 194O, they accomplished in 4 weeks, what in the previous war they couldn't do in four years. It was a huge win in their books, considering most people still very much remembered the great war and versailles. In WW1, Russia was knocked out by Germany, France was considered to be the tougher enemy. Now they were finished with France, Russia was smaller than it used to be in WW1, Soviet high command was just finished with a purge. Russia struggled against Finland, a nation far smaller, with fewer resources. All the signs pointed to the fact, that Russia in its current state, would be no match, even the most sceptical of high command were swayed to go ahead with the plan. I'd probably say, as many people, the turning point for rational, military minded officers was the defeat at Stalingrad, first time Germany suffered defeat on the primary frontline, and after that had to start retreating and consolidating gains. So that would put it about beginning of 1943.
I know for a fact that the high command knew it was a lost cause after about 2 weeks into the russia campaign.
Burma campaign video when?
Great content, congrats! 👏🏻
You should definitely talk more about Yugoslavia during WW2! It's interesting plus doesn't get more attention that it deserves.
I don't like to lock the comment section.
Just a random note here if you do make it, but I was in a Hungarian/Magyar majority province called Vojvodina in Serbia last summer, in a minor city called Senta/Ada/Mol. Right after the war although the Hungarians/Magyars didn't do half to the Serbs what the Croatians did, Serbians slaughtered tens of thousands of random Hungarian/Magyars, tortured at minimum 1000 of them(particularly from my village), and stole my family's brick making plant. I know it's just wikipedia but it should give you a rough estimate of how bad it was: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_executions_and_massacres_in_Yugoslavia_during_World_War_II en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_Serbia It's a big issue over there but I haven't heard people focus on it.
Excellent overview.
I love your work so much. Keep it up
Sun Tzu's Art of War say if you cover every side for defense, your defense will be weak on every side. Personally i will lay the blame on German Intelligence on not sort out Allies real landing intention, allow the military to do precise planning on the defense.
Thanks in large part to Canaris...sly old devil!
Yeah, but at some point, "blame" has to morph into "praise." Far, far too many U-tube "history buffs" are rooting for the wrong side, and no amount of revisionism and "history is written by the victors" equivocations can possibly paint the Nazis as good guys...
I would lay the blame on German leadership for putting the country at war with pretty much every industrial, economic, population powerhouses in the world at the same time. Their enemies were also the ones that held most of the strategic resources. Remember: Germany started all this. Invaded Poland putting them at war with the Western Allies. Invasion of the Low Countries. Invasion of France (well, they were at war already). Invasion of Norway. Invasion of the Balkans. Invasion of Russia while never having the ability to knock the British out of the war. Also, Russia was the one that shipped a huge amount of Germany's oil. And after Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, Germany declares war on the United States and the US returns the favor in kind. The agreement of the Tripartite Pact meant that since Japan initiated that war, Germany was under no obligation to declare war on the United States, but did so anyways. The USA had no casus belli with Germany though it really blurred the lines of neutrality. But outright war, the US had no casus belli. Germany handed that gift to FDR, Churchill, and Stalin. This is all brought on by German leadership.
1:05 Who argues *that?* The "invade through France" argument is made *because France is closest to England,* making logistics infinitely less complex than if the Allies kept pushing up through Italy or Greece or the Baltic.
I do not know how much light it sheds on a historical scenario, but whenever I saw a dday attempted in the baltic in hearts of iron it ran into supply problems and submarine ally.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 is it that Golden situation that out of most places Danzig was the target?
@@fulcrum2951 Lol. Yeas. Thats one of them. I also saw the AI try it for some unfathomable reason once. Maybe it couldnt get air superiority in the channel.
It’s not direct…that’s the whole thing dude
It turned out the Invasion of France in 1944 was just a sideshow. The real punch came on the Eastern Front when the Western allies were still trying to get off the beaches. 2.3 million Soviet troops launched a massive attack on the Eastern Front, completely destroyed the German Army Group Centre, Wehrmacht's largest fighting formation anywhere, and inflicted the biggest defeat suffered by the Germans in whole WW2.
Indeed, if even half the resources put into the Atlantic Wall were instead used to create multiple layers of fortifications in the East along rivers and other natural barriers it may have significantly delayed the Soviets and extended the war.
@@stupidburp The Atlantic Wall was built along one of the strongest natural barriers, the Atlantic coast and it could not stop the landings. What made you think building fortifications in the wide open landscape of the Eastern Front, even along rivers, would perform any better?
@@tvgerbil1984 The point of fortifications is to delay, not stop. They must be combined with other assets and maneuvers to lead to more favorable outcomes. A delay is most useful where it can prevent being overrun in a short amount of time. As you said, the Atlantic coast already provides a potent natural barrier and the total opposing forces in the West were far less than those in the East. Time and resources to improve defenses are best spent to delay the largest threat, which is the Soviet army. They would not change the outcome on their own but could delay the advance of the soviets and make advances more costly. From a strategic standpoint, any coastal invasion from the West could be contained and countered early on in the war so the deterrent value of fortifications there is low. Layered defenses along the East however could have high deterrent value early in the war and still retain moderate value later on. Much of the point of a high level of fortifications is a political signal to draw a border at some location. This can indicate a willingness to consider staying within such borders. Germany at the time was indicating that they desired some kind of peace with the UK, which matched with some diplomatic gestures prior to widespread bombing. A more useful gesture would have been to indicate a real intention to keep to agreed borders in the East with the Soviets and then cancel or delay Operation Barbarossa. Strong defenses along the border would reduce the threat of invasion on both sides and perhaps lead to a lengthy if uncomfortable peace. The Soviets and Axis did not trust each other and had intentions to invade each other eventually but that could be put off if they felt there was less risk to do so. By the end of the war the final outcome was a foregone conclusion and the utility of delays at that point is just to try to provide enough leverage for a possible conditional surrender. It could also potentially change where post war borders are drawn, such as perhaps having Berlin within West Germany rather than in an isolated pocket. If the Oder-Neisse line could be held as Berlin fell from the West, the postwar German borders might be similar to what they are after reunification today, with prewar territories East of the Oder River still lost but the rest of Germany mostly intact.
@@tvgerbil1984 The fortifications in the East caused delays where they could but were of insufficient scale and depth. Multiple layers of lines would be required to aid in static defenses. These would need to include not just fighting positions but logistical barriers as well. Every road and rail line would be cut at numerous points and require engineering work to circumvent. There was no stopping the Red Army but it could have been delayed significantly more than it was if years of preparation and investment had been made. The Battle of Seelow Heights is a case in point because the main turning point was when Soviet forces advanced on weak defenses to the South and bypassed the the Seelow Heights to the North. Attacks on the center resulted in heavy Soviet losses despite outnumbering the Germans 10 to 1. They had moderate fortifications only at certain points and these were surrounded. If the entire line had strong fortifications in multiple layers then bypassing the defenses would not be feasible. It would take a lot of time pounding at several points with artillery and continued heavy losses to advance over a heavily fortified line and then the defenders could fall back to the next line of fortifications. Even delaying the Soviets by a few weeks would be sufficient to change the post war occupation borders.
@@stupidburpWhich would only delay the inevitable collapse. Time was never on Germany's side. They had to win on the offense or die on the defense. Didn't matter if it was in the open field or behind fortifications. When Barbarossa failed they were done. When Blue and Citadel failed, they were done. Stalin (and the rest of the Allies) weren't going to take a conditional surrender when they could keep beating them down all the way to Berlin. They did learn that much from WWI.
The choice of landing sites chosen comes down to a matrix of suitable beaches able to support tanks and vehicles, with a degree of shelter from the Channel weather, one or more ports close by to capture to aid the following build up and a fairly direct route through France to Germany. Relatively short distance between English ports of embarkation and the beaches well within the operating range of fighter aircraft for support prior to the establishment of advanced landing grounds. Also not located at the most bleedingly obvious potential invasion sites. Pas de Calais was obvious to the Germans because it was were they had intended to depart from to invade England in 1940 and it was also the most direct route to Germany.
People like to fantasize about what they would be doing if they were in the Wehrmacht. I think being assigned to the Danish coastal defense would be a pretty sweet gig, all things considered.
Me too. Probably safest front, and standing at Denmark's beaches during the summer wouldn't be that bad, and the winters would not be as bad as in the other nordic countries. Sounds like one could live a lazy life. The only thing missing would be some women and entertainment - which could probably be fixed. The wartime rationing and food shortage would probably be the only real problem. Otherwise could one probably live a good life at this boring front.
I like to suffer. I'd like to be one of those poor bastards who fought on the Eastern Front from Poland to Berlin.
@@ieuanhunt552 yeah that attitude would last about three days and then you would be wishing you were anywhere but there.
@@markfryer9880 you overestimate my fortitude. I would probably be wishing my own death after maybe the first day. I think I'd be dead by day three. Say what you will about either side of the Eastern front. They were some hard as nails danger chewing victory shitting badasses. I would not trade places with them for all the tea in China.
@@nattygsbord Many german soldiers stationed here in northern norway would get depressed, some even committed suicide, boring coastal defense duties in a remote, cold location with barely any infrastructure, no entertainment when on leave, no sun for half a year with strong winds and snow, even today with modern machinery like snowplows on trucks we still have some roads closed, roads close to where the germans had coastal fortifications. Now that must have been dreadfull.
Wie immer, einfach ausgezeichnet!
Sehr interessant!
TY🙏🙏
When highlighted like in the thumbnail, the Reich looks like a charging bull
It would be interesting to compare the German assumptions with the Allied hypothesis. After all, the UK studied plans for many possible offensives. For instance, in The Second World War, Churchill talks a lot about invading the Balkans. He wanted an opportunity to liberate eastern Europe before the Soviets. He failed to convince the Americans, because of practical difficulties (terrain, available troops, lack of route toward German main land) and because Roosevelt didn't see the necessity to prepare a confrontation against the Ussr. But it was a serious threat for Germany anyway.
I dunno. The Americans may've wanted to go the direct route, but they didn't have the equipment or much (any) fighting experience. They learned a lot from the campaign in Africa. If Eisenhower weren't bending over backwards to get along with our allies, I think Africa would've been enough to get Monty fired. Excellent staff officer. Not a war-fighting general. Toxic mix of timidity, foolish courage, and ego. Put Patton out in front, and put Monty in charge of keeping the supply lines open and the soldiers fed and equipped. He was a very good sanitation engineer for the Allies in Africa.
At that time, amphibious landings were at infant stages, beach landings were also difficult. The Allies wanted assurances that they can support their troops and do it quickly, adequately. So the areas chosen made sense. But they also did not all land at the same place. Anywayz...love your vids!
The US did many beach landing in the Pacific before 1944 D-Day.
I know what is like like to have braces. still sound good so don't worry.
Just wondering why no mention of the Belgium coast. Was that included in Western front or is the a reason it isn't good?
D Day 6 June 1944, it would be interesting to see other allied offensive operations in other theatre’s at the occurred at the same time to put pressure on the Germans.
It's very true that the Allies embarked on a massive, thorough, and highly successful deception operation on multiple fronts prior to D-Day. But, quite honestly, looking at some of the invasion possibilities the Germans were actually considering, I can't help but come to the conclusion that their intelligence arms really weren't the brightest bulbs in the shed. It's not hindsight to see that ideas like the Western allies invading via the Baltic or Portugal/Spain were completely ludicrous, and Denmark only a little less so. Norway might have been feasible, but wouldn't have led anywhere or taken away anything significant from Germany. Greece and the Balkans would have been a slow and roundabout slog. It really should have been obvious to the Germans well before D-Day that the Channel coast of France/Netherlands and the French Mediterranean coasts were the only real possibilities.
Why is Norway so much more feasible then Denmark. And if you notice in the excepts provided almost all of your ludicrous options were brought up to be explored by Adolf and not the other way around.
@@imjashingyou3461 To be fair, Churchill was in favour of most of them as well.
@@ianwhitchurch864 Churchill was actively pushing for a Baltic invasion during WW I. It was by no means ludicrous, as any beachhead there would have been far more dangerous than anywhere else. It would have been much too risky in WW II, but it deserved attention. I don't know about how suitable the Denmark coast would be for an amphibious assault. But it too was a much more direct threat if a beachhead could have been maintained. I'd say the only ludicrous ones were Portugal because of its distance from Allied ports where the invasion fleet would have to be assembled, and the Balkans, since all those mountains were just a duplication of the Italian mountains without being much closer to Germany.
Grats on the braces, they are well worth it!!!
best accent on youtube
he sounds like he is from Dresden
More images would be welcome
Interesting would be the evaluation of a possible east wall. Considering Germany woud have gone all defensive from early 1942 fortifying a line from East Prussia to Kiew along the Dnepr to Odessa. Considering the Pripet marches are unsuitable for mobile operations, which shortens the line significantly.
They never had (were given) the opportunity. They didn't even have the manpower to maintain a mobile defense-in-depth, they would never have had the strength to create a static defense along that entire front. Nor would they ever get the time to fortify it. Their only chance for victory was in the "killing blow" of Barbarossa, and you can't do that from the defense.
@@jamestheotherone742 I thought so first too. But the Pripet marches would have shorten the eastern fron by 1/3. This has to be consideren. There was enough time to fortify it from early 42 to early 44. Full 2 years.
@@andyz.5431 Again, no. Would not have worked. The allies had a overwhelming material advantage that only increased over time. "forts" don't matter in modern mechanized warfare. The Germans needed to firstly knock the Soviets out of the war, or failing that, secure the Caucuses oil fields in order to even have a hope of winning the war of attrition that developed.
@@jamestheotherone742 The soviets were already almost finished in 1945 as they had already to recruit 16 old males. So with a defenisve strategy from early 42 stalingrad pocket, kurland pocket, crimea pocket etc wouldn't have happened. So lots of veteran soldiers to hold the line. No caucasus oil would have been needed for a defensive war, as mobile forces and tanks are only 2nd line to jump in when there is a breakthrough. Romanian and synthetic oil was enough. You basically plaster a line of cheap trenches and AT guns as well as AA. In Ukraine they could have fortify the Dnepr river. Eastern frotn would have been easy to defend if you use the terrain to your advantage. You have to think our of your box.
@@andyz.5431 And the Germans were "recruiting" 12 yr olds and old men. Oh, 1915 Called, they would like their strategy back. K' thanks.
5.00 380,000 located in Norway in 1943. 6.00 about 160,000 men in Denmark. 7.15 1.37 million men.
Sicily was to secure the Med, North Africa was more about giving the americans some blooding before the main show as the army had been pretty much built from scratch in only a couple of years, and proved extremely useful as they turned out to be extremely green and poor performing against pretty weak opposition.
Excellent video, as always, although at 8:30 your graphic includes the word "deptartment."
It’s shocking the amount of land lost by the axis in 44 probably the most lost in a single year of the war
160k just for Denmark?? :O isn't that a bit of an overkill for a region that should be quite easy to defend?
and for a region that doesn't exist
I think it was because if the Allies got a foothold on it, it would be hard to push them back due to the bottleneck, and it would allow them to extend their navy and air-force into the Baltic, cutting off Swedish Iron and Germany's northern armies and further exposing Germany to bombardment and amphibious assaults; and bear in mind it was taboo be defeatist, and assuming they could hold France and the East, it made sense to heavily defend Denmark.
@@paul5634 What are you talking about? South-Sweden clearly exists.
Harry Lagom lol
@Harry Lagom what's a Denmark?
This military history was visualized.
I wouldn't look too carefully at the Panzer Div in Norway, I believe it was mainly retasked French tanks
I think they use Anglo-Saxons at 3:48 as a catchall term for the British and American forces
Direct= minimal distance across the sea from England. Germany and Denmark= indirect.
direct = landing closest to Berlin
s9juvolz rebuilt aside from Germany not equaling Berlin and difficulties of attacking enemy land , only a land-lubber would be so dismissive of the sea. Besides, the closest Germans to attack were in France which means it's the most direct by basic definition.
@@KZheadmessedupmyhandle the goal wasnt "just attack Germans", the goal was to end Hitler´s reign, to make Germany surrender. You cant achieve that by attacking in France, but by conquering Germanys capital - Berlin. So landing closest to Berlin is the direct route.
s9juvolz rebuilt you can also do it by attacking the industrial centres this making the regime crumble. Either way you need supplies which means you need a port which, when undertaking a hostile invasion means you need the shortest, and therefore most direct route possible. Land based nations seem to think the channel and North Sea are the equivalent of a river and large lake and miss the difficulties of this obstacle. Imagine trying to tow a mulberry harbour across the North Sea?
How practical would it have been for the germans to withdraw to Germany and fortify the Rhine and alps? I think it's fairly obvious the germans were extremely overstretched but then again effectively ceding so much territory isn't exactly a strong move either
Imo, from the south yes, from the west, probably not and from the east definitely not.
and it would be against NS ideology
Damaging for morale. But by the end of 1944 they were driven to the frontiers of Germany anyway and their logistics improved, so it amounted to the same thing in the end.
Defense of the Reich in 1944. A few words of wisdom from Field Marchall Von Rundstedt: "Macht Schluss mit dem Krieg, ihr Idioten" End the war you idiots, or Make Peace you idiots. That pretty much sums up the situation.
@@poussecafe3 He didn't say that to Hitler..he did tell that to Keitel once the Western Allies were firmly established in Normandy on July 1st, 1944.
Churchill wanted to invade Norway, the Chiefs of Staff Committee banned that option en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Jupiter_(Norway)
Thing is, Junge, that while your strict materialist perspective is all kinds of scientific and ostensibly correct, what this approach necessarily omits is actually the most important analysis: the effects of the Wahnsinn at the heart of the Nazi project. Neitzel and Evans are brilliant historians precisely because they do not neglect this messy, inherently unquantifiable dimension.
A much greater degree of defense in depth fortifications, supporting infrastructure, and protected military and civilian structures could have begun before the war began. This would have freed up time to do the same to nearby occupied territories as they expanded. Focusing on the Atlantic Wall was a waste of a vast amount of time and resources since it would be useless once penetrated. Instead fortify all key choke points on land such as bridges as well as all cities to delay any invasion attempt and make it more costly for the invader.
Frankly, this doesn't look like the Reich way to do it...
But what about Operation Jubilée? I think it must have been obvious to the Nazis that this was a test and not a proper try for an invasion, and that the allies just wanted to learn about the German defense strategy in northern France. Why didn't they take this into account? The Führer once said "in the east we have large areas where we can still retreat for a long time still, but in the west the enemy would reach Germany very soon". I think there never was any realistic alternative but a landing in northern France and the Nazis must have known this from the start. Or the other way: if a landing in the Balkans/Portugal/Norway happened, this is so far away that it's too unimportant to take into consideration against a possible landing in Northern France.
did you watch the video? The Allies also landed in Italy the year before. > I think there never was any realistic alternative but a landing in northern France and the Nazis must > have known this from the start. congratulations for unlocking the Hindsight Warrior achievement.
:D Yes, of course I have watched it^^. But let's say your're playing Hearts of Iron and you are in the position of the Reich 1944. Your situation is weak, your resources are scarce and you presume that your opponent might start an amphibious attack somewhere as an additional front. Were would you suspect it to be? Even if there are some places which might be possible, like Greece or Norway: would you really waste troops to defend these places, where it must be clear that a) the allies will in any case have enough material to make a landing in Greece or Norway at least at some points a success, b) you don't have the forces to start a counteroffensive at these points, c) these areas are far away from Germany, d) there are much closer areas which are much more likely to be the aim for an invasion, e) the allies did already start a test-balloon for invading northern France in 1942. As I said, even if there are places where an invasion could have been made - these areas were unable to be defended anyway, so why waste troops and resources? As for Italy: This is a good point and further argueing would make it neccesary to know how aware the OKW was that the allies wanted another front? (And how aware were they that the allies were unsatisfied with the progress madein Italy?)
There's a mistake in the thumbnail. Finland was not a part of Germany in World War 2, or ever for that matter.
seriously? it was part of the axis... I guess I should also remove Romania and all the other countries and color them differently, so that the thumbnail looks like a clusterfuck, right?
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized I cannot comment about Romania, but the video is about the defense of the Reich, which means Hitler's Germany, and from the thumbnail one clearly gets the impression that the land area colored in red depicts the Reich (countries annexed or invaded by Germany and under German control). Finland only had a military alliance with Germany. We had our own government during all that time (which wasn't even during the entire war, just a couple of years near the end of it). Hitler had no control over us and our decisions. I would say being "allied with" and "governed by" are too very different things, at least in this case. Also, being a part of the Axis is in my opinion debatable - the UK, US, France and others on "that side" probably view(ed) us like that - being a part of the axis after agreeing to fight with Germany against the Soviets - but the Soviet Union had a while earlier tried to invade the country without justification and had taken a big part of land, which we wanted back. Our quarrel was only with them. The Germans agreed to help when no one else officially did, hence the military cooperation. Sure it's just a thumbnail in a video on youtube, and the country is barely visible anyway, but it is visible, and I've seen this same thing in other films as well (even in some TV documentaries) and for a channel of history like yours, it would be nice if the details were correct.
@@TNX255 point of map is too show all the coastline that axis controlled and therefore needed to be defended (overextension). It is not about painting finland into black. There are simplistic maps used for giving viewer one impression, and in this video that is large area to defend. If you dont like it, fine, but Romania and Bulgaria, Hungary should also get their colors back then.
@@VjekoslavSkoko That makes sense, except, he has specifically separated Switzerland from the red zone ;) So, one might argue, that by the logic you mention, why isn't Switzerland also red? It would make sense that when simplifying the map, it would just be included in the red area, since it has really very zigzig-like borders that are hard to separate and draw.
@@TNX255 Switzerland is Switzerland, and considering its armed neutrality with a fuck all sides attitude during the conflict
Germany was very concerned with an invasion of Norway, and kept over 250,000 troops there out of fear over a British Invasion.
They kept troops there to secure the iron imports mostly, and to keep the inhabitants pacified. Yes if it were weakly garrisoned, the Brits might have taken a swing at it, but it wouldn't have been a very good strategic move.
1944 likes Ironic :)
They totally forgot about defending themselves from below. The Allies should have attacked Berlin from the underground catching them completely by surprise.
When I read you comment I honestly thought you meant advancing up from Italy. Which would be a terrible idea they would have to fight through the Dolomites or the Alps. As risky as amphibious operations are they are no where near as bad as mountains. Mountains are almost as bad as jungles.
By making heaps of videos from their perspective on KZhead.
Overstretching is so unpleasant...
Was hoping to hear what your great mind would have done but your a fact based man
Still getting used to the braces, I see
I think the German assumptions on where the allied D-day landings would go were reasonable - after all it would be dumb to make a landing outside air cover, and having long distances for ship to transport, and not taking a harbour so that the invasion force can get supplies and reinforcements. Making an attack directly into Prussia would give the Germans all the advantages of having short supply lines, knowing the terrain, having men more determined than ever to defend their homeland (instead of just a outpost in France). And meanwhile would it the allied ability to use their massive air power be very limited as no planes had the range and no paratroops could capture bridges and protect the flanks of the amphibious landing. So a landing in Germany looks foolish to me. And same goes for an invasion of Denmark since the land is close to Germany and far away from Britain, and Germany could easily gather troops in Germany and by land just walk into the country. And German air fields would be perfectly in range of reaching any invasion force, while the allied planes would not be able to reach the area. Norway is a country with excellent defensive positions. The country is basicly just mountains and forrests, and it was not this rich oil nation back then as it is today, so the bad infrastructure would probably also become a huge allied invasion force. And the climate is not so friendly either. So it is a country which is suitable for defensive warfare. And the allied advantage of air power and large numbers of tanks would not come to its right in this terrain. It would simply be more wise to use them elseware. The Balkans were a more credible threat to the Germans. It could potentially outflank the German eastern front in the south, and its proximity to the Romanian oil fields were probably also worrysome. Even having allied bombers in airfields in Greece that close would be problematic enough. But on the other hand did the balkans and Greece have many mountains that offered good defensive terrain - as Mussoline learnt the hard way. And Germany could use airpower and send reinforcements to the area by land. So an allied landing here could very easily just have ended in one deadlock after another just like the campaign in Italy. Taking Greece could probably be done since most of the country laid in good range for naval bombardment, and bombers in North Africa and Italy could reach it. But then breaking out further from there would be hard and would require so much troops to get through the bad terrain that one could once again start to wonder if it would be worth it? France and the Benelux countries offered bigger rewards, and they allowed the allies to use air power and not overstretching their maritime supply lines unnecessarily much.
Don’t spend all your points on rocketry and making big big big tanks to satisfy your ego...
Those big big tanks were pretty much immune to anything but massive artillery or being overrun by hundreds/thousands of troops. The enemy tanks feared them.
Rocketry is really cool though.
John Dobak the problem is the tanks were expensive as fuck and always broke down
@@JohnDobak they more were feared by their mechanics.
If you drink 15 beers in europe, you have a problem.
Why didn't the Germans retreat from the Norwegian theatre? Did it have some significance that did not allow that? The additional units might have bolstered their defensive forces in the European mainland enough to also protect themselves from Soviet landing operations across the Baltic sea. They still would have lost the war but maybe on a smaller rate.
Iron ore and other minerals for making steel. Plus Heavy Water for making a atomic bomb
@@markfryer9880 While additonal metal to harvest makes sence the plan to develop a nuclear weapon was on ice anyway after the destruction of the heavy water factory. I suppose you can argue it makes sense to keep your hands on iron it loses all value if you fail to keep the very thing intact that has a purpose for said iron.
Also useful for U-Boat bases and to harass the convoys bound for Russia
"Italy first strategy" was it? I thought the Italian campaign was dictated by the need to do something, to do anything, to be seen supporting Russia. France was recognized as more direct and more desirable but the resources were known to be insufficient and not well enough prepared/trained/assembled/planned.
Served that purpose, plus it would be a way of knocking the Italians out of the fight, lots of units & logistics were already in the Med. It was the best choice. France was not an active combatant and the costs of a campaign "up the long way" across France would not have been worth the cost.
@@jamestheotherone742 "10. A further promising line of action would be to direct forces towards southern France from Corsica and northern Italy. Such a movement would fit in well with a simultaneous operation into northern France from the United Kingdom." British proposal at the Trident conference in May 43. page 50 here www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/History/WWII/Trident3.pdf
Hitler’s use of the term Anglo-Saxons to describe the western allies is resonant with Churchill’s notion when he wrote The History of The English Speaking Peoples.
Most Americans have English and/or German blood, so it makes sense when referring to the Western allies.
What means [sic!]
its latin. its used to mean that something is left as it was originally said or written. including any spelling errors
Has there ever been a reason the Allies didn't go for Southern France? They did land in Operation Dragoon but that was after the Normandy invasion. Why didn't they have the main assault in the south? They could have built up in North Africa and the Mediterranean islands and the south seems to have been far less fortified. Was there a good reason the "liberate Europe" thrust had to come from across the English Channel, or was it just a prideful and symbolic choice?
They were planning on launching Dragood at the same time as Overlord, but it got delayed because Anzio got bogged down into a clusterf*ck and the Allies had to rework the supply chain and restock equipment for Dragoon after Anzio. Also, you underestimate how many troops wound up fighting in Southern France. Note that most troops in an amphibious landing do not land on D-Day, so the only 7 divisions in the initial Dragoon landing were soon reinforced by thousanda more Americans and Free French. By the end of September, the 6th Army Group in southern France had almost 600,000 men.
@@natekaufman1982 I don't mean as a pincer, I mean as the main landing. Have the D-Day force, but against Southern France entirely, not the north.
Northern France vs Southern France? Here's a few reasons why : 1. Logistics and supply lines. The Northern Coastland of France is directly adjacent to Britain (where Allied war supplies were being marshalled), and the Atlantic. The supply line was short, direct, and it relied upon combined Naval supremacy in the Atlantic and the English Channel, which the British and Americans had at this point in the war. In contrast, the longer supply line through the Mediterranean and Suez was a significantly longer distance to have to fortify. 2. Geography and terrain. The Northern Coastlands are predominantly flatter more open terrain, which was easier to traverse for a mobile attack force (as long as you have air cover and can deal with the hedgerows). Most of the Southern Coastlands have elevated ranges running behind them, and the Alps are to the East, which would have given the Germans increased options to either fortify defences, mount counter-attacks, or maintain a controlled retreat. This proved to be the case with Army Group G's blockade in the Vosges Mountains during Dragoon. The Allied generals had probably learnt from their experiences at Anzio and in Italy, and probably wanted to avoid a blockade, or being funnelled into geographic bottlenecks. 3. The Luftwaffe had lost control of the skies over Northern France, and much of their resources had been allocated to other fronts, and to within German borders. It would have been foolish to not exploit this weakness. In contrast, the South of the Mediterranean was still within strike range for some Luftwaffe units stationed in Southern and Western Germany at this time. 4. Geo-Political reasons? It was probably a great morale booster for the Allies to liberate Paris early in the occupation, and a key to unseating the Vichy Government in the South. The French Resistance were also more formidable, and coordinated more closely with the Allies in the Nazi occupied territories. 5. Strategic reasons? The Italian campaign had already opened a Southern front against German resistance. A Northern attack would isolate large parts of the German forces stationed on the Western Atlantic (including many vital Kreigsmarine bases, thus diminishing German Naval control in the Atlantic), and the opening of the 2nd front would further stretch German military resources. In contrast, if mounted too early, a 2nd Southern attack would be met by combined Nazi and Vichy forces, who might still have some tactical capability. 6. The Northern attack also probably suited both the American and British commanders, who liked to keep a fair amount of autonomy from each other. Patton, Bradley & Montgomery didn't exactly have what you would call a "close working relationship". There were probably a great many other reasons why the attack had to come from the North, but those seem sensible enough.
Dear MHV, video suggestion: How did the Germans conquer Denmark so quickly and did Denmark have the capacity to hold of the Germans? Thks
kzhead.info/sun/hJirlcennZuVmnA/bejne.html
The danes had no chance. They could hav defended Copenhagen and their City Would have been leveld with thousends of Dead.
Ventolus youre probably right, though I would like to se the military aspect of it as well.
CreatorUser it doesnt fokus og the military aspekt
In defence of German assumptions..... well, there's actually material you can defend in them. It's less about the case of where you can land, it's about the capability to support it, supply it and where you stockpile those supplies. The Balkans and Denmark, Norway, are too far and present too many additional difficulties. You have to create additional stockpiles and you're going lose time and personnel to manage it. Not just that, creates additional points of weakness. Plus, the nature of the terrain allows you run quite effective irregular operations. Sure you don't have your panzers, air force, but you have mortars and artillery and ammunition, fuel, is kinda sensitive. It's on the 'I like to go boom side.' Italy? Well, the drive up through Italy is going over mountains, or around mountains. Easy to leave, again, pockets allowing for irregular warfare against your invasion force. It forces you to create stockpiles and only increases your logistics chain. Makes it more vulnerable. Portugal has some potential, as a threat, however..... it's the same problem that the Wehrmacht, Heer, Luftwaffe, had on the Eastern Front. The chain from Portugal only gets longer and longer as you pass through Spain, then into France. Plus, again, going over mountains, a smart unit commander can do a lot of harm to your supply chain. The only way to shorten this is to focus on a very coastal strategy, taking each port, bay, beach as you go. So you can get to your off shore support faster. The same harm that was being done to German supplies in France by partisan activities, bombing on the rail network etc etc. South Eastern France? Supply chain is too long, again. Sure, you can base some units in Italy, the surrounds, the best you can really do is raid into occupied France, I don't think the possibility of basing a longer term operation here is that good. Plus, what remains of the Luftwaffe can be a greater threat. The Allied air efforts are that much harder. At least till you start rebasing units, which means, you again, are spreading your stockpiles out, stuff that likes to go boom in pretty direct threat. It also becomes harder to mass your units for operations. Indirectly as well, it's greater stress on your support services, logistics train. You don't just need to get it there, it has to get there, with the people who know how to do the job and the time to do the job, without being shot at. France, Belgium, Netherlands, present the best areas, opportunities for a couple of reasons. Especially Normandy. You have the ability to maintain easy air cover, you've got close and easy access to your stockpiles. Your stockpiles are relatively speaking, beyond the enemies reach. Additionally, with the mulberry harbours being so close to a number of English ports, well, getting supplies to the beachhead is very quick. It also means that it's easier to defend, it's multiple trips per day. It's better for the wounded too, you can speed up your casualty evacuation, faster is better here as well. South Western France is possible, but unlikely. It feels longer and it also has some risk from the Kreigsmarine units still available. Littoral combat, a couple of schnellboats along the coast, it presents what I think could be unacceptable risks to the Allies, especially in the case of the early, required support to hold that beachhead. Additionally, if it was considered, I'd suggest it would have tied up more Allied naval units, in order to suppress this vulnerability. It's not easy as drop a battle ship, or two, have some destroyers. Every single inlet, bay, little bump in the coast can be used to hide a small boat. If you don't think that's dangerous, ask the crew of the ships that went up the Surigao Strait. Didn't end well for them at all. I'd also suggest it makes air coverage that much harder too, well, it means craft have to spend less time on missions, as they need more travel time. While it seems to not be a Germany first on the face value of, I'd argue it still is. Rather, you're setting Germany up to need to spread its forces wider. Not just for fighting on two fronts, but possibly needing to fight on more like, three, four, three and a half, really. You're keeping them, more at the command level, operational level, thinking about who and where. You're taking up their brain space. Combined with disinformation campaigns and a secure, Allied supply route, well, it's less about where and more about when. To borrow from the Chieftain, it's a point of contact, it's a point of stress. That the more you need to consider, the less time you can give to the specifics of each front. So, therefore, the less specific and direct, targeted solutions you can give, from the operational, strategic level. Even then, I almost want to argue fundamentals of operations post WW1. The success of WW1 armour was in the depth of penetration. What area allows the Allies to get the best depth to their operations, allows them to establish the deepest beachhead. To the degree that they can start to run air operations out of France, not England. To me that is Normandy. To the Wehrmacht thinking, it seems to be much the same, as presented above and to the Allies, supporting a full combined arms force, the same logic seems to apply. If space gives you time to operate, a thing to trade off, trade for, then having the biggest beachhead you can get, in the shortest time will cost you lives, end of statement. However, the cost you pay in the short term, means you don't need to keep gaining a new beachhead each time you want to land forces. Each time you want to get people out, you don't need to fight for it. All of the above, assuming that you keep the main bases, stockpiles, in England and that you then direct the war materiel something like this, US, to UK, to the new Front. In the case of any Med or Black Sea operations, securing a port and then delivering the supplies there, before either continuing on to the UK or returning empty.
.Once the Russians launch "Operation Bagration" on June 22 1944 it was a unstoppable dash to Berlin no matter what happen or did not happen in the west. VIEW • VIEW •
Agreed
It took 11 months with Germany fighting "the West" in Italy and France and in the Defense of the Reich and the Battle of the Atlantic, the two longest battles of the war. Western Front Axis losses, 5,000,000-5,400,000+ casualties. link below Some of the things Germany built that were never or little used against the USSR: The V2 missile the second most expensive weapon produced, the V1 rocket, the Me 262, 1,000 U boats, U boat pens that still stand, flak towers that still stand, the Atlantic wall from the Artic Circle to the border of Spain, the West Wall 390 miles long and the Fritz X the first guided missile. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_(World_War_II)
Ares sees Greece, ares is happy. Any videos you done on the Greeks impact in the war by delaying the German advance into Russia, since the Germans never planned to invade Greece since they thought Italy would deal with them.
If he did a video on that, I suspect it'd be on how it's a common myth that Greece delayed Barbarossa.
@@anderskorsback4104 as someone from Greece trying to read the history as subjectively as possible, i find the biggest lessons in our front for the axis was the complexity in airdrop operations as seen in Crete, and the effect of a violent militaristic resistance in the number of troops stationed in non-essential regions to control them. Barbarossa wasnt really delayed all that much because of Greece, although an intervention from the Germans was important for political reasons towards their allies in Italy.
An attack on the Adriatic coast of the Balkans from southern Italy would have brought Anglo American forces within a few hundred miles of the Romanian oilfields. Once the Red Army overran the Ploesti oilfields in August 1944 the German ability to engage in Tank warfare on any large scale was dramatically degraded. The western allies could have seized or destroyed the oilfields in the summer of 1943 thus shortening the war by a year.
it would of been interesting seeing both soviets and allies link up in Romania and thrust west together LOL
"How to defend the Reich 1944?" Personally I would have started by NOT attacking the Soviet Union in 1941, but that's just me.....
They should have pulled their troops out of Normandy after the Allied Breakout. Germany also should have allowed Retreat from in defense of all positions on the Eastern Front. Germany also should have evacuated Norway in early 1945 and no Battle of the Bulge
Norway would have been a good area to locate airfields for the bombing of Eastern Germany or all of Northern Germany. Also making it safer for the convoys heading to northern Russia.
You butchered Pas de Calais. Nevertheless, a great video.
I don't think anyone alive today did that... least of all the video's author ;)
Denmark would be similiar to italy ... just short frontier but long distance for air support. Netherland would be best or Ostfriesland, that were closer + easier to break out cause Amsterdam - Berlin is just 600 km and you won't have to cross the rhine river ... and still as close to landingzone as Portsmouth - Normandy.
Mountaineous: I see you are playing fast and loose with the English language, well done.
Nazi germany held finland I didnt know that ...I know they had some troops in Stalingrad but thought finland was doing its own thing ...I dont think they had a lot of troops in finland
Finland was independent but on Axis side.
@@armzngunz The term was co- belligerent. They were fighting the Russians for their own reasons (mostly that the Russians attacked first).
Should have attacked S.France 1st and when troops where move from North to South attack N. France
Far too complex and too far away from Berlin and also too far from the bomber and troup carrier "UK mainland" doubled flight times would mean double time of planes + fuel to get the same power at the beachhead. That is not a second sicily or anzio landing campaign .... it's 4 or more times bigger What's the next allied territory to southern france ? Sardinia + Korsika ... both not comparable to mainland UK regarding logistics.
I keep thinking this as well. Operation Dragoon came after D-Day and proceeded very smoothly and quickly, in large part since the Germans were preoccupied with the Normandy coast. If the southern landings had occurred first, then Normandy, a larger German force may have been extended through former Vichy France. Due to logistics, the main effort had to land along the English Channel or North Sea coasts. I still cannot understand why the Allies tried so hard to take Rome as most of the value of the Italian campaign had been realized soon after crossing over from Sicily. The rest of the Italian peninsula was just too easy to defend with minimal manpower.
@@amerigo88 Because Clark wanted to stroke his ego by "taking Rome".
Future generals better take notes...
Like do not go to war with the world.
@@Crashed131963 exactly 😆
It looks totally insane trying to defend all that coastline at the same time. I wonder if it was actually worth the effort tying up millions of men and tons of materiel all spread out and rendered useless. All those troops were despereately needed in the east.
I bet they wish they were able to take Egypt and Gibraltar. :-P
Seems to me like such a terrible waste of fighting men and materiel keeping 380,000 soldiers and even a Panzer Division in Norway.
I think you would have been justified in correcting "Anglo-Saxon" to "Anglo-American".
I think it would have been even better if Saxony had risen up in revolt and joined the allied cause...
Look up WASP countries under the 5 eyes agreement. Australia also counts ;-)
Its very interesting to me that Hitler calls the British Anglo-Saxons
that has nothing to do with hitler, we germans use the term anglo saxon instead of british in many cases. its depending on situation and topic of the conversation.
@@Presbiter Probably because it sounds better to you than being defeated by a country that has predominantly Celtic DNA.
@@Simonsvids nope...we incorporated this term straight from the englisch. Its a term mostly used by academics or in academic conversations. A term only for the higher educated. and btw 30% of white british dna is german ....far in front of celtic dna... ;) www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/18/genetic-study-30-percent-white-british-dna-german-ancestry
@@Presbiter That is very interesting to me. What topics would people normally use Anglo Saxon?
@@alexanderthompson5713 finance being as topic in the frontline also culture and history being another frontrunner as topic if the english speaking sphere is the subject of discussion. these are the two main fields where the term anglo saxson is commonly used.
He didn’t mention nazis once
"The total number of men and women (in the Balkans) was about 612 000 men." Sorry, you do a great job producing these videos, but it was a funny way to put it. Not many women in arms back then. Normandy was a middle of the road target. Not the most indirect (like Iberia) nor the most direct (like the Netherlands). A landing in the Balkans or, perhaps via Sweden, in the Baltic sea would've offered more direct coordination with the Soviets. I suppose logistics and politics dominated the decision to not go there. If I remember correctly, Greece was were German troops were active the longest after the surrender, fighting communist guerrilla with the allies not minding that much. Maybe German activities after the surrender would be interesting to have a look at here? Göring's Forschungsamt (intelligence service) kept gathering information by eves dropping well into the Summer. There were expectations of a continued war between east and west. Also, as after the first world war, some nazis might have thought that all was not lost but that a new build up might become possible.
Did I say "and women"? Well, that was an error.
i always wondered how ww2 would be different if it was greece and Balkans first ....maybe the Balkans would not be communist??? or what if norway and finland first ???
The roads in the Balkans are crap. The Allies get bogged down, the Soviets still get to Rumania and Hungary first. At best, Greece ends up pro-Allied and Yugoslavia somewhere in the middle. Oh yeah, and the French and Italian Communist parties are stronger.
The Allies knew Italy waa the weakest point of entry that dealt with an enemy which could be handled much easier than Germany. A tactic Rommel employed in France when he earned the "Ghost Division" moniker. Rommel saw the weakest point on the defense & took advantage. I wager to say that much like Rommel was behind enemy lines with a significant force in a relatively short time frame with little resistance, the Allies were also behind the lines with significant force to directly threaten Germany without having to have gone through them like we did in Normandy. The straightest line is not always the best route, though it is the shortest possible.
Firstly, the Nazi army wasn't strong enough to win a WW. It should have been 10 million soldiers at least to conquer all Europa and to occupy it. Secondly, Normandy land was the best way for an allies invasion with large beaches without cliffs but just Pointe du Hoc. Omaha beach was a bloody beach because there are hills over the beach and easy to defend and allies shells missed the German positions. But the other beaches of the landing were almost flat. After Normandy fighting the country is made of great plains until the forest of Ardennes and border with Germany and it was easy to go through the enemy lines with a great tank offensive. Normandy invasion was a good plan and anywhere else it could have been more difficult and slower. The challenge was to arrive in Berlin before the red army but it was almost a success and above all don't let Staline occupied all of Europe. In conclusion, the nuts Hitler woke up the Russian bear that invaded almost all Europa and put the world in the cold war for forty years. Nowadays, the world has changed but the threatens as well.
They needed to break the Russians which never hapoen
Erroooor?
I didn't know that Nazis or modern day nationalists consider France being part of The Reich, or is this just a click-bait title?
Why didn't the British just attack with the Soviets rather than opening a second front with all our inherent loss of life?
Many reasons. One that immediately springs to mind is logistics. Even if we could get enough men to make an impact on the Eastern Front they would still need to be constantly supplied which would be a logistical nightmare. I suppose we could send troops and have them use Soviet kit but Russia had Supply problems of her own, hence Lend Lease. Could you imagine how much of a field day the U-boat crews and commerce raiders would have if The Allies had to supply 100,000+ troops through the Baltic? You could walk from Sweden to Denmark over the wreaks of Allied merchant ships.
@@ieuanhunt552 I was thinking when the ice fields opened up in the north, or more simply going the other way from America, but you are still right I think. Though I wonder if politics played a part as they could have done more training/reinforcement, as they WERE already supplying the Soviet union to some extent.
@@fuckfannyfiddlefart TL:DR I prefer talking about tactics, strategies and logistics than politics. Oh there was definitely politics involved. But then again I stay away from politics. I approach history like I do dinner with the in-laws, no religion or politics. Though I am reminded of a line my High school history teacher told me like 10 years ago. "the first action of the Cold War was the Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki". The reason he said that was Hiroshima was (arguably) a militarily justifiable target but America dropped the second atomic bomb partly to make Japan capitulate earlier. They needed to do this so that the Soviets would not invade Japan or her holdings on the mainland. Which would give them a better bargaining position at the end of WW2. This was something America wanted to avoid at all costs, she wants to be the next Big Empire. She is looking around the world at anyone who can stop her. Most of Mainland Europe has either been bombed to smithereens or been occupied by the Nazis, Britain is very powerful but is massively in debt to her and is a close ally. China has been fighting the Japanese since 1933 and is ravaged by civil war. Look around at the state of Geopolitics in say 1944 from a U.S perspective and it makes sense that you would not want to give the USSR any leverage over you in the negotiations.
@@ieuanhunt552 I agree with most everything you say except that; 1. I believe Japan offered to surrender before the first bomb was dropped (see Chomsky) 2. Everything is political, I've discovered that the more people claim or believe they are not political, the more strongly bourgeois they in fact are. But I'm a radical anarcho-communist so make of that what you will. 3. I do wonder how much of the delay of creating the second front was deliberate to destroy communism (after all the West did fight with the white army against the communists and socialists) and to be really speculative if America had decided it could tolerate communism a single united front word have prevented the invasion east in the first place saving millions of lives and containing the Nazis until Hitler's assassination or old age.
@@fuckfannyfiddlefart I'm not sure when the Japanese offered to surrender. I would suspect that even if they did the terms of that surrender was seen as unacceptable by the Americans. For example Japan refusing to give up control/military presence of some of her outer islands like Iow Jima and Okinawa. Or refusing to give up holdings on the mainland like Korea/Manchuria. As for an earlier United front spear headed by the Americans. It's a nice idea but I don't think it's feasible. Especially if you take into account the mood of the American people at the time. They did not want another costly war on another continent. What you have to realise is that WW1 was seen as massively wasteful by the Americans at the time. Maybe in raw numbers they didn't lose as many people as the other Entante powers. But considering they were only fighting in ernest for less than a year their losses were staggering. As for whether America saw Communism as a threat before/during the early War? It's hard to say. I don't think so. The biggest threat to Americas Imperial ambitions pre war were the British and the Japanese. I think Communism was a victim of circumstance. Like I stated earlier when the war ended the only real threat to American hegemony was Soviet Union. I don't think the fact that they were warring Red mattered as much as how terrorfyingly powerful the Red Army was. Make no mistake The Red Army in late 1945 was the most powerful fighting force Europe had ever seen. As for you being an Anarcho Capitalist I am not going to comment upon that. I prefer discussing History to economics/politics. Though if you must know I would describe myself as a Democratic Socialist. With some Republican sympathies.
Answer: you can't
Κανένας Έλληνας?
THE FATHERLAND WILL NOT FALL!!!!
Islam has invaded. Fatherland is now hamburgstan or berlinstan.
IT IS ÄWÄRI TEIM WÄRIE NEIS TU HIER JUR WELL PRONAUNZET JÖRMAN INGLISCH!!! :D