Blitzkrieg tactics explained | How Hitler invaded France WW2 

Need it now more than ever!

Yes same,

Sickness! On how to invade France...this age? Never...gone are yester years.

Call of war?😂

Bitteschön

Glad you enjoyed it

Yes it’s pacing and graphic illustrations kept my attention and was easy to follow and comprehend..

I think Lenin said it.

and winter

@@fuadahmed5501 no it was stalin

Yes it is quantity beats quality in times like that

@@fuadahmed5501 no is stalin

If you want to believe Guderian’s version of the facts.

Basil Liddell-Hart predated all of those guys.

Armies prepare for the last war. France was ready for more trench warfare.

France destroyed 50% of the luftwaffe by itself, while communists sabotaged their own factories and country for the sake of the german-russian peace treaty

The French communists were committing acts of sabotage against France’s Air Force btw

@@aa6dcc source?

@@shagger-dz2dycommies bad

@@smtandearthboundsuck8400 im waiting for a source.

Tbh I'm not a history expert or any kind but the way i see it Napoleon and Hitler did the most fatal mistake by attacking their ally, Russia.

@@NoOne-rf4fc Both of them were confident that Russia would be easy to navigate and that Russians would surrender like the European countries once the capitals are captured. “Scorched Earth“ tactic and guerilla warfare weren't whay they expected - Russians basically were willing to destroy their houses, cities and manufacturing plants to stop the conqueror from finding anything useful. They went as far as burning Moscow when Napoleon was close to the city with overwhelming forces - Napoleon entered the dead city with no Russian people with only smoldering ruins all around and no food to be found. No chance against that kind of resolve.

Napoleon: “The ablest Army cannot defeat a nation of people who have decided to win or die.”

That's exactly what they did. Also blitzkrieg doesn't exist.

@@NoOne-rf4fc Napoleon was already at war with Russia when they attacked Prussia.

Schwarzkopf was a beast you could tell he had learned a lot from history

We had total air superiority . And superiority in everything. Our training and weapons systems were vastly superior… It was nowhere near to a fair fight. Pretty much prime Tyson or Lennox beating some amateur. Not so with ww2 Nazi Germany . French & British were actually stronger and should have won . Nazis actually had quite a few inferior weapons, due to Versailles treaty they had perpetual trouble with trained reservists. Their line officers were in lot of cases people way over 40+. And 40+ back in 1930s, 40s is not same as in 21st century…If French Army & British Army had generals that were not dinosaurs , braindead relics , Germany would have been crushed in 1939. If they went east , If mass murderer Stalin didn’t purge Tuhachevsky & most of officer core, they would have been crushed at frontiers ….

@@digitalcommunist6335 you do know the Iraq army was the 4th strongest army at the time of the gulf war right?

@@skylerspringsteen5730 lmao. sure . and sadam was hitler , according to then discovery channel fairy tales ..

@@skylerspringsteen5730 No way the Iraq army was 4th strongest, they lacked way too much thing, they didn't even produce their own tanks and planes.

Not to mention the Polish were still using horses for military combat when the Nazi's invaded. I'm no General but to me its pretty obvious, Panzers > horses.

Also meth, lots of meth...

@@lukejennings5714 so they conquered half europe because it was weak??

@@sayedabbas5987 well not really. Germany lost the first world war. And that manifested in resentment and a NEED to make the allies pay for their frankly shitty treatment of the german people post ww1. The common person in Germany suffered a lot under "reparation taxes". So basically the entirety of Germany felt unfairly treated. Thus they actually looked at WHY they lost from every angle they could

@@sayedabbas5987 Which is also why they innovated. A whole slew of things you use every day (or they used to at least) was invented by Nazi Germany to regain the massive disadvantage of lesser numbers. One such invention was TANKS that was invented during ww1, but no one really used. Ww1 tanks were more troop carriers than canons on tracks. Germany changed that. They created cheap automobiles, roads and everything they needed. All of this with the thought in the back of their minds. NEXT TIME we won't surrender, next time they don't get to treat us like this

A helpful source was an essay called the Tukhachevsky affair by Grover Furr. Furr has some Stalin apologist tendencies in his public appearances but his books and essays stick closely to translated primary sources. The impression I got was that he tries to stretch the implications of some evidence, but his arguments and sources are valuable and interesting in the broader context of the mainstream historical narrative. Its been a few years since I last read his work, so I may be misremembering a little bit.

comrade why are you using german tactics

@@derpvogel4637 because its usefulll friend

@@derpvogel4637 *our tactics

Wait aobuow did you use a military tactic in chess, I am very interested.

Seriously?

how did the rest of the nfl catch on?????

@@abdihassan7208 The Bills' "no-huddle" offense strategy worked on the less-talented defenses of the AFC, but when the Bills met the NFC East superior defenses in the Super Bowl, their offense was always dominated.

Hitler didn't have the ships/subs/aircraft to invade England, he thought that after France fell that England would surrender or seek a non-aggression treaty, some British parliamentarians were still arguing for peace until the war cabinet crisis in May 1940. Hitler was still hopeful of a diplomatic resolution even in July, after Operation Barbarossa kicked off. England blockaded Germany by sea so they couldn't import resources by sea. Germany was reliant on oil from Russia and they didn't expect their pact with Russia to hold out, and their ability to fight would have been compromised when it ceased, and it did. Rather than wait for Russia to switch sides when they had prepared for it, they thought a quick invasion would catch them off guard and they would have a similar success like they had in France. The major weakness of the Axis is that they didn't co-ordinate major campaigns well, had Japan hit Russia at the same time as they did the result probably would have been different. Russia barely hung on and threw everything on the front, if they were hit from two fronts and had to split their forces then history probably would be very different. England really wasn't much of a threat to Germany during the period of Operation Barbarossa, Operation Sea Lion (the invasion of England) had pretty much been put on hold while England largely fought a defensive campaign at that time via Battle of Britain where Hitler was trying to gain air superiority. England had naval superiority and they couldn't effectively invade England until that was addressed and it takes time to build ships, subs and planes. The vast majority of their military would have been idle had they not invaded Russia.

@@vimzim8576 There was no reason for the Japanese to attack Russia at all. They would never have done it. The Germans was doomed from the start

@@cuchuoi12 Actually no. Territorial ambitions of the Japanese varied among their military, the army wanted to attack the USSR while the navy wanted to focus on southeast asia and the Pacific. The Japanese themselves thought of the Soviets as their biggest enemy, not the Americans or the British so it's surprising that they refused to aid Germany when doing so would've most probably resulted in a decisive victory for the axis.

@@phatlewt2932 IJA (strike north) and IJN (strike south) were in constant power struggle and never cooperated until the end of war. IJA lost momentum and political support after defeats to the Soviets in Khalkin Gol, handing IJN the initiative abd support to execute its strike south plan. It's not that the Japanese didn't want to attack Siberia, it's the internal infighting in Japan that prevented it from helping Germany in any meaningful way.

The Germans lacked the oil (fuel) to wage their war of movement. They attacked the Caucuses region in the Soviet Union in order to obtain the oil there, but failed to penetrate deep enough.

They are very very different also blitzkrieg does not exist.

And the Germans deployed units of zombies so they didn’t need food or water

No fuckin way germans hopped on meth?

This was actually far less important than Ohler would have you believe. This myth came from his terrible book. Yes, Pervitin was used - however by less than 10% of all frontline troops. Allied soldiers were taking the same stuff, at least where it was needed most (pilots). Methamphetamine provides limited benefit to an infantry soldier - it might give a straight 24 hours of high performance but they’re going to be crippled for several days following that. Had what Ohler suggested been true the Germans would’ve lost on day three, as they’d have had a million men tweaking talking to shadow people and starving. Methamphetamine isn’t useful to infantry. The Luftwaffe were the main users - and their allied counterparts used Amphetamine, which is shorter acting and less harmful than methamphetamine and would be my choice if I had to fly a plane for eight hours. Crediting Pervitin with the success is in a irate - in reality it played a very small role and offered limited benefit. You just can’t artificially stop sleep and secrete dopamine and adrenaline indefinitely. The human body has limits. I would much prefer a well rested squad of ten soldiers then twenty who’d stayed up the whole night tweaking for two days prior. They would be useless.

@@BryanJohnson4891 you make some good points, but this is asuming they didnt sleep at all, they may have been taking a low enough dose, where there came a time where they need sleep for a few hours then wake up and take another tablet, they would have still been getting enough sleep to not be seeing shadow people, and taking just enough so they never start withdrawing, low doses of ampethamine based tablets are going to enhance anyones performance at anything, ive tried certain prescription ones myself and still ate slept and performed better at my job if i happened to take one that day, so yes it played a big role.

Allies did take benzos, but pervitin use was rampant in the German military, especially in tank crews (probably the most important part of blitzkrieg) and air crews (second most important part if not a 1B). Was it the most important part? No, but it did help.

No, it was more like the Allies did everything in their power to lose. But still won.

Sorry about that David, we'll bear that in mind for future episodes!

Use the captions to help you

Hi David. Try using the closed captions. Cheers.

The maginot line had extended up through Belgium also, but they pulled out of the deal in 37(?) instead choosing neutrality as their course of action. Also the bulk of the allied army was in Belgium, expecting this exact strategy to take place. They met the German force head on, to mixed success but certainly not disaster. It was the German spearhead through the Ardennes (north france, south Belgium) that cut the bulk of the army off from mainland france and the maginot, this is how they won. Just think, the allied army retreated to dunkirk / Lille, these are in northern france. If the army was being pushed from the north, surely they’d retreat south. Instead they were attacked from the south east, and pushed north west.

​@@finndaniels9139 This is why European arrogance and complacency was so incredibly stupid for up to 20 years since the end of World War One, and of course, the first three years of World War II.

Yeah Hitler was embarrassed to say the least by how country signed the treaty during WW1 so he wanted to embarassed France in the same way......as for Britain he actually didn't want to go to war against them....he didn't have a problem with them existing he hated France, and he hated the Soviet Union.

Are you going to publish it. If so what is it called and where can I find it?

@@jamespetrovsky2774 I am gonna publish it. It's not what people think. It's like an action thriller story with the dna of Bourne series, John Wick series, 007 films, and some mix of war influenced stories. It's a comics afterall.

@@bastardjustice No way! What's it going to be called?

@@jamespetrovsky2774 I will title it Heaven or Hell. Lol There will also be religious motifs. The protagonist's name will be Gabriel. He's gonna be some kind of a super agent with a mysterious past. His agency's mission is not gonna be focused only on espionage, infiltrations and sabotage. But also to bring justice in all corners of the globe.

@@bastardjustice Sounds cool

Well? How is it going?

Try this ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PQr8J-7QZxA.html

And after that you get pegged by your girlfriend

@@0o0lolwut6 bruh

@@0o0lolwut6 Fallacy. Hoi4 players dont have girlfriends

Don’t be silly

Unfortunately they lost And now slowly victors are removing Positive things about 3rd Reich and brainwashing childrens that adolf was absolute evil monster

@@Alexander..69 “It’s the winning side that writes the history books” -Adolf Hitler

@@Kingx90 yes that's what am saying My country is far from europe but almost everyone knows about hitler even childrens I Asked questions to them : who was he? his profession? Country atleast? We don't know Was he good or bad? He was most Evil person How do you know that he was most evil person? we heard Peoples say he was evil here peoples are so uneducated and uninterested in history that they don't even know name of founder of our country but they know hitler was evil monster

@@Kingx90 Love to see the Nazis justify the Holocaust and unprovoked invasion of Europe + 60 million dead in the History books….

An initial KnockDOWN punch.

It's just catching the other country off guard. Surprise attacks are sneaky.

De Gaulle wrote something akin to blitzkrieg too. Basically anyone who wasn't stuck in their old ways could see something like that coming.

That's why the Germans succeeded at first when attacking Russia because of blitzkrieg on a small part of Russia. after that because of the large amount of land the element of suprise was gone. And that's where the russians had more troops and quantity.

effective at first russian wave, millions of russian soldier surrender, but they where axhausted when russian reinforcement arrive

@@Gym_Demon They were successful at first because the Soviets weren't prepared at all. It's not until later in the invasion, when the Soviets moved all production far east, they won due to attrition. The Soviets had more men and resources both, and were more effective at producing weaponry than the Germans were.

@@Dennis19901 yup.

And they don't really had the resources to wage war into the gigantic vast ussr.(not only oil but nearly everything) so they relied on suprise attacks and mass murders to hope that the soviet's morale will eventually fall but unfortunately for them the russians were willing to be killed by a longer bearded lunatic man than being conquered by some territories

Yes!

Yep

They probably would have taken Ukraine by now if they had used these tactics.

@@mikesmyth6576 They're not trying to take all of Ukraine.

@@gracialonignasiver6302 If russia uses Blitzkrieg on Ukraine they might have taken all of Ukraine in 6 weeks

Blitzkrieg isn’t a specific tactic, it’s a sort of catch all term for the various tactics and strategies that encompass the sort of ‘mobile warfare’ area specifically relating to German early war tactics Had the schlieffen plan worked, I suppose you could describe it as a sort of blitzkrieg, but it is missing the mechanisation and combined arms aspects that characterised the tactics of Nazis in ww2. That being said, mobile warfare designed around bypassing strong points is hardly new, it has existed for hundreds of years

Glad you enjoyed it

Thanks for watching!

neek

@@imotan9242 ???

Thank you so much I mean seriously.

Incredibly overrated aspect of WW2. Less than a tenth of German frontline soldiers used the stuff

Blietzkrieg won't work now, aiming technology for vehicle and artillery is better and satellite exist.

@@brianr.6376 Are you sure though? I would argue it's still possible, just with drones and maybe space death rays (don't think we quite have those yet at least officially). But yeah on the ground tank and infantry blitzkrieg wouldn't work today. Unless you could knock out or communication systems

There wont be real war with soldiers no more now it will be hackers shuting down the entire country because of how dependent we are on technology

Azerbaijan butchered Armenia from the air. UAV strikes against military targets that had no idea what was happening. I think it was the technology advantage that ended that war really fast

@@SpectralKnight It won't work. here's no element of surprise anymore. Both sides have access to live and very easy communication. And the very vital supply lines for the spearhead is very easily cut off just by destroying a single road or a bridge with long ranged ballistics.

that would be Stalin and Lenin

imagine if they had done that, world will be better

The French had lost too many tanks during the time leading up to Dunkirk. And they had already committed their strategic reserve. Blitzkrieg tactics kept them too disorganized.

I believe the French superiority in tanks was thrown away by the French command using the tanks piecemeal rather than en masse.

@@royfernley3153 They saw the tank as an infantry support weapon...their tanks also lacked radios which since the German tanks had these, gave the attacker a big advantage...