This had a huge impact on the world population today. Germany had 79 million prople in 1939, which is about the same as now (83). Poland had 35 million, now 36. But when you look at most countries that wasn’t a part of the war at that time - their population has grown by 50-100%
27:55 About this it's important to keep mind that the country was called Austria-Hungary at that time and that it was a multi-national state that incuded people from many different etnic backgrounds. This fact then caused many Austrians to join the pan-germanist movement, which was basically about joining all german-speaking territories into one country. Hitler was obviously one of those people.
Casualties normally include anything that prevents a soldier from being an active combatant. So that could even include road accidents, illnesses and missing in action. It doesn’t have to be a permanent loss. “Come and see” is an incredible film, I agree, but is actually about anti-partisan atrocities in Belorussia (modern Belarus), a couple of years after the Einsatzgruppen massacres of Jews. Those took place almost entirely in 1941, in the months immediately after the invasion of the Soviet Union. Although it’s mentioned, it’s somewhat glossed over that about 3 million Soviet prisoners of war were killed (mainly by starvation) in the same period, the second half of 1941. And several million Soviet soldiers died then too. So those six months were probably the most lethal of the war. The historical atrocity numbers are a bit hazy, to say the least. Check out the An Lushan revolt for example. They’ve taken the highest estimate, which is almost certainly incorrect. Portugal was involved in WWI of course, as you know. And some ‘forgotten’ countries were in WWII. For example, Brazil had tens of thousands of troops fighting with the Allies in Italy. I would definitely recommend Borderlands, by Timothy Snyder, to get a good overview of the Soviet and Nazi atrocities in Eastern Europe, including in the years before the war. Many books look at Nazi atrocities in Poland, and ignore those happening just over the border after the Soviet invasion of eastern Poland. A family memoir covering this topic is Daniel Finkelstein’s Hitler, Stalin, Mum and Dad. Possibly easier to read! If you haven’t watched Downfall, you should. Right now. One of the best films I’ve seen. And the start of endless memes.
Very good reaction. I’m an American. One of my grandfathers served in the Pacific and saw kamikazes hit ships at Okinawa. My other granddad was a physics grad student that did grunt work for the manhattan project. I really enjoy your channel!
Sitting here having my morning coffee realizing,my grandfather was in WWII, my father was in the Vietnam war. it's a wonder I'm here with my family today 🙏
Ahh, Come and See. Yes that is a very interesting film as well. There is a Serbian film called "Neprijatelj" (The Enemy) about the end of the Bosnian conflict, which is also very good, and similarly haunting. It's hard to track down a legit copy of it, but it's worth it.
As a Greek, both my grandparents fought in ww2 (and ww1 and the balcan wars and the stupid failed asia minor campaign). To answer you question about casuatlies. In general K.I.A. soldiers are indeed measure differently but casualties are measuring both dead and wounded. The idea of PTSD as we know it today was non existent, however, since ww1 there was the notion of "shell shocked" which is basically considered to be how they interpreted PTDS. And yes, soldiers who would be considered not fit to take part in military operations due to "shell shock" or "mental break down" would be listed in the casaualties list. In fact, during WW2, there were several different definitions of what, we today, call PTSD and they all were legitimate reasons to be shipped out of the front lines. Normally, individuals suffering from "shell shock" would be send to sanatoriums and doctors would determine when or if they can be returned to active duty.
Gotta say, Nazi Germany DID NOT GO EASY IN ANY WAY ON THE UK!!!! They didn't invade because they were unable to gain air superiority over Britain! The also lacked control of the channel. In addition, Germany didn't have the Naval logistics to mount a larger scale amphibious invasion! You should watch a documentary or read a book about the Blitz/ the Battle of Britain.
I concur...Sea Lion was much more about propaganda and scaring the British people into giving up and negotiating peace with Germany. The best recent video I have seen on the subject is from the channel Time Travels called Bitchler's Crazy Plan to Invade UK...but there have been a few good videos that cover the subject. Please excuse my codeword...it helps cut down on deletions by the YT algo...and it is fun to call that person a bitch. LOL
@@iKvetch558 I actually disagree with Sea Lion being strictly a propaganda move. Had Goering been able to destroy the RAF, all of the dominoes would have fallen into place. The Nazis would have gained control of the Channel. And even with insufficient Naval resources, Hitler being the maniac gambler he was would have attempted an invasion. Reason being, immediately following Dunkirk, the British Army was under equipped.
German soldiers did they considered the English soldiers as brothers fighting in another uniform they saw themselves as the same people compared to a soviet or an American who they saw as enemies
21:19 I know that it may sound a little strange to some people - but world peace after 1945 until "today" was also due to the merit or efforts of a small government city - Bonn on the Rhine in Germany (West). For 40 years, the politicians in this small town were supposed to reorganize world politics with their partners in the world, give precedence to international law, work towards peace through bilateral and multilateral agreements and symbolic gestures of peace (kneeling in Warsaw), normalize tensions and be the bridge between the Americans and Russians, just in case the "wire" between the two got hot again. And all against the one background: "Never again!" I have no intention of putting Germany in a good light. But I believe that today everyone would say that Germany has made itself, has become a peace-loving state, serves peace and addresses the problems of the world. And I believe that this period of peace after 1945 is also based on the efforts of the old "Bonn Republic" in Germany (West). In 1999, the government in Bonn is dissolved and it is decided to return to Berlin. The Cold War is over - the Bonn period, as a child of the cold war, also.
I had no idea this film existed so thank you for making me aware of it and thanks for your reaction. ps - at least we got a superb symphony from Shostakovich out of Leningrad.
England officially declared war against the European Axis forces two days after the war started and declared war against Japan the day after America did. But this is not when “hostilities” began, especially in Asia. World War 1 was so horrific that nobody wanted a repeat of it. As a result the countries that had the most power to stop the aggression, did very little. Japan started aggression in 1931, and roughly five years later Germany and Italy announced they were taking this country annd that and that to make their country for one made up reason after another. In some cases like Austria there was a small pro-German sentiment, so Germany seized the entire country and not wanting another war, the allies let it happen.
I could have sworn that you folks had already reacted to this one, but obviously not. It is great to see you folks react to it now. The only issue that I have with the video is that it does not include all nations with civilian deaths...some nations are left off their list. I am not sure whether the numbers are still included in the overall total, but I assume that they are, and that the nations that were left out were to save time/space? For example, it may or may not be a small issue, but the US lost 12k civilian merchantmen during the war, and Canada lost another several thousand, and neither is indicated in the numbers Halloran gives for civilian deaths. Yes, those small numbers make it seem like it is not really very important...but then again, isn't it important to note ALL the sacrifices made by ALL the countries? I mean, weren't the men who died in the Battle of the Atlantic fighting just as hard to keep the UK and USSR free as many of the British and Soviets themselves? Aren't their deaths just as important to at least make note of? I do not know what other nations have been left off, but other folks have told me that their nation was not on the list...I have not gone as far as to try and verify that info. Sorry, I know those are relatively small things for Halloran to leave out in the grand scheme of his video, and I don't want to make a big deal of it...I just want to let you folks know that even this terrific and impactful video has some small items that were left out. It was really interesting to hear you folks talk about Unit 731, and you are of course completely correct. But I wonder if you have ever heard of the Japanese "3 Alls policy"? The Japanese called it Sanko Sakusen, it was enacted in China...where it is known as Sanguang Zhengce...and the policy was to "kill all, burn all, loot all." It was Japan's version of "scorched earth", but done on somebody else's land instead of on their own. Of course, Japan also had a plan for something like scorched earth for their own land when the Allies invaded Japan's home islands starting in November of 1945. One part of those plans was the mobilization of millions of Japan's civilians into the Volunteer Fighting Corps...or Kokumin Giyu Sentotai in Japanese...and the Japanese military planned to use millions of nearly unarmed civilians pretty much as human shields for Japan's fully equipped combat troops. Anyway, a lot of folks do not know those things about Japan in WW2...sorry to end my comments on such a dark note.
A dark note, but a very true one. In many ways WWII really started in 1937 when Japan invaded China. I have seen a lot of movies that deal with that, but I still feel that people only always now about the european attrocities
Yes, PTSD would be a valid and accepted reason to leave the armed forces in Britain and would be counted as a casualty. I believe it is the same in the USA. 3:09
The reason for the long peace is nuclear weapons. I grew up in Miami and was in Highschool during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The was an incident where a USSR submarine armed with nuclear weapons was cut off from communications with Moscow. At the time they didn't know if they were at war. They proceeded with orders issued in such circumstances which were to have a vote of 3 officers on weather to launch nuclear weapons against the US. Two of the officers voted in favor of such actions while one, Vasili Arkhipov, voted against. Only a unanimous vote could trigger a launch. When the sub finally was able to communicate with Moscow, they of course learned that they were not at war. Vasili Arkhipov was named The Man Who Saved the World in 2002 by Thomas S. Blanton US Director of National Security Archives. Vasili Arkhipov did not want to cast a vote that would have led to a nuclear Holocaust. MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, the belief that there are no winners in a nuclear war, has kept the world at peace all these years. Nuclear weapons are the best deturent against war by the major powers.
That and the extensive buffer zone in between the Soviet Union and what became NATO that Stalin secured at the inter-allied conferences during the war. That space of several countries reduced the Soviets' entirely reasonable national security concerns about more possible aggression coming from their west, as did the demilitarization of Japan from their east. It also allowed both sides adequate warning time of possible incoming bombs or missiles to be able to do diplomacy and sort things out before having to fire off their nukes. All of that is now gone, due to the genius idea of expanding NATO instead of disbanding it like it should have been, when the Soviet Union was dismantled by its leadership.
3:49 My father suffered from what they called *Bi-Polar Depression* all his life. Having electro-convulsive therapy ever 10 years. And taking Lithium tablets all his life too. Until he eventually killed himself at the age of 75. *His death wasn't recognised as a war death.* Even though he flew gliders across the channel, dropping off soldiers into occupied France. And then finding his own way back to England and then repeating the process many many times. They simply called it *Shellshock* or *Battle Fatigue.* not PTSD
I recommend vampire hunter d bloodlust 2000 and ninja scroll 1993 It’s a good movie and have beautiful Art anime You can watch both movie in dub it’s ok and if you want dark anime I recommend Berserk: Ougon Jidai-hen I - Haou no Tamago 2012 There is three part of the movie. This anime really popular among anime fan And please watch this one in Sub It’s a lot better
Years ago a family relative did research into the history of my family and found since atleast the year 1700 no one had served in the military nor fought in any war in the last 324 years. Possibly longer but they couldn't find much info before the year 1700.
I only know about how the US armed forces handled PTSD. During the war they called it "Combat Fatigue", and they had worked out a general rule that after about 120 days involving combat, the average soldier's Combat Effectiveness would drop to zero, unless they were sociopaths. So they could plan to limit each man's time in the front lines and how long each unit should be kept at the front, to try to spread out the Combat Fatigue in such a way as to preserve Effectiveness. Combat Effectiveness was highest after completing advanced training, like for Paratroopers and Rangers who had to train for two years, and then would decline over time as they took part in battles. I don't know what terminology or theory the other combatant countries had about it, but everyone was aware of Shell Shock from WW1. The US was able to control how many hours of fighting their soldiers suffered quite well, but it wasn't so easy for countries which had to fight long attritional warfare, especially when the fighting was in their own territory, like for the Soviets and China, where they just had to keep fighting no matter what. The Soviet Union had planned for a high level of attrition, and constructed their war industries accordingly during the 1930s, to be able to keep equipping hundreds of thousands of new soldiers every few months with a much higher speed of production than anyone else had planned for. So even if they had to let soldiers keep fighting until they were broken men and women, they were ready to replace them ahead of time. The Soviets always expected to be invaded, because of capitalist hatred of the Bolshevik Revolution. They just didn't know which countries it would be and when, and they played for time to expand their production and their forces before it happened.
Excellent comment. I just add alot of people ask why didn't the Soviet Union attack the Germans before the Germans them. My answer Stalin knew all to well if that happened everyone would ally with Germany and the CCCP would be done for.
@@ptthatswhatshesaid No worries. I don't mind waiting for the lottery to pick my submission. What I meant by my comment is that whenever my submission is chosen, I think you will enjoy seeing another aspect of WW2. And "Greyhound" really conveys to the viewer that WW2 was truly a world at war.
Soviets lost so many because Stalin gutted his own officer corps before the war, killing hundreds of good officers and jailing in gulags the rest. What was left was officers terrified to think for themselves and thus they were in utter chaos before the invasion. Luckily they managed to recover, and also better still they had new equipment like the T34’s coming in. Stalin also managed to turn the war in to a patriotic crusade, and because the Germans were so brutal to the Russian population, they lost the chance to have probably millions of Ukrainians, and other Slav populations under soviet control join them.
@@ptthatswhatshesaidWhen you write "historically" that's an EXTREMELY BROAD characterization, even for WW2. The concept of "shell shock" was a well documented and popularly known issue during and immediately after the First World War twenty years earlier. I would argue that by WW2, only the most conservative people, like General Patton, would be part of a minority of people who would consider shell shock to be a form of cowardice.
You might like the movie.... Enemy at the Gates 2001...which takes place at the time of the Battle of Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-1943...stars Jude Law and Rachel Weisz.
Really bad movie in that westerners think that movie is based on facts (good movie for entertainment though). No, Russian soldiers weren't given ammunition and a rifle between 2 people and there wasnt machine gun teams behind them shooting anyone who retreated. Unfortunately people watch that movie and think these things were true.
@@jimbobjimjim6500 I'd say we have a big number of both ukrainian and russian immigrants here, but more ukrainians I think, both groups are quite well integrated. Portugal, as a country, is a member of NATO
Although that could be considered a civil war, those countries emerged from those wars (although I know some of them existed before Yugoslavia existed)
I think the Soviet/Russian military has command and control systems very different from the west. There are no non-commissioned officers (corporals, sergeants etc) in the Russian army as I understand it, just officers and grunts. The leadership and operational organization of the western system would be expected to be more efficient and more flexible in battle.
euh, just some info i need clarified, i was under the impression that Nazi was a political party and Germany was a country. German army soldiers went to war but they were not all Nazi. not even all the Germany commanders were Nazi. is that not like saying that the soldiers of the united states are Republican soldier instead of American soldiers. please advise and inform me if i am wrong.
I now know that the creator of this video later apoligized for using the expression nazi soldiers, because yes, they were german soldiers, no matter their political affiliation
9:20 The invasion was indeed a failure. Or do you think being driven out of foreign territory and pushed back to your capital is a successful invasion?
Seriously, guys, can't you pause the video or at least talk less? I know it's a reaction video, but you're talking over the entire thing and not even pausing, with the exception of a few times when you do. How do we know you heard or understood what they were saying? You probably missed some things.
As usual the USA started late and took all the glory while the UK in particular faced the war alone for almost a year before the Soviet Union came into it against the Nazis.
You'd think in that year the UK would have been able to take a little glory for themselves. Chased out of Norway, chased out of Belgium, chased out of France, chased out of Greece, chased out of Crete. Very little glory to be gained.
🇺🇸 we wouldn't have had any business over there if you guys controlled the situation better. It's not our fault you're a tiny island with little resources. Not the best planning for a place that once ruled half the world
Yugoslavia is nowhere near the war in Ukraine (which started in 2014 as a civil war) at least in terms of casualties. Number of deaths in Yugoslavian wars was around 140,000 with all sides included and with both civilian and military deaths.
I remember a huge number of immigrants from former yugoslavia when I was a little kid in Switzerland (90's). I also remember some instances when people went back to go fight actually
The main difference between the Japanese and the Americans was the Americans were much wealthier. So they could afford to kill and terrorize civilians with firebombings and nukes instead of killing them in person on the ground. Also,most of the deaths under the Japanese,including their own troops,were from starvation and disease, due to lack of resources and logistical ability. Japanese were brutal to POWs because they didn't believe soldiers should surrender and did not expect their own soldiers who dared to surrender to be treated any better, which they weren't in most cases, because they were usually executed in the field by the Americans.
lol, and what do you think Japanese troops were doing to millions of civilians all across Asia? Had the nukes not existed, a land invasion would have been needed and cost far more civilian lives.
@@Seek1878 The Japanese were killing and terrorizing on the ground the same way the US was killing and terrorizing them from the air like I said. Instead of demanding unconditional surrender just making some small face saving concessions would have ended the war, and the US knew it .
The reason for the high casualties is not just the cannon fodder trope. Its a combination of bad leadership, untrained conscripts, lack of incompetent officers. Stalin purged all of his capable generals before the war not to mention the element of surprise since they really thought that Germany will honor the non aggression pact that they both signed. But in the midterm of the war the Soviets already established their production, their soldiers are battle hardened and their officers are well experienced Germany realized too late that they messed up. They know the Soviets is about to steamroll through Berlin.
