The Day When Hitler Lost the War 

Rather stupid of Hitler to believe an addict's delusions of grandeur.

Britain was defeated.

He told Hitler what Hitler insisted on hearing. Reminds me of someone in today’s political world…

@theboot801 It is very true that Hitler and Trump have that in common, insisting on being told what they want to hear (and so as a consequence being delusional and disconnected from reality). As for Goring being wrong about his Air Force destroying Britain’s, well, never trust a man who carries a fruity baton around as part of his military costume lol.

Had Hitler not switched to bombing cities in Britain instead of airfields Germany may well have won the battle of Britain. We are all very lucky that Hitler was an idiot.

Not trying to support someone like that, but the that E-4 mopped up all of Europe, several African states and the Baltics in less than four years. His only error was declaring war on both Russia and the US.

this is a very absurd comment... thanks

@@AbsurdityViewer Truly~

@@AbsurdityViewer Comment is totally justified. Hitler was INSANE had confident of his own infallibility. He imagined that he could tell generals how to wage war, and he was 100% WRONG.

you're naive to think wars are only fought by the "military", there were no glory for German "generals and field marshals" without Hitler's political skills that brought Germany to it's peak height in the first place.

Ruskich nikt nie pokona z zachodu chyba że chińczycy zażądają zwrotu! miliona kilometrów kwadratowych ziemi ukradzionych przez ruskich! W Rosji życie człowieka dla władzy jest nic nie warte! Poświęcać mogą miliony ludzi i nikt nie da rady ich zabić! No i mają tysiące kilometrów głębi strategicznej i mroz ze śniegiem! Powodzenia!

We were already in undeclared war, we had sunk u boats and were supplying the Soviets and British and Chinese, Hitler just called a spade a spade

No. June 22nd 1941 sealed his fate. They were already losing prior to Moscow and had absolutely zero chance of taking the city. Their logistical train had lost efficiency well before The Battle of Moscow in late 1941 and they had suffered more casualties and lost equipment against the Soviet Union then in all previous battles put together by a country mile. By the time D-Day rolled around the Wehrmacht had lost all their territory they had conquered against the Red Army, and now were facing threats to their allies like Hungary and Romania. An argument can be made that had the allies not landed in 1944 then the Red Army would have just occupied all of continental Europe, after rolling up Germany.

They could of beaten the Soviet’s.

@@juncondoonflanjacontose7399 indeed in a straight fight yes they could of.

He thought he was a demigod and was destined to rule the world, and with divine help he couldn’t fail.

Like all meglomaniacs, he wasn't. His ego prevented him from doing so.

Early wins blinded him and he was coked out of his fuckin skull a lot of the time.

A gamble that speed would bring him to victory. He and most of the generals thought Russia would fall quickly. Then they could wrap things up and consolidate and fortify. That didn't happen. There was really no way that it could have happened. But the Germans were absolutely horrible at interpreting GOOD intel that they had in hand.

@@electrolytics it didn't help that hitler ignored any sound advice he got from his generals. Like during the battle for Berlin, he wanted them to move imaginary divisions into place to counterattack

Wrong, the decision to invade Russia, from Germany’s perspective back then, was the right decision. It was how they went about it that was all wrong. They didn’t have enough oil supply and were reliant on Russia’s exporting it to Germany. Russia could switch it off at any time and invade Germany, which its military buildup in the late 1930s and attacking Finland, an ally of Germany, threatened. Germany tried to bypass its basic oil and rubber supply flaw, by developing more advanced tanks, planes and rockets. But they weren’t perfected and they wasted their dwindling supplies and time on them. Instead of just building the proven weapons. Panther 3 tanks. U boats, 109s and stuker planes. Bc they didn’t have enough oil to feed them. Or enough rubber for truck tyres, for their logistics. They needed to amass more oil and rubber, and keep it underground, safe from allied bombs. Then they could’ve starved Britain imo surrender and used the Royal Navy to help conquer the USA. In exchange for leniency and cooperation with the British. Germany also needed to stop Britain helping the USA to develop nukes. Then Germany would’ve got them soon, by late 1946, early 1947. They needed the oil, in the Caucasus region of Russia, to do this. It was a catch 22 situation for Germany. They needed the oil to fuel their weapons and trucks. But they needed those weapons and trucks to get the oil, and defend from potential counter attacks, that Hitler was paranoid about. They did actually manage to capture some of the Caucasus oilfields. But the oil wells were destroyed by the Russians and losing at Stalingrad, made Russian counter attacks there inevitable. With a slower buildup and halting at Smolensk for the winter of ‘41/‘42, Germany could’ve succeeded their primary objectives. Blitzkrieg was the wrong strategy, for an area 10 times bigger than all their previous conquests.

Exactly. Ego caused him to over extend himself and think he was undefeatable. I read an article about a German officer who visited the US after the war and as soon as he saw the manufacturing might of the US (at the time) he responded with "what were we thinking"?

31st July 1940 at burgtesgarten.

WRONG,..The 2,000 (of which 830 bombers) planes he lost in the Battle of Britain lost Hitler the war,. If he had those planes he would have taken Greece quicker and started Barbarossa a month earlier and would have taken Russia before the winter set in~

If the sickle and the swastika were aligned the world would be much different today

Correction, 5.7m russians died, the rest were ppl from the minority regions and other territories occupied by the soviet union.

@@capusvacans Looks like we are both wrong en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union

When "historians" tell about "bad Stalin" it's "20 millions", but when they tell about "USSR victims of Hitler" it's many times less. The problem is Devil runs the world. He is lier and murderer. This is the reason why deception and violence are everywhere. This is the reason why Hitler got the power, but Christ was executed as "blasphemer" and "rioter" by denunciation of clergy. That's why we've got the Gospel about the God's kingdom. Jehovah would put everything in order. The dead will be resurected and we'll meet our loved ones again! :-)

Putler especially forgets that...

Sure, you can honor the soldiers. But dont honor the Soviet Union. The Russians enabled ww2 and should be equally guilty in starting the war. This is also something we forget very fast.

Of all the countries involved Soviet Russia was the country that lost the most.

Never underestimate a man with a big moustache, you never know what’s hiding beneath it.

Lol😂😂😂😂

Stalin actually had Hitler beat by at least 4 million people killed. Of course, Mao had 8 times as many as both of them combined, so he's the genocide king.

You're being very silly, Donk. Hitler had only one significant Jew on his side, Luftwaffe Chief Milch. The rest, many of them/us just peasants, but tens of thousands of educated and productive citizens, he had chased out of the country back in the 1930s. Stalin, by contrast, had the support of the Jewish peasantry of the Pale setttled 1200 years earlier, and of the smalled advanced Jewish bourgeoisie which had emerged after the 18th-19th century enlightenment. These are more than the length of moustaches: they are major differences of political, technical, and scientific strengths of the two societies. Your dopey joke is blinding you to the realities of the world.

@@TheDavidlloydjones the dope is you. HItler and Stalin were two sides of the same monstrous coin

More so

So?

The difference is Stalin wasn’t the idiot who caused the holocaust nor did he desire world conquest 🤷🏽‍♂️

@@mikhailiagacesa3406 Do you disagree with my comment?

Μπροστά στον ΜουρλοΣταλιν ο ΜουρλοΧιτλερ ήταν αγγελούδι (που λέει ο λόγος έτσι)...

You are correct they are totally ignorant, but they are master manipulators😬 a lot people have gone to their death because of them they are agents of chaos just like Trump💯🥺

A meth head monster for a warlord

There's truth to that. Although Hitler didn't know it, the British Army was totally unprepared for war. If he had continued his Blitzkrieg across the English Channel, it's likely Britain would have fallen just like France.

@@timrprobocom With what ships? FFS if even the Luftwaffe had managed to get superiority over the channel, the Kriegsmarine was in no shape to pull off a cross invasion channel. At the time they had 10 fuking destroyers, 10! No specialized landing craft and no artillery that could be brought across the channel because of the mines there. The Germans would have to win a quick and unbloody likely invasion with no resources to do so. The Brits had over 3000 artillery pieces protecting just the south coast. Sea Lion was a stupid idea with zero chance of success.

Hitler was hoping the British would come around and ally with the Germans

@@timrprobocom They did not have a means for getting a million men across the English Channel. If they had they would have done it.

The German defeat at the gates of Moscow in december 1941 occurred effectively before lend/lease.. The German high command knew that a rapid victory was necessary as a long war would become a war of attrition( the Germans could not win such a war as they lacked resources). When Keitel was asked, when did the German high command know that the war was lost, he responded with one word " Moscow".

The over 12 million tons of materiel and supplies given to the Soviets mostly by the USA, but also from the UK, enabled the Soviets to maintain the war. Being stopped almost at the gates of Moscow was as much the fault of the Germans as the Soviets. The Soviets were almost exhausted by then. The Germans didn’t prepare for the winter. Neither their clothing or food was adequate. None of their machinery was winterized and constantly broke down. Their poor ability to supply their armies has been written about many times with much detail.

@@melgross lend lease was certainly helpful but even the german economist and generals knew Germany had no chance of winning against the Soviets. German war games before the invasion demonstrated that Germany would lose(as fate would have it, the unfortunate General Paulus was involved in these games ;thus having a chance to witness his future). in fact, the prime reason the Germans were able to advance as far as they did was the result of Stalin's meddling with the Stavka; with Stalin's refusal to move strategic industries beyond the Urals; Stalin's insistence of moving the Soviet Military to the new western frontier of the USSR: Stalin's refusal to believe the mountain of evidence presented to him of German preparations for operation Barbarossa. Even with Stalin's 90% destruction of the Soviet officer corp, the Russian high command was capable of defeating the Germans without Stalin's further interference; even with these frightful handicaps and the appalling losses of the Soviets in 1941, the German military was crippled by the endless battles, the attrition rate of reducing surrounded Soviet armies, and the constant near suicidal attacks of the red army.In 1941, the German army was at it peak yet the Soviets were only beginning to call up the reserves, the t34 tank and the heavy KV was just warming up and the Siberian divisions in the Russian far east were patiently waiting. Had Stalin not interfered with the Soviet high command, it would have been highly unlikely that the Germans would have reached Moscow.

@@melgross i wonder why my responses on this thread have been erased.

​@@bedstuyroverThe British had already started giving aid to the Soviet Union and America gave the Soviets vast amounts of aid( food, weapons ECT.) from 1942 to 1945. With that said the Soviet Union fought with great pride and no fear of the Nazis and was the cause of the victory in the East no doubt. Instead of arguing about who did what can we not agree that all three allies freed Europe from the Nazis and deserve credit for it..

He was elected.

It isn't just that. People like him are put into power fairly often in history, current times included. The biggest flaw in war is that any given dictator may not be a skilled military planner. They often have actual military people making the details work. But as dictators increasingly make plans and demand absolute obedience, poor military decisions are inevitable. Even skilled military officers who know better won't refuse because refusal is death. Thus someone who often has no military skill is allowed to direct the whole scheme, while the opposing side often does have actual warriors at every level and will invitably win against such a dictator. Sadly many people have not learned these lessons and even now readily hand over leadership to fools who have huge egos and popularity but no skill. When such people face actual military opponents, it becomes a slaughter.

@@LatitudeSky Stalin gave his generals a lot of freedom to make decisions independently of him. Hitler did not.

@@davemathews7890 He was not elected into the Chancellorship. He was given that position by President Hindenburg.

@@darnaby4110 Yes, we all know that. Quit showing off.

So you would prefer the Allies had just not helped the USSR? You are right about the amount of help the Americans gave them though. However Hitler was threatening the peace of the world and the bigger threat.

​@@matthewgabbard6415I think his point is that the Russians love to underplay the role of lend-lease

The same as Ukraine today. How the tables have turned. Except for the oil supply that the Nazis needed from the Caucasus.

Fun fact: theft and corruption in all of the Soviet Union were so rampant due to decades long shortages that when boots were shipped from the US/Canada to the USSR, they went in separate shipments of left boots and right boots to prevent being stolen all along their journey to the soldiers at the front.

The Allies should have let Germany and her Allies battle the USSR till they bled each other dry.

A sensible analysis.

Yep. Chamberlain's treaty that promised "peace in our time" was meaningless, and Chamberlain knew it. It bought time, and behind the scenes the UK was building up its military for the war it knew was coming. Even before Hitler invaded Poland the UK had people in the US buying weapons. The P-51 Mustang was a British order for example.

The great depression didn't end in Britain until 1940, with the construction of 28,000 pillboxes and other fortifications across the country

110, 000 2.5 Ton trucks. I don't know how many Jeeps, but probably over a million.

Kinda like you're fighting against a guy your own size (British Empire), then decide to take on a guy who's 4 inches and 40 pounds more than you (USSR), then for good measure add another behemoth (USA) as an opponent.. How to God he ever thought he could win that fight is beyond comprehension.

IT's a nice campfire story but the SOviets defeated the Nazis.

They did but with a huge amount of material support from the US. Hitler declaring war on the US took it from a possible Soviet victory to an almost certainty.

The US had been providing Lend-leas for some time, and a few weeks before they even started deploying their warships to defend convoys, and attack against U-boats... The declaration of war was only a formality... Even if it took the Americans another year to declare it, the impact in the course of history he would be negligible...

J*de* declared war on germany 1933, thats when it losy the war, its in the new york times

I love your knowledge of the Germanic people. Too complicated to isolated one historical context

And perhaps Homo Sapiens defined Germany's fate by not keeping Dinausors alive and using them to their own benefit. Tf u talking about dude😂

Correct! It was crazy impossible task from the very first day

Or December 11th 1941 when he declared war on the USA because fighting the The UK and it's British commonwealth and Russia was not enough for Hitler .

The 2,000 (of which 830 bombers) planes he lost in the Battle of Britain lost Hitler the war,. If he had those planes he would have taken Greece quicker and started Barbarossa a month earlier and would have taken Russia before the winter set in~ Staring Barbarossa a month Earlier would have taken Russia OUT of the War~

@@matthewmatt5285 Even with Russia out of the war. Germany in 1945 would still have to deal with the US A-Bombs and B-29s

Yep. But to see that you have to have 75 years of hindsight.

If Germany had taken England instead of stopping and invading on Russia. It would changed everything. The US wouldn't have a bunch of airfields in England to bomb Germany. Would give him iron ore to build up more war materials then invade Russia. It would probably be a much different history maybe even language we speak today.

Correct. Oil was their basic flaw. And rubber for truck tyres.

He could have seized the middleeast oil instead.

Bullshit. You would be goose stepping and Sieg Heiling without the sacrifices of the USSR. Shame!

Churchill and Roosevelt included

@@john-em1jr Bullshit! Hitler opened Auscwitz but Stalin (and the Red Army) closed it. So, not the same coin. Idiot!

wow that would be a valuable coin now

Not really.

But he knocked out France in 6 weeks when they couldn't do it in 4 yrs in WWI? 🤔🤣🤣🤣 Stop listening to what they Tell you and actually Research things YOURSELF,.. It's pedantic and embarrassing~

Don't comment until you know what your talking about.

Akin to America's Republican party slavish worship of Donald Trump today.

​​@@fringedweller5425 Correct him instead of just spouting off....For example you're.

Stalin told Harry Hopkins September 1941: Germany's power is so great that combined efforts of Soviet Union & Great Britain could not defeat her. However the entry of US could end the war,even without firing a shot. Hitler attacked Soviet Union in 1941 because he feared the he feared its armament production capacity. In the beginning of 1941,he received a news that one single Soviet tank factory was producing more tanks than the combined German tank production. He attacked when Germans still had technical superiority. If he had waited until the end of 1942, Soviet Russia would have become unbeatable. It is a myth that Stalin would have been neutral. The formidable Soviet military machine could not have been kept idle for long. Stalin was only waiting for the right moment to attack Germany.

Hitler was a WW1 veteran.

He had no command experiences. Once in a while he managed to form and execute a successful plan. With his General's help of course.

Versalles was soft compared to the Germans Brest-Litovsk. Versalles was as just as a peace treaty for a country who loses a world war gets.

Did you know reparations were never paid in full, only one full payment in 1921 was ever made. Versailles as the reason for WW2 is simply not true.

@@andrewjohnston9115 I do. So the French occupied part of Germany and were quite cruel. Versailles is absolutely one of the reasons for WWII. But the French, as usual, will not take any responsibility for this.

​@@jorgecas5678you are correct when you mention the 1918 treaty of Brest Livotsk this was punitive indeed, land lost, the loss of the baltic states and Ukraine and a massive pay off in gold marks. Having said that the later treaty of versailles stripped Germany of Alsace Lorraine, the Sudetenland and most damning of all the loss of Danzig. This set the seeds for WW2.

Germany was treated FAR MORE HARSHLY after WWII than it was following WWI yet they didn't feel compelled to launch another war. You're just echoing Nazi propaganda

Hear , hear ! seems to have spread like wildfire from RU-vid....

Aircraft’s is proper English if more than one type of aircraft is involved!

When more than one type of aircraft is involved “aircraft’s” is used. 7:10 7:10

Oven if you were correct, which you are not, since this is British English, it’s not relevant. The narrator, whether a human or computer, just reads the script.

I’m with you. Whenever I hear a Brit mispronounce Aluminum I stop being an Anglophile for at least 15 minutes.

We appreciate the feedback!

Doesn't matter. You don't have anywhere near the petroleum you need for offensive warfare for over six months.

well that corporal conquered france.... field marshals of ww1 never got close to Paris

Hitler relied upon over 500k Romanian soldiers in the attack as well. Also pockets of Italian and Hungarian forces. Hitler's Grand Armee relied on quick victories, not attritional warfare. Hitler really lost when Halder changed the plan and went for Moscow and Leningrad instead of the oil in the Caucasus that Hitler really wanted. Stalin was borderline insane, but he was outnumbered 4 million to 2.7 million on the day of the attack. If only the Germans pushed south instead of center and north.

Previous NATO attempts... teutonic knights before that -

While not a "continent", it is enormous.

No, because the distance between where his eastern front began in Poland and Czechoslovakia to the targeted Moscow-Leningrad-Stalingrad axis wasn't a continent's width to have to cover. It was a larger landmass than their previous blitzes across western Europe, sure, but it wasn't so vast that it was impossible. Remember, they didn't have to conquer the entirety of Russia because 70% of Russia's landmass is just uninhabitable, barren wasteland anyway. All the infrastructure and population centers of Russia are in the west, near Europe. All Germany had to do was conquer the shorter space separating his armies starting points in Poland, Czechoslavokia, and Romania to Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad

Just like Dictator Clownshoes saying the war with the Ukraine would take only take 2 weeks.

But the roads were rivers of mud and the winter of ‘41/‘42, was far worse than normal. So it may as well have been like conquering the whole of Asia, with good roads and weather.

USSR occupies a significant proportion of both the continents of Asia and of Europe. Russia, part of USSR, is not so large, dependant on if you wish to include the Siberian territories East of the Urals etc.

A number of people wrote of how quiet and polite and charming he was in private.

Well, even so, I still don't like him.

Moscow wouldn’t have made any difference strategically. And they didn’t have the supplies or ammunition to sustain a long battle. They couldn’t afford Guderian to lose there and lose most of their tanks and artillery.

Napoleon took Moscow and still lost .

Yes I agree. Vacillating between three objectives was the mark of an inferior strategist. Moscow was the railways hub in a railway country.

Yup. Should have stayed far away from Stalingrad.

Imagine how hard it would have been to take Moscow, they have have taken it but then what? Soviets would have just moved the capital and then driven them back 6 months later

You may have a point, but only if the entire British Expeditionary Force and other UK personnel were either destroyed or captured and the UK would have decided to exit the war because of it. Not having a hostile UK (and USA using it as a stepping stone) would have allowed Germany to redeploy a lot of Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe forces to the eastern front. It may have given them the extra oomph in crucial battles (Battles of Moscow, Leningrad, perhaps Stalingrad/Caucasus) and possibly toppled the Soviet regime. But we'll never know.

Von Rundstedt recommended the halt order. The lead elements were utterly exhausted and had been running on methamphetamine for days. Driving the lead elements into the Dunkirk defence would have just destroyed a few hundred more tanks, and risked the French realising they could have reversed the encirclement.

@@awordabout...3061 the french leadership was already beaten and had pretty much given up. The best part of their army was gone. France was falling no matter what by Dunkirk. Now as regards the loss of most of the BEF, with the strength of the peace party at that time Churchill would have either been forced to seek terms or he would have lost a no confidence vote and Halifax would have become PM and asked for terms With the ability to throw everything at Russia; and also a much stronger Luftwaffe that had not lost so many of its best pilots in the Battle of Britain, it is very likely that Germany would have taken Russia down in 1941. No diversion of any strength to the Mediterranean, North Africa or Greece. A significant difference

@@gruntforever7437 Germany did throw everything at Russia - the forces on the Atlantic Wall, especially in 41-42, were third-rate units with almost no mobile equipment. Attrition of pilots over Britain was a signficant loss but there's no way another hundred-thousand riflemen with a few captured Chars or french field guns would have changed the outcome in the East.

@@awordabout...3061 when you add up everything used everywhere else but Russia after June 1940 it is not a small amount. And Adolph Galland said that the Luftwaffe never really got back to what it was before the Battle of Britain. As I said many of its best pilots and air crew were lost. And when you remember how close it was in 1941 claiming that would have made no difference is laughable

But he couldn’t defeat Britain without the oil in the Caucasus. And Russia was building up its military and had invaded Finland, an ally of Germany. So the threat of the Russians invading Germany was very real.

Crossing the Mediterranean to fight on the North African front was also a waste of resources.

Fair comment, but Japan had to capture Indonesia and secure the South East Pacific, just for their oil supply. This meant that they needed to conquer the Philippines, as a transit link and for total control of that region. China was also a perceived threat, for the Allies to amass forces and attack the Japanese islands. And Communism was growing into China, so they didn’t want China to become Communist and help Russia. Remember this, Japan conquered about 1/7th of the entire surface of the globe. They played their part almost to perfection. The war couldn’t have gone any better for the Axis Powers, up until Al Alamein and Stalingrad.

@@flashgordon6670 well,Japan not attacking the USA would’ve been a big help to the axis but if the Japanese had attacked from the east and Germany from the west and Finland the north,the Soviet union is tapping out more than likely and Hitler would have made sure to gotten ahold of some oil fields,I mean we’ll never know one way or the other but it’s hard to see the USSR withstanding an attack from 3 different directions and across huge distances

Then Japan doesn’t get their oil from Indonesia and the Dutch East Indies. The USA had embargoed oil to Japan and was blocking their route. Arguably it was the USA who started the war against Japan.

@@flashgordon6670 idk man,that’s what I read in David Glantzs book,I would assume he probably knows more about it than me And no the USA didn’t start the war with Japan,Japan had been aggressive since 31 and the US wasn’t gonna sale ‘em fuel and other stuff so they could keep their military aims intact,you seriously don’t believe the USA started the war with Japan do ya? That’s the first time I’ve heard that one

I think he was from Queens,

VON OSTRIECH 🇦🇹

Narcissists are great in Manipulating others.

The God made all people from one man, Adam. All people are brothers. The God saves people by preaching (1st Corinthians 1: 21). He has nothing to do with war. Unfortunately, the lying and corrupt clirgy is silent about this. They even bless racists and nazis in the name of God. The problem is that the Devil rules the world. He is a liar and a murderer. This is why deception and violence are everywhere. This is the reason why people cry over stray cats and hate their brothers. This is the reason why Hitler got the power, but Christ was executed as "blasphemer" and "rioter" by denunciation of clergy. This is the reason why the whole world is Sodom. That's why we have the Gospel about the Kingdom of God. Jehovah will put everything in order. He has anointed the king, Jesus Christ. The dead will rise and we will meet our loved ones again! :-)

The history books they study in schools today are completely different from the texts we had when I was a kid. Did the conquerors change?

Correct~

The problem is Devil runs the world. He is lier and murderer. This is the reason why deception and violence are everywhere. That's why we've got the Gospel about the God's kingdom. Jehovah would put everything in order. The dead will be resurected and we'll meet our loved ones again! :-)

@@AlexejSvirid The Bible says only the faithful will be resurrected.

I'm no Trump fan, but all these B.S. rhetorical comparisons are getting pretty old. This comment section was actually going pretty well, but there's always someone who has to drop Biden or Trump's name into it for no intelligent reason.

@@TheREALJosephTurner the most important election in our history is about to take place and one of the candidates is a threat very similar to hitler so I think its a valid reason to bring up in this thread.

@@brucepoole8552 Horsehockey. Every election in the last twenty years was "the most important election in our history" because "democracy is at stake." Obama and Hillary went through the same Hitler comparisons and nothing happened. Instead of getting your info from TV, try a government textbook- we have checks and balances for a reason. As for your comparison, Trump didn't mastermind a Holocaust, and he won't (can't) if reelected. Trump didn't invade every surrounding country, and he won't (can't) if reelected. Trump didn't plunge nearly the entire world into a devastating war, and he won't (can't) if reelected. Trump is a lunatic, but comparing him to Hitler is just lazy rhetoric, and it devalues the millions of lives lost during WWII. Besides, if he wins (which I doubt), the left will keep him occupied with that whole checks and balances business anyway. It'll be a lame duck presidency at best. There's simply not enough electable MAGA for a Nazi-esque government takeover.

@@TheREALJosephTurner The parallels are actually striking. The tactics are very similar : tell big lies and repeat them often until people start to believe them . The difference is the scale And the fact that Hitler believed in his bs. trump doesn't believe in anything he is just in it for himself.

So true, no matter how you look at there was nothing they could do to win unless however ,you change one small thing and that is to go as a liberator to Russia. By liberating Russia from Stalin. That's the only way Germany could have won. Economically Germany was doomed from the outset. An interview with Garland started they had lost long before they went to Russia

People forget- Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland together

@@cuts240 actually Britain & France cleverly ignored Russia's later incursion.

Edit: USSR's annexation of not only eastern Poland but the Baltic states.

That didn't fit his racism. You're asking Hitler to be not Hitler.

Well, of course you're right. He misjudged the US as a people and as a nation. Hitler as delusional loon.

But the russians won ww2.😅

when he invaded russia

The video said what it said lol and it’s right

Extremely well done. We know all the facts but rarely have I seen it presented with such accuracy as this video🤌🏾🤌🏾🤌🏾

No he didn’t think that at all actually. He just wanted to keep the German masses, thinking they were winning. He thought that the momentum would carry them to victory. So he had to portray themselves as winning at all costs. It didn’t matter if things were going wrong in Russia temporarily, bc their confidence and morale would see them through the difficulties, in his mind. Remember he was a veteran of WW1 and he was basically reliving the First World War.

@@flashgordon6670 ridiculous!

Japan had more than enough on their plate, you’re ridiculous Shut up!

@@Ben-qm1mv Not ridiculous at all. Japan had a non-aggression pact with the USSR and while it had done well in the wars at the end of the 1800's it had suffered a bloody nose in the Siberian fights of the 1930's. Japan's main aim was empire in Manchuria and South East Asia. You have no evidence for your first post, and your insult to FlashGordon is thoughtless and silly.

It's not the taking that is important it is the holding. Anybody can steal something for a bit of time, eventually, justice catches up.

@@Mark-gg6iy The Russian held those Eastern European countries from 1945-1990. Now they are trying to get one back .😳

The war wasn’t for token Poland. The war started because Germany overstepped all the appeasement given to it despite the Treaty of Versailles. Much of Eastern Europe was allied with Germany.

True, totally agree.

Moscow wouldn’t have made any difference strategically. And they didn’t have the supplies or ammunition to sustain a long battle. They couldn’t afford Guderian to lose there and lose most of their tanks and artillery.

No they lost the moment they invaded Poland. It was just downhill from there. They didn’t have the manpower or resources to fight a long war that’s it. There’s not tactics that can win when you don’t have the men or resources to win one war let alone fighting multiple wars. From Greece to North Africa to Norway and Ukraine Russia and Italy. There was never any truly successful military strategy to win that. This was like a small dog fighting not one big dog but 3 really massive dogs.

@@jordanazevedo5688 nearly all the contemporaries at the time disagree. For example, the US military brass thought Russia would lose to Germany up until 1942. UK, USA, and USSR military experts all took the German threat seriously, that is why they were defeated.

If the German generals were in charge and not Hitler they likely would have, or at least starved the Russian machine of the oil it depended on.

Actually he does say 30th of April, in the very first sentence. “Adolf Hitler died on the 30th of April 1945.” But you’re both wrong, he actually escaped to Argentina. Watch the documentary film Greywolf and Mark Felton videos Find the Fuhrer.

@@flashgordon6670 You probably believe in ming the merciless too mate. 😂

@@flashgordon6670 Felton does not even remotely say Hitler "escaped to Argentina." I have watched all the episodes, and near the end he offers his conclusion. He states that after the bodes were brought out of the bunker and set alight, someone else moved the remains to another area surrounding the bunker and buried them. They then dressed up two corpses with somewhat close resemblance to both Braun and Hitler (there were multitudes of dead bodies in the vicinity) and buried them in this spot to mislead the Soviet searchers. Hitler was in absolutely no condition to travel anywhere. He was a drug addicted wreck probably also suffering from Parkinsons and with a very short lease on physical existence when he committed suicide.

It was a walkover. At least in 1941 and the early part of 1942. They misjudged how many reserves the USSR could muster and also how long they were willing to fight. The difference between Russia and the rest of the nations he invaded up to that point is that Russia still had room to retreat and manpower to call up even after staggering losses of men and land. France didn't - they got pushed to the sea and ran out of manpower. Poland didn't - they got sandwiched inbetween two superpowers and had no more men to call up. Russia though had lots of room to retreat and millions upon millions of young men to throw at the extended German army.

@@Aethelhald well said..I erred on the side of brevity

It was a walkover, but the Germans ran, then fell over.

August , But correct / Big mistake !!!

dunkirk

Napoleon took Moscow and absolutely nothing happened. What makes you think anything would be different in WW2? It’s not as if Stalin and all of the Stavka were just going to stay there until the end. Wars are about supply and logistics, not capitals and tactics.

@@bigbadladnamedalasad7071 somewhat agree but keep in mind that Moscow was NOT the Capital when Napoleon invaded (St. Petersburg was). It was the capital of the USSR and Leningrad was under siege so Hitler had the better shot as he had a more wider invasion than Napoleon. Napoleon just made a straight b-line to Moscow which really didn't make any sense to me. You would think he would have gone for St Petersburg instead. The one country that did successfully take Russia was Poland in the 1600s and they did it gradually and not in a large offensive. I think that might be the key to beating Russia, take land, build your logistics to catch up and secure the land, then take more. I think had Hitler and Germany focused on minimal gains in 1941 (Belarus, Ukraine, and Caucuses) and winterized their army, then planned Moscow in 1942 or 1943, that might have been a better approach.

Germany have probably won WW2 if Hitler dont have attack Sovjet-Russia in 1941.

Wrong. Look what he pulled off almost taking over the world. Mistakes made stopped Germany.

Having too many fronts. Africa, Sicily, Greece, helping the Italy here & there, etc.

That’s reasonable, but it was the lack of oil and rubber that prevented Germany building more trucks for logistics. Catch 22. His mad strategy nearly worked, with a bit more patience and focusing on proven technologies, like Panther 3 tanks, U boats, 109s and Stukers. Instead of Tigers, jets and wonder rockets, Germany would’ve had a much better chance of winning. They just needed the oil, to put into the machines that would’ve won the war. Instead of developing risky technologies, to bypass their basic flaw.

@@flashgordon6670 yes, I think rockets, jets, etc development should be for mid term use. They just want a quick wonder weapon to get out of the hell. But it seems the bohemian corporal & Nazi love everything big, massive & wow. Super Tiger, Bismarck, Thor, etc.

Or Ceylon, The Seychelles, Monaco, San Marino or Lichtenstein!

@@elessartelcontar9415 😀

Or, Russians: You've heard of Napoleon, and our winters, right?

He didn't. It was Britain and France who declared war ON Germany.

@@davidb2206 Hitler invaded Poland first, not any other person but him (and than ussr)

@@davidb2206 Hitlers war started with his invasion of Poland, France and the UK's declaration of war was the consequence of a war already begun.

It was Hitler who made the decision to attack Britain’s and France’s ally. He was just too cowardly to declare war against us first.

He could’ve won WW2, if he had a better strategy. The decision to invade Russia, from Germany’s perspective back then, was the right decision. It was how they went about it that was all wrong. They didn’t have enough oil supply and were reliant on Russia’s exporting it to Germany. Russia could switch it off at any time and invade Germany, which its military buildup in the late 1930s and attacking Finland, an ally of Germany, threatened. Germany tried to bypass its basic oil and rubber supply flaw, by developing more advanced tanks, planes and rockets. But they weren’t perfected and they wasted their dwindling supplies and time on them. Instead of just building the proven weapons. Panther 3 tanks. U boats, 109s and stuker planes. Bc they didn’t have enough oil to feed them. Or enough rubber for truck tyres, for their logistics. They needed to amass more oil and rubber, and keep it underground, safe from allied bombs. Then they could’ve starved Britain imo surrender and used the Royal Navy to help conquer the USA. In exchange for leniency and cooperation with the British. Germany also needed to stop Britain helping the USA to develop nukes. Then Germany would’ve got them soon, by late 1946, early 1947. They needed the oil, in the Caucasus region of Russia, to do this. It was a catch 22 situation for Germany. They needed the oil to fuel their weapons and trucks. But they needed those weapons and trucks to get the oil, and defend from potential counter attacks, that Hitler was paranoid about. They did actually manage to capture some of the Caucasus oilfields. But the oil wells were destroyed by the Russians and losing at Stalingrad, made Russian counter attacks there inevitable. With a slower buildup and halting at Smolensk for the winter of ‘41/‘42, Germany could’ve succeeded their primary objectives. Blitzkrieg was the wrong strategy, for an area 10 times bigger than all their previous conquests. The

He reads mein kampf.

Always leave it to an idiot to go off script in a discussion...

So Trump who brought 4 years of peace and actually tried to help Jews is like Hitler? What are you smoking?

@@Because-rt8qs 'Donald Trump kept a book of Hitler's speeches by his bed, according to his ex-wife' According to a 1990 Vanity Fair interview, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that her husband, real-estate mogul Donald Trump, kept a book of Hitler's speeches near his bed. "Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler's collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed ... by Amanda Macias, 14 December 2015, Independent.

The national socialist party aka nazis were actually a far left group. They combined government and industry. Also controlled media censored and and arrested political opponents. Oh..and divided and inflamed racism. Sounds like biden to me.

He could’ve defeated Russia with a better strategy. The decision to invade Russia, from Germany’s perspective back then, was the right decision. It was how they went about it that was all wrong. They didn’t have enough oil supply and were reliant on Russia’s exporting it to Germany. Russia could switch it off at any time and invade Germany, which its military buildup in the late 1930s and attacking Finland, an ally of Germany, threatened. Germany tried to bypass its basic oil and rubber supply flaw, by developing more advanced tanks, planes and rockets. But they weren’t perfected and they wasted their dwindling supplies and time on them. Instead of just building the proven weapons. Panther 3 tanks. U boats, 109s and stuker planes. Bc they didn’t have enough oil to feed them. Or enough rubber for truck tyres, for their logistics. They needed to amass more oil and rubber, and keep it underground, safe from allied bombs. Then they could’ve starved Britain imo surrender and used the Royal Navy to help conquer the USA. In exchange for leniency and cooperation with the British. Germany also needed to stop Britain helping the USA to develop nukes. Then Germany would’ve got them soon, by late 1946, early 1947. They needed the oil, in the Caucasus region of Russia, to do this. It was a catch 22 situation for Germany. They needed the oil to fuel their weapons and trucks. But they needed those weapons and trucks to get the oil, and defend from potential counter attacks, that Hitler was paranoid about. They did actually manage to capture some of the Caucasus oilfields. But the oil wells were destroyed by the Russians and losing at Stalingrad, made Russian counter attacks there inevitable. With a slower buildup and halting at Smolensk for the winter of ‘41/‘42, Germany could’ve succeeded their primary objectives. Blitzkrieg was the wrong strategy, for an area 10 times bigger than all their previous conquests.

🙈

To be occupied by communists? Hell no, not in a million years. Communism is the greatest enemy known to man, even today.

...and subjected half of Europe to commie tyranny behind the iron curtain... Job well DUMB!

Not all fascists,