What did the Germans say about Soviet, British and American soldiers? 

I believe Pattons' remark was; "Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making the other poor bastard die for HIS country!"

" I know we have virtually unlimited air and artillery assets, but that would be cheating". Said no General, ever.

My grandmother was a translator for the German Army and married my American grandfather after the war. She would always say that the Germans hated that the Americans "wouldn't fight" and would just use tons of artillery and Air power bombs to fight. My grandfather, who was in the Army, would always chuckle and say "Damn right."

Ironically, the narrator quoted that the Americans would not risk their lives, while the photo on screen was of U.S. Marines on Iwo Jima.

When you have unlimited firepower, you don't have to die for your country.

My father did not talk about WWII. He lived with PTSD including bad nightmares, night sweats, insomnia, etc. He did say once that German soldiers were the best that he fought against. He was in North Africa and Sicily and Italy and all the way to Germany. He was in the Army when the war started and stayed in until VE DAY. 5 YEARS AND LIVED!!

“Did their job and tried to survive the war”. The most rational of the bunch in my opinion.

Germans: The Americans didn't have enough stamina. Also Germans: where's my meth?

The American's weren't fighting for their country, they were fighting for everyone else's.

There's a record of a German officer saying he couldn't rate the US soldier's performance because there were always so many explosions !

When interviewing a German tank officer about the Tiger tanks an American officer said "Your Tigers were very good. You killed ten of our tanks for every one of yours we killed." The German replied, "Yes but you Yanks always brought eleven tanks to the fight."

My grandad was an infantryman in WWII. He told me one time about talking to a German officer that was taken POW. He said that if they saw an unknown patrol approaching they'd fire at it directly. If the approaching troops scattered, and disappeared, they were French. If they received an overwhelming amount of accurate and constant rifle fire, they're British. If they heard no response at first but were soon receiving overwhelming amounts of mortar and artillery fire, backed up with airstrikes from every direction, Americans.

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." This quote and variations of it were attributed to US General George S. Patton. I believe it sums up quite a bit about our attitude towards war. The object is to survive.

Whatever the German high command thought of their enemies is overshadowed by the end results.

“They did their job, and tried to survive the war.” I would call that remarkable intelligence! The Americans knew the Germans were going to lose, so they did their jobs, and kept going. Also, I don’t think many people interested in WWII study the war against the Japanese much; in fact, I _know_ they don’t. They were the most zealous fighters, and their captives-especially women-suffered horrific torture every day that put the SS tactics to shame. Besides, think of fighting on an island 12 miles long and 5.5 miles wide (Saipan) against 30,000 Japanese who were dug into hills, caves, and foxholes, and ordered to fight to the last man (only around 900 captives were taken bc there was no hope of resupply after the Battle of the Philippine Sea). THINK about that for a bit. My dad fought with the US Marines there, and was so traumatized he refused to say much about it, or any other of his experiences on the Solomons, the Marshall Islands, Tinian,, and Iwo Jima, but his experiences ruined his mental health. They had to use flame throwers at the end to roast the Japanese soldiers inside their hiding places bc they were out of ammunition and refused to come out….think of the _THOUSANDS_ of those holes! They also conducted a Banzai charge….I don’t think the Germans had anything like that in their books, and only the Allied soldiers who fought against that truly understood how horrible that was. That island battle was Hell itself, and there was nowhere to retreat, nowhere to hide. The victory won by the Americans forced the resignation of General Tojo as Prome Minister of Japan, bc the government knew it was the beginning of the end.

So tell me, how was the war going before the yanks got involved? I live in New Zealand and am very grateful to America saving us from Japan and for overall keeping the English-speaking world free since the war. THANK YOU, AMERICA.

I remember reading several articles quoting German generals saying that they wished they could have the logistical resources and quantities of ammunition, artillery and tanks to wage war like the Americans did, instead of treating their soldiers as expendable. The constant claim was that they could not compete with US industry, which outproduced Germany's industry several times over. "Jeeps are cheap, people aren't". (Unknown Logistics officer, US Army).

The thing about the American fighting unit was our soldiers threw the manual into the water at Omaha and every other landing. Officers were given objectives and how they accomplished that was up to them. The Germans and the Japanese knew we were unpredictable and thus thought we were undisciplined, when it was the exact opposite.

My dad was a tank gunner against Rommel in North Africa. Then he was a recon car commander in Italy. He came home with a cigar box full of medals and ribbons. He didn't have much to say about the Germans. And I'm quite sure he didn't give a damn what they thought of his fighting ability. He just killed them and came home. The only soldiers he respected were the Gurkha's. He said that 2 of them would go out at night, silently cross no mans land where they were fighting in Italy, cut the throats of the guards in front of the underground bunkers the Axis soldiers were sleeping in, then quietly slip back to the Allied side. He also said that once one of them, on a bet from the other, sneaked into the bunker itself, and slit the throat of a sleeping soldier in the middle of that room full of sleeping soldiers, then returned and sacked out for the night. I think the enemy soldiers had a hard time sleeping after that.

I have read quite a few books written by German officers and what they said about various allied troops does not necessarily square with this video. After the first year of war on the eastern front the Germans had tremendous respect for what the Russian soldier could do in defensive fighting, and were always in awe of just how much the Russians could suffer and still keep going. They also acknowledged that the Russians were very good at camouflage. With regards to the British, they had tremendous respect for the toughness of the average British Tommy, but never considered that the British army was ever particularly well led. They were rather amazed that after 5 years of fighting the German army (the Heer) the British still were unable to master all arms combat, in northwest Europe and that they never did learn how to coordinate armour and infantry into cohesive fighting units. With regards to the Americans, they were amazed at how fast the Americans learned from their mistakes. Whereas the American army was quite amateurish upon entering combat in North Africa, they admitted that they had never faced an army that learned from their own mistakes and improved as fast as the Americans did. Also every German officer who fought in the west in 1944 - 1945 praised American artillery as the most fearsome thing they faced on the battle field. British artillery was quite good, but they never faced anything as frightening as American artillery.

The Americans not only supplied the American Army, it supplied a lot of Russian Army and the Commonwealth, too. Hitler blundered when he declared war on the US. The truth is, wars are not won on patriotism. They are won on logistics.

As an Army veteran I can tell you that our doctrine was and is superior and suppressive fire power. You overwhelm the enemy with it. You concentrate your fire on specific targets to eliminate command and control, then crush the remaining soldiers who are in chaos. It obviously worked. We are not speaking German or Japanese in America. I had many relatives that fought in WW2. One was a Raider Marine. They fought to that last and gave their all. Many did not die because we had superior fire power.

I remember hearing about a german officer saying that they could predict what soldiers of british, french, and russian troops would do because they understood their procedures and manuals, but the Americans were utterly unpredictable as apAmericans would not even follow established U.S. army procedures.

The Australians at El Alamein deserve a mention..their contribution I heard saved the battle when they sacrificed their battery stopping a flanking movement by a large German mechanised force with tanks...Basically they bought us three hours to redeploy. They where shattered....brave guys.

The Germans definitely had these opinions. Historically accurate. Call it their conventional wisdom, which grew into preconceptions that were hard to shake. I’ll just say, as an American amateur historian (w/ extensive military experience) these preconceptions continue. But they were wrong. Imagine any other country drafting nearly 16 million soldiers, while simultaneously running the most enormous military industrial and logistical complex ever created, and giving nearly 1/3 of their out put to their Allie’s, while fighting on two massive theaters that spanned tens of thousands of miles. Creating all of this from nearly scratch in 1942. Not all will be perfect. Not everyone will be a spartan. But holy shit, who would they rather not fight, all things considered? Ask Rommel. He was fairly skilled. After Torch landings, where the US uploaded an entire corps, crossed the Atlantic, and landed it in Africa. Rommel saw the writing on the walls and said, “we can’t win.” Hitler called him a defeatist. Maybe a prophet?

Define irony; 5:33; The narration states Americans were not willing to take mortal risks while showing a picture of a group of Americans who took mortal risks just to raise their flag.

America went into both world wars with tiny armies that rapidly ramped up and prepared to fight a war an ocean away from home. They were doing the best they could with a VERY short supply of career soldiers to bring the new men along.

I interviewed my father-in-law with all his family present about his time in the army during WWII. He told us many horrifying and some funny stories that day. He had enlisted in 1936. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor he became a drill instructor for new recruits and then went with them to fight in North Africa. He fought through Sicily and from the Anzio beach head the length of Italy. From a troop train in France he was sent to a hospital for a tooth ache. His company went on without him to the Battle of the Bulge where his whole company was killed, all his friends. He broke down at that point and couldn’t speak any more. That evening he continued to tell how he was then sent to England and placed in a new company to prepared to invade Germany in a glider. He was shot in his foot as they landed in Germany and barely escaped with his life by crawling to a farm outbuilding. None of his children had heard many of the stories he told us that day.

I've read articles in which German officers are quoted that the Americans were cowards who hid behind their artillery and unlimited armaments and ammunition. Yes. Why hang your own personal ass out into the wind every day when a couple of artillery barrages have the same effect and you can therefore reach behind yourself and notice that your own personal ass is still alive and well. We used to our advantage the things that were advantageous to ourselves to use. I'm glad we used our prodigious armaments to save our soldiers.

Russian soldiers were willing to die for their country. German soldiers were ordered to die for their country. American soldiers understood that the best way to fight a war is to force the enemy to die for his country. "If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting." Army Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay

I heard the story of some captured German engineers who were taken to New York by boat. One of them talked about them being hungry all the time but when in American custody they were well fed and on the boat over a kitchen was even provided for them with one of their own men in charge of it and all of them had full bellies everyday for the first time in a long time. He said at that moment he knew Germany had no chance.

We didn't come to fight, we came to win.

It strange that they criticized the Americans for winning battles win minimal losses.

They still got their ass kicked. Who cares what the losers think?

Interesting assessment of the allied forces from the losers. To recap: in their opinion, the Germans had the best soldiers, officers, and battle tactics while the Russians were tenacious and patriotic, lacked resources and had poor tactics. The English had great soldiers but stupid leaders. They had the best artillery but very naive battle tactics, while the Americans had proficient, but uninspired soldiers. The American’s greatest asset was unlimited resources. So, the takeaway from this is you can have the best soldiers, the best officers, the best tactics, but you will still lose badly if your opponent has unlimited access to bombs, missles, ammunition, and equipment. So, in the final analysis, the Germans were dumbasses for fighting a war on multiple fronts against multiple opponents who had unlimited military resources. There is a lesson here.

No matter what the Germans thought about other soldiers during WW 2, they still got their assess handed to them.

Watching this video, remember the Germans were the losers, and, as such, are prone to want to make excuses for losing. This brought to mind an excerpt from the preface of the book: "Closing With the Enemy: How the GI's fought in Europe". In it a German General officer observed an armored assault on a village and commented it was as professional an execution of such an attack, as he had ever seen in the war. The catch here is it was an American assault on a German village. I am also reminded of a quote by Erwin Rommel: "The reason the American Army is so good is war is chaos, and the Americans operate in a perpetual state of chaos." Another German General [perhaps Rommel also] stated American soldiers saw no reason to fight in accordance with American manuals. One thing in which the American military outshines the rest of the world is the ability of the American soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine to ADAPT on the fly! Regardless as to what some German officers said, by the end of the war, the US military was recognized as the very best in the world. Semper Fidelis! CWO4 USMCR [Ret] 17 Feb 1969 - 1 August 2004.

"Lions led by Donkeys" wasn't a German quote at all. The origin of the phrase was Plutarch, obviously not talking about British people, and given he was widely read, many different people used the quote over the years to describe contemporaries. Later, a RUSSIAN General was recorded as having said it about the British at the Battle of Sevastopol in the Crimean War.

It was a pretty neat trick for the Americans to mobilize such a large military so quickly and get it across an Atlantic Ocean to fight the Germans.

the Soviets had two choices either get shot by the Germans or get shot by their own command

Agreed. As a Brit i would point out the Russians were mostly fighting on their own land. The brits were fighting a country who were on their doorstep and had tried to invade. The Americans were sent way from home as a duty.

You gotta agree if you over look Bastogne, Hurtgen forest, the Falaise (sic) pocket, colmar pocket, Remagen bridge and a dozen more. They were pissed because we seem so casual about it. They never understood that we didn’t want to be there..

Sure would have been nice if the pictures of the soldiers actually matched the words. One photo of Soviets wasn't Soviets. Two photos of the Brits were really Americans.

My dad was in the Army for 27 years. He told me that once the fighting starts, when bullets and bombs coming your way, chaos ensures. Rules of war doesn't exists. It's a matter of survival. You start having second thoughts on life. Ask any soldiers who been to war. Their personality is different before and after their deployment. An old saying goes that soldiers don't start wars, the politicians do. The poor soldiers just get caught up in the shit.

Back in my board gaming days, the 80s, I remember reading about the interrogation of a Japanese officer. He was asked what he thought of Brits, Aussies and US Marines. He said the Brits and Aussies were great jungle fighters. When asked about the Marines he said they just removed the jungle. On US troops, there is a quote from Rommel about US troops. I read that he said that the US Army was the most ill prepared of all the armies but no one learned as fast.

Bastogne was an exception. Germans found out that when push gets to shove, the American GI of THAT ERA can be tough and stubborn as nails.

I'm surprised the Germans wouldn't have more respect for the American airmen who got up everyday, flew at great risk into downtown Germany in broad daylight, suffered unspeakable losses, never got turned around once by German defenses, and bombed every major city in Germany into a smoldering pile of rubble. That would have impressed me.

Yeah, Audie Murphy cruised during his battles. He alone greased 100 Krauts in various battles and single-handedly stopped six tanks from advancing on U.S. positions at Holtzwihr, France. And he did it with two leg wounds, a hip wound, in freezing weather and on a burning M-10 tank destroyer, all the while radioing mortar strikes dangerously close to his own position. Ask those Huns Audie killed if he was brave. Oh right they can't answer.

Quite a few contradictions in this short narrative but the one salient issue to remember is the Soviets and Brits were fighting an existential war, a war of survival, and the Americans were not. Add to that the Germans/Nazis absolutely brutalized the people to the east, and bombed civilians in Great Britain, well, they (Soviets and Brits) had more incentive to die for their country than Americans. Compare how American soldiers and Marines fought in the Pacific versus in Europe. Much of the difference has been attributed to racism, and some of that is true, but Americans had every reason to hammer the Japanese. A parallel would be Canadian and Aussie soldiers who, though among the very, very best fighting men in WWII, did not have the same incentive that their fellow Anglo-Saxons from England had. And there was substantial grumbling amongst those who fought that they (Canadians and ANZACs) were fighting more for England than their own countries. You cannot condense such a deep topic into either a six-minute video or a three-paragraph reply, but the North Americans and ANZACs placed a higher value on the individual than the English, Germans, and certainly the Japanese, and the Soviets/Russians ever have. If there is any question as to the importance of incentive (and morale), just look at how poorly the Russian enlisted soldiers are performing in Ukraine, and the Americans in Vietnam half a century ago. It is, and was, a constant cacophony of "Why the f**k are we here?" The American soldiers marched toward Berlin as that was the only way home, and were not about to die needlessly to "make (part of) the world safe for democracy". I missed Vietnam by a couple of years but had older friends (non-college) who went. I sure as hell wasn't going to go over there and "die for my country", or to die to make South Vietnam safe for the rich French-educated and -speaking Catholic ruling elite who couldn't give two flying f**ks about democracy or their fellow Vietnamese citizens. It's all about morale and incentive. P.S. The German and Brits had three years of battle experience by the time the Americans arrived in North Africa. Big reason why the Americans had some problems relatively to both the Allies and the Germans. Yeah, I've had way too much coffee this morning....

I agree. However.... politics created English leaders, lack of resources created Soviet desperation, and Americans used brains and resources. Americans realized that feeding the war with resources was far better than feeding the war with dead soldiers.

I was raised by a badass who was a tank commander serving under Patton. The warrior spirit is still alive in me☠️

I had the honor of speaking with many American veterans …… about the battles in the European front … fighting was pretty much a job but after the Malmedy massacre it became a crusade , the rules and attitude really changed .

The Germans also said that the Americans were the toughest to fight against because although they wrote every tactic down and published the manuals for all to read, the Americans felt no obligation whatsoever to follow their own doctrines. And that made them frighteningly unpredictable. They knew what the British and Soviets were going to do given a set of circumstances, but the Americans would just make up something on the fly and create havoc to the German war plans.

The most pertinent fact about German military opinion is they still lost.

My dad fought in WW-2 in the pacific theater never would talk about it until just before he died. I remember him him screaming at night when I was young. He could not ware a mask for his sleep apnea he said he kept walking up thinking a Japanese soldier was trying to kill him he was in the 1st marine division 1943 to 1944 and served till 1947

Some other little things, great and small: - Soviet soldiers were not afraid to engage in hand to hand combat; - German soldiers were very well trained, but for a more modern type of warfare, relying more on mobility and technology, they did not like hand to hand combat (especially against the Red Army); - as the war progressed, US artillery became a much deadlier and precise weapon of war, the Time on Target tactics, which allowed multiple batteries to saturate given coordinates with artillery shells awed the later German soldiers, who were not as well trained or hardened because of attrition (especially during the Battle of the Bulge); - I believe it's from the same battle that the Germans based their judgement of US soldiers upon: after flanking and surrounding large units of green US infantry, who rather surrendered than fight to the death, the Germans thought US soldiers didn't really have the heart to fight - that was before they met seasoned veteran troops of course (like the 82nd and 101st Airborne Division);

was this written by A.I. or a 12 year old kid?

Why is it that once the Americans got past the beaches in whatever theatre the Germans contolled, they were steadily pushed back to Germany? If the Germans were so awesome, why was their homeland invaded, their army forcibly disarmed, and their country made a client state of America and Russia? And it only took three years!

Yup, that's the US Army way. Try to pin the enemy down with suppressive fire then coordinate forces and attack with bombs and artillery. Why fight infantry with infantry when you can fight them with bombers and artillery instead? Did they expect our guys to act like they didn't have support? Also, unlike the Russians who were fighting starting in their own devastated and occupied homeland, the Brits whose homes had been bombed, and the Germans trying to protect first Reich then homeland (by the time they were fighting Americans), the Americans in Europe were fighting in other people's countries to liberate them from a country who hadn't attacked the US. Many would rather have been in the Pacific fighting the Japanese who had attacked Pearl Harbor. Meanwhile, many in the Pacific were bitter that the majority of money and attention was being focused in Europe instead of first helping to defeat the Japanese whom many saw as the "real" enemy. So yes, the Americans in Europe were trying to "get the job done" without necessarily getting into the suicidal heroics that would have been more highly praised by Japanese, Soviet, or German military culture. Also, like I said, that's typical US *Army* strategy. Most of the US *Marines* were in the Pacific. Unlike the probing and methodical (i.e. smart) Army way, Marines were much happier to attempt to overwhelm the enemy with stubborn aggressiveness. Unfortunately, they were facing the Imperial Japanese Army whose bonzai tactics and suicidal resolve made even the US Marines seem cautious and reasonable by comparison. Also, the US just didn't have the same kind of romantic military culture as many of these nations did. Compared to Russian nihilistic stoicism, Prussian "Death before Dishonor" professionalism, Japanese bushido self-sacrificial honor, and even British officers' absurd gentlemanly swagger that insisted, for instance, that officers of tank units walk outside their tank carrying their swagger sticks (because they weren't allowed swords anymore, dammit!) and would often rather die than take cover... Americans took a more no-nonsense, workman-like approach of logistical efficiency first and saving the heroism for when it was needed. Hopefully, you make the other side die from being heroes before you ever need to do so yourself. I like the American way, thank you.

There is a moment in Otto Carius book where he talks about a Soviet Commissar standing and giving orders during a deadly fight. He said they didn't shoot him and were surprised by his bravery. He said that everytime "Ivan" did something brave, they called them stubborn, contrary to the german bravery. I give all respect to the people who fought and the ones who died in the eastern front

British brains, American brawn and Russian blood Thse Soviets threw as much shit at the wall to see what stuck and knew what would happen if they gave up, the Americans had massive industry, economy and natural resources to play with and the British had code breakers and the best "special forces" and covert ops of the war....... it was a team effort and all where respected in there individual ways by one another and by there enemies.

Maybe someone needed to take into account why the individual soldier was there in the first place . Considering the US soldier was not fighting for his country but instead fighting for the guys next to him WHY would he take risks that might cost him his life when his Country was NOT technically at "risk" ? My understanding was the US was there to "help" not "carry the load" .

When the Japanese surrendered in Pearl Harbor my Grandpa was there… he was a Lt Col in the engineers developing explosives….there were huge piles of samurai swords on the docks from McArthurs requirement that they turn them in to break their wills….he grabbed 2 and brought them home. Years later I found them and asked what they were, he told me, and then told me what the hand written notes attached to the scabbards said. “Please if you can ever see your way to returning these to us, our family name is XXX….and we will be forever in your debt”….etc etc. I asked him if he’d ever thought of returning them. He said two words, “fk em.” If you’d lived through those days like he did, you kinda have to understand the hate. He had friends who’d died in the South Pacific. Different era…… and WE were different then also……but, I get it. RIP Grandpa John.

I worked with a guy who was a boy in Germany during WW2. He said his parents absolutely hated Montgomery, because every time they heard his name on the radio it meant bad news.

And yet no matter what the German Officers thought about us we kicked butt.

A USMC quote via the Fat Electrician...."If you aren't cheating, you're not trying."

I believe the Germans were probably the best soldiers, you kind of have to be if you are fighting three nations at once, their biggest flaw is fighting without knowing they’ve already lost. They lost numbers war, the gasoline war, and the winter war. Per battle, great army but extremely shortsighted command.

Essentially correct synopsis of American performance in WW2. But, there were good reasons: 1) The American public did not favor the Europe First strategy since it was Japan that attacked us. Like all people, you want revenge against the one who starts it. Great efforts were made in the way od propaganda to get the US population to accept the Europe First policy, which directed the majority of resources to the Army for a long war for Europe. The reasons for this are controversial to this day. 2) The seeming lack of tenacity in the American Infantry in Europe is not mirrored in the absolute resolve among Marines in the Pacific. They were the same generation of American men, but fought a different war in a completely different way. a) The US infantry soldier in Europe just wanted to get back home in one piece. He knew he had no stake in taking European soil and he did not buy into the idea that America would be next on Hitlers agenda. Americans had little desire to die for France, Belgium, and certainly not for Germany. b) The Marines didn't want to die for Iwo Jima or Okinawa either, but they fought for Pearl Harbor. The same is true for the US Army in the New Guinea and Phillipines campaigns. An argument can be made that the Marines were more tenacious in the island hopping battles because thay had no avenue of retreat once they landed. Surrender was not an option because of the barbaric treatment that would definitely occur if captured. So, the Marines most often did not give quarter. Dozens of interviews confirm this scenario, while interviews with European vets have a completely different view on facing the Germans. There was no sharing coffee and cigarettes with prisoners on Iwo. 3) America did indeed have the resources to fight two high intensity wars at the same time. The fact that the US could supply their allies as well made German post-war commentators bitter. Some of that is relected in the writings of officers in their after action reports as to whay they lost against an inferior army (US). But the use of resources and its abundance are the major factors in winning a modern mechanised war. There are no more 300 Spartans when 5,000 rounds of HE is in play. Using those resources wisely is what America did, becausae the public would NEVER have supported the losses otherwise. Along with the negative views of American soldiers are numerous others that are less nuanced. These recognise the modern tactic employed by US commanders in obliterating German defenses before moving infantry into the kill zone. If it were not so, why did almost all German post war accounts mention the barely concealed envy for the overwhelming materiel of the Americans? Few American commanders wished to send men into a meatgrinder like the Soviets did (they were motivated by homeland defense), and with war reporrtes near the front lines in numbers not allowed by any other country, no commander wanted his name associated with an American slaughter. Perhaps the lone exception was the Battle of the Heurtegen Forest, which was deemed not even necessary and was poorly coordinated. In the end, victory in western Europe was decided by Logistics - the American specialty. Same in the Pacific, but with higher troop casualties per division by percentage. 4) The Soviets - by far - did most of the fighting and dying. 4 out of every 5 German killed in battle in WW2 were killed by Russians. About 7,000,000 Russian soldiers were killed compared to 440,000 Americans in both Europe and the Pacific. Another 11,000,000 Russian civilians died vs almost no American civilians. I think the count is in the hundreds from Japanese imprisonment and the initial attack on Pearl. Contrary to some stories, the Russian soldier was not fighting for Communism, but for his home, wife, and children. He didn't fight because there was a political officer pointing a gun at him. He fought because his farm and land had been destroyed and he wanted revenge. Revenge is the greatest motivator of all. Thus, the Germans fought like demons to avoid capture by the Russian at all costs.

There was a lot left out of this compilation. It was the first use by the western allies of combined arms attack. The German commenters left out British and American air power which was really the game changer. The Germans had no answer to the p-51 mustang and by the time they had a few jet planes it was too late. The German commenters talked about only tactical things and not strategic aspects of their enemies. From a strategic aspect the British and Americans was unbeatable. The deception of where the allies would land on d-day was brilliant. They may not have thought the Americans were brave, but the Americans often attacked where the Germans least expected. The British and Americans relied heavily on air power which had a lot to do with their relatively low casualty rate compared to the Russians. As for the Russians, their soldiers may have been more willing to die and fight til the last, this tactic worked but using this tactic in both WW1 and WW2 took huge melon scoops out of Russias population. In the current war in Ukraine their tactics of using meat waves of men into attacks and winning through attrition isn’t working quite as well because Russia doesn’t have the population they used to have. Treating their soldiers as expendable pawns may be Russias undoing this time around.

My Grandad, Fred Brown from Birmingham, was a gunner in north Africa. A bricklayer by trade. Nice to hear the Nazis feared his gunning. My other grandfather helped design the de Havilland Mosquito, of which, if I recall correctly, Göring said, if I had 1 Mosquito for every 10 of my bombers the war would be one next week. High praise indeed. God bless you, both my pops.

It could be said that, resources, such as cigarettes', medical care, bullets, jeeps, C-47s, fighter planes, clean water, liberty ships, artillery, warships, oil, resupply companies, industrial flexibility, all help win a war. But , leadership, taking care of your men, by far the Australians, New Zealanders and the Americans took better care of their troops. Cannon fodder is a European, Asian, old world practice. Still is in China, Russia.

I'm glad the germans had such high opinions of themselves while losing and ruining there own country!

“No soldier ever won a war by dying for his country! He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country!” - General Patton

"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics"

My dad volunteered after Pearl Harbor for the Navy and participated until the end of the war returning home to North Louisiana. He also never spoke of the war. I don’t think throughout my childhood he ever spoke of it once.

"Pride Goeth Before a Fall!' ..... The Germans underestimated 3 Powerful Military War Machines and in the end got Crushed!

German POWs in American captivity were said to be especially bitter about the US artillery, calling it a rich man's way to fight. I've read, over the decades, that while the German soldiers were well trained and motivated, they didn't do all that well if their leaders were taken out. Whereas the Americans did well at improvisation and thinking on their feet in leaderless or chaotic situations. Imagine how bitter the Germans would have been had they gotten the B-29 treatment.

As an American, l think we should remember the French and the Polish. The Partisans and French Resistance saved hundreds of thousands of men in the alliance.

The American philosophy was, it's isn't the job of an American soldier to die for his country but to make the other bastard dies for his.

worked with a ww2 vet that was in Germany during the war.was one person not ashamed to tell his fights.said had perfect teeth when started and a German knocked them out with his rifle butt,reflex training saved his life when he put his rifle butt in ground and the German walked into his bayonet.said you unclipped them cost to much time in battle to pull them out of someones ribs,always get another later.was on a train going to battle and it stopped.british running train stopped for tea.took charge and got train back moving british soldiers had to run to get back on.british thought was like going to your job, Americans wanted nothing more than getting the f out of there and back home alive.told how he fired an air cooled 50 till the barrel drooped took gloves and changed barrel and went back firing,when that one drooped the first had cooled and straightened.said Patton brought him whiskey when he was on battle field in foxhole.got him talking and he wouldn't quit.

I was at a flea market in suburban NJ years ago when I heard one of the vendors, a grizzled old man wearing a tattered German field gray overcoat, speaking a few words of Russian to one of his customers. I spoke Russian, too, so I asked him about it (since he didn’t look Russian). Turns out he had been a Wehrmacht private who’d been captured near the end of the war, taken to Russia, and retained there - as many were - for 10 years after the peace, being forced to rebuild Soviet buildings, railways, and factories destroyed in the fighting.

American soldiers valued their lives and used their brains and weapons to defeat the enemy. One thing people forget or fail to understand that both World War One and World War Two were primarily artillery wars.

As an older German, I can definitely say that all German veterans I know have never been impressed by the military performance of the US military. But the German soldiers were very impressed by the people that the USA sent into the war. When you are suddenly confronted with such easy-going, humane types who keep saying, we will defeat you Germans anyway? And to prove it they have it all in immeasurable numbers, what do you do when it sucks on your own side, the blood and soil side?

This actually kinda hits at an argument that Lazerpig made in one of his videos, that Americans had the least justification for fighting Germany of the major allied powers, Germany bombed London during the blitz, and massacred Russians during Barbarossa, but Germany only declared war on the US to back up Japan. Japan was Americas true enemy.

“Never before have I seen such lions led by such lambs.” Is a quote that’s said about the British soldiers in WW1 who were led by upper class officers who were thought to be incompetent by the Germans.

I read a book written from the Normandy invasion from the German perspective. One overwhelming lasting impression was that you never follow a retreating US combat force as all it will do is lead you into a lot more Americans and fire power. In short American broke sooner then the English but always return with more fire power and troops. Also do not leave anything behind as the Americans will likely get it working and use it against you later.

Around 2:10 mark No soldiers were more adapt at night fighting than the Soviets! I'll bet the Marine Corps and the US Army and fellow Allies would give the Japanese a similar ranking!

Dear Sirs, a son of the Hungarian POW, in Russia, I am far from supporting any sides. Yet, the most opressions, our Family and has sufferred is the Russian and the subsequent Czechoslovak side. Probably as a repayment of the sufferings, but made by whom? Paul, Paul, 67, retired teacher

This video is fantastically simplistic.

If it wasn’t for our boys you all would be speaking German or Japanese right now. Never forget that.

It's also important to remember that the British and Soviet Soldiers were fighting a war of survival. The Russian population was brutalized by the Germans and if they gave up their country would end. The British population was subjected to endless bombings and would have been subjugated eventually if Russia fell and the US didn't enter the war... The US was never in danger of invasion from German or Japan and, at worst, would have suffered some sanctions or blockades from those countries but the US can survive without imports, especially then. Tough to expect the same level of determination when those are the stakes.

British military did all kinds of surveys after the war. One involved the Germans and one of the main questions presented was "Who was your best opponent?" The majority of interviewees said it was the British and answered that was because they seemed to be the best trained, best led, and most consistent.

ACTUALLY at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa Soviet troops gave up by the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS at a drop of the hat without fighting. ONLY after word spread that the Germans murdered captured Soviet troops did they start fighting to the death. It's nice having an actual education in these matters so one can evaluate data..

I knew and talked to people who fought on allied side on both fronts. In the east massive wave after wave of men. On western front: "we sat in deckchairs sipping beer listening to cannons pounding the Germans for two or three days. Than advanced. If there was one machine gun nest left we withdrew and cannons pouded them for another day or two. Than we advanced through countryside where hardly a mouse survived. Whatever Germans thought of yanks, I know where I would prefere to be.

45 years ago I asked a German soldier who fought in Monte Cassino against the allies, about his opponents: French foreign legion fought poorly, retreated early, whereas the polish exile army fought tenaciously, brave and were the most respected foes.

Apparently Irish soldiers in the British army were feared. Ferocious fighters but very friendly.

British tank tactics at the start were determined by the fact that the German AT guns could not penetrate the armour of the Matilda II or Valentine tank, so they didn't have to worry about them. Therefore, the Germans repurposed their 88mm AA guns and we all know where that led

My dad was in Germany when the war ended. He said out of all the peoples he met in his two year long time in war he admired the Germans the most.

What Germans feared most of all was American air power. American combat aircraft greatly outnumbered the Germans. Carpet bombing inflicted huge losses of both soldiers and civilians. Firestorms devastated Hamburg, Dresden and other cities. By the end of the war, there was hardly any town in Germany that had not been bombed. Deployed tactically, the bombers were also punishing, notably in the Falaise Pocket, where the US Ninth Air Force and the RAF Second Tactical Air Force fell upon retreating columns of Germans, killing thousands. It was not so much the brilliance of General Patton that rescued the battered defenders of Bastogne in the Battle of the Bulge as a change in the weather that made the German panzers sitting ducks for Allied aircraft.

they did not take into account that the American soldiers were not fighting on American soil and figured that they just wanted to go home. My cousin Vito Bertoldo earned a congressional metal of Honor in France for defending 2 command posts from German troops and tanks with a machine gun and a M1 Garand .