Comments by "Dennis Weidner" (@dennisweidner288) on "Your Perception of the WW2 Eastern Front is Wrong" video.

@RouGeZH Absolutely correct and poorly understood even in the West. I think your numbers, however, are way off. Remember that about half of German industrial production went to fight the air war and the Luftwaffe was primarily deployed in the West except for the second half of 1941 and most of 42. Can I ask where you got your data? I have worked on this issue. While YT does not permit hot links, you can have a look if you google " German Industrial Effort: Concentration on the War in the West" and add "histclo".
2
Tik, There is much in what you say. but I think you ignore some important basic matters. 1. First of all you are correct, it was not all about Red Army numbers. Those numbers, however, were a factor. 2. The Ostheer was poorly equipped. Some 80 percent of the Ostheer was unmotorized infantry. Meaning that the great bulk of the Ostheer moved east on foot with horse-drawn carts. 3. The NAZI allies were even more poorly equipped than the German troops. Remember it was the collapse of these units on the flanks of Stalingrad that led to the encirclement operation at Stalingrad, 4. NAZI barbarity aroused the fighting spirit of the Red Army soldier and Soviet civilians.] 5. American Lend Lease provided important support to the Red Army. 6. While German MANPOWER was deployed in the East, German INDUSTRIAL POWER primarily went to fight the War in the West. This left the Osttheer poorly equipped and inadequately supplied. Also in all fairness, you should mention, that the Russian people have an even more myopic view of the War. Most are convinced that the Soviet Union won the War single-handedly and the War in the West was a sideshow. And the fact that the Soviets were a NAZI ally for nearly 2 years is expunged from the history books. And unlike in the West, there are no voices like yourself, Glantz, Cicano, etc. to provide a more balanced view.
2
The Finns were not members of the Axis, but they were co-belligerents. That comes very close to being allies. It was rather like the status of the Soviets toward the Western Allies.
1
@johnburns4017 Why do you say that? The values, goals, system outlook, and much else radically differed. The only point of agreement was to destroy the NAZIs. This is the very definition of co-belligerency.
1
@johnburns4017 What you wrote was certainly simple, but a mere statement of your opinion without any supporting logic or facts. It may be true, but because you believe it to be true does not make it so. I gave you the opportunity to substantiate your opinion. Your refusal to do so speaks volumes.
1
There was no peace treaty signed in 1945. What was signed were surrender documents. As for the War in the West, it was vital to the Soviet victory. While German MANPOWER was mostly committed to the Ostkrieg, over half of the German INDUSTRIAL OUTPUt went to the War in the West. This was a major factor in the Soviet victory. The Ostheer was poorly equipped and supplied. Some 80 percent of the Ostheer was unmotorized infantry moving East on foot with horse-drawn carts.
1
@TheImperatorKnight True, but why. One of the reasons is that so much of Germany's industrial output went to fight the war in the West., leaving the Ostheer poorly equipped and inadequately supplied.
1
@Bagunka You may be sick of hearing it but it is absolutely true that America and Britain saved the day. 1. You show a very poor understanding of the history of the War. When you say "NO OTHER Allies force fought Germany for that many years straight!" You are not talking about the Soviet Union, you are talking about Britain which began the fight from the very beginning in September 1939. The Sovirt Uniion did not join the fight until 1941. 2. You do not seem to realize that the Soviet Union started the War when they along with Germany invaded Poland (September 1939). And the Soviets were a faithful NAZI ally, supplying the NAZI war machine with oil and other key resources. They were a NAZI ally (Seoenber 1938=9-June 1941) 3. America can be criticized for not joining the fight earlier, but we were not a BNAZI ally and supplying the German war machine. 4. America did not join the War until 1941, but American material support helped save Britain and supported the Brutish war effort. 5. American material support through Lend Lease was of huge benefit to the Red Army after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.6. 6. American and British naval power prevented Germany from importing the oil it needed to conquer the Soviet Union. 7. It is absurd to say that America "came in at the came in last minute when it was already obvious that Germany is going to lose." The United States entered the War in December 1941 when NAZI armies had occupied vast areas of the Soviet Union and then launched a massive offensive in 1942. No one at the time was thinking that the NAZIs had won the War. 8. While German MANPOWER was mostly deployed in the East, the American and British war in the West caused the Germans to divert much of their INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT away from the Ostheer, leaving them poorly equipped and supplied. This was an important factor in the Red Army's victory. 9. It was the American and British War in the West that prevented the Soviet Union from occupying all of Western Europe and establishing Communist police states as they did in Eastern Europe. 10. And as after World War I, America prevented mass starvation in war-devastated Europe after World War II.
1
@RouGeZH Absolutely correct. Although you fail to mention that the Soviet Union was a a NAZI ally for nearly 2 years of the War.
1
@RouGeZH It is an open question what country was the most impactful. It is true that the Red Army killed the most Germans. But one reason they did this was material support from the Americans and the diversion of German resources to fight the war in the West. And you are just ignoring how the Western Allies prevented the Red Army from advancing into Western Europe. That was part of World War II as well.
1
@Bagunka D-Day was in 1944, but you do not understand the importance of the war in the West. German MANPOWER was mostly in the East, but much of Germany's INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT went to fight the War in the West. This divergence left the Ostheer poorly equipped and supplied and was a major factor in the Soviet victory.
1
@leonpaelinck World War II in general does not play a major role in American history classes. By the time the teacher gets around to it, it is near the end of the year and it is often rushed over. And in recent years, increasingly politicized teachers, often give an anti-American view of the War.
1
What you say is true, but worth mentioning is that the Soviet Union was a NAZI ally for nearly 2 years and committed obscene atrocities in the countries it invaded (1939-41).
1
@Skipper. True, but also important is that the Soviets closed their archives to Western historians. So it was basically impossible to research the Soviet side of the Wat. Incidentally, under Putin, the Soviet archives are now closed again.
1
@Saruman38 Numbers were a factor, but they were hardly the only factor.
1
@TheImperatorKnight What is not true?. The Soviets did have superior numbers. It is true that as you point out this was not the only factor, but they did have superior numbers. Now the numerical superiority was narrowed during Barbarossa by the massive Red Army losses and fir a time there was a degree of parity, the Soviet Union was a larger country with a larger population. And the Germans may have had superior numbers at the point of the spear at times in 1941 and 42, this advantage was lost as American trucks began to arrive in large numbers after Stalingrad.
1
@charliebarber4899 What nonsense. American imperialism as you call it saved the world from being dominated by the great totalitarian dictatorships of the 20th century. Of course, mistakes were made. What war was ever fought without mistakes? But the overall arc of American history is toward freedom. at home and abroad In fact, it was in America that: 1. The world first broke from monarchy that had dominated humanity for millennia beginning in Sumeria. 2. The average Joe for the first time could own the land he worked--again for the first time in history when mankind primarily eked out a meager existence as a landless peasantry. It is you who has a poor understanding of history. And your understanding of economics is equally flawed. Please name a prosperous country that does not have a core capitalist economy. Or a socialist country that has a prosperous economy.
1
@sheevinit1490 It is you who has a muddled view of the Revolution. It was a turning point in human history. 1. The world first broke from monarchy that had dominated humanity for millennia beginning in Sumeria. 2. The average Joe for the first time could own the land he worked--again for the first time in history when mankind primarily eked out a meager existence as a landless peasantry. Now I am a big fan of Britain and believe that much that is right about America is our British heritage. But in 1776 Britain still had a powerful although limited monarchy and only a small fraction of the British people could vote or own kand.
1