Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Top 11 Misconceptions of World War 2 #Eurocentric Edition" video.

  1. Yes and no. Royal navy was huge and launching an amphibous operation just a few months before winter would had been risky. Espicially with Germanys low capacity to transport troops and supplies across the channel. But one cannot rule out the possibility of a succesful invasion in 1940 if they had good air cover and made a surprise attack, but the possibility seems very unlikely to me. The invasion of Norway the same year had also been costly for the German navy. But with air superior in 1941, Focke Wulf fighters, the italian and VIchy navy I think the odds could had been somewhat better. But on the other hand would Britain probably had prepared better defences along the coasts, reinforced the island with colonial troops, trained more men, and built more tanks.. so its hard to know.
    110
  2. Watch some war movies and you see which tank that usally wins. (Hint: it isn't the Tiger).
    59
  3. pfff Shermans was the most produced tank during the entire war
    52
  4. Could Germany land troops on the British islands? Sure. But the largest concern for me is: How do you supply them? A German division would need 400 tonnes of supplies each day just in order to be fit for fight. How do you get that amount in when the royal navy would send any supply ship to the bottom of the sea? And supplying them by air doesn't seem realistic either, especially not after the heavy losses of transport planes during the invasion of Holland and if the RAF hasn't been destoyed. Plus there is a problem with autumn weather.
    28
  5. well shermans was used many years after the war and was used by many countries while no countries used german tanks. sherman was a much better tank than the tiger. Not even micheal witthman could win over them.
    22
  6. I mean rain, clouds and storms would prevent the Germans from transporting in supplies to the ground troops.
    11
  7. The precision of bombs was so low that hitting a factory was equalent of winning on the lottery. So the solution was thought to be to kill the workers in the factories instead by bombing the cities. And the allies were succesful in murdering lots of people, but industrial production still rose the entire war. The Germans moved the factories to the country side, and the bombs fell on old people, sick and disabled which just were a burden to the German war effort and food supply - so Hitler didn't mind much about having his cities bombed. And it didn't break the German peoples will to resist. The reaction was rather the opposite. People saw it as cowardice and as a cruel and brutal form of warfare to drop firebombs and burning mothers and kids to death in 1000 degrees hot flames. And even in 1945 many German pilots even made suicidal kamikaze attacks on allied bombers and ramming them, just in order to protect their own families and civilians in their own towns. Curtis Lee May and bomber Harris commited war crimes and achieved nothing, perhaps they even prolonged the war since the German determination to fight increased and the resources used to build bombers could have been used to build other more effective weaponsystems instead. Personally I think its strange that people complain about the atomic bomb but never say anything about Curtis or Harris. I don't think the fire bombing was justifible (especially not Dresden) even if Germany started this tactic in Guernica, Warzaw and Rotterdam.
    2
  8. If Hitler done nothing after the fall of balkans and never attacked USA or USSR, maybe Germany could have been masters of Europe. But besides from that I don't see how Germany could have won. Germany simply lacked the resources to win. And her allies was too weak to make any difference. And when you make 20 "What if's" in a row, things becomes too unrealistic too make any qualified guesses on how the war would have ended. And then there is the problem of "what if" Hitler never started a genocide in Russia would he have won? -The question basicly becomes "what if Hitler wasn't Hitler", and the question thereby becomes quite irrelevant.
    1
  9. "Understanding all these misconceptions and learning about how it actually was I can´t stop to wonder how the Axis actually did achieve so much during the war." Germany had luck and the element of surprise. They had a superb co-operation between airforce and army. Their airforce tactics was superior, and they could use their planes more often than the allies since they positioned their airfields 20 minutes flight behind the frontline (instead like hours as the allies), which enabled them to fly more bombing missions with each plane on a single day. The German army also had a long prussian tradition of good leadership and buraucracy. Encirclement battles, kampfgruppen- tactics, stormtrooper infiltration tactics, auftrags taktik was also important components of their successes. The German army was the best in the world in World War1, but many in the high command were retards. But after the Versaille peace the army was deprived of its heavy weapons and forced to shrink from 3 million to 100.000. All that meant that Germany only could keep its very best most talented men for the army, which it did. So the Worlds best army got rid of all but the best. And reichwehr became an excellent little army, but it lacked heavy weapons and numbers. But that changed when Hitler transformed the army in 1935 and reintroduced conscription and created an airforce and armour divisions and artillery. Germany then got both numbers and heavy equipment to their excellent leadership. But even so, so was Germany much less prepared for a war in 1939, than it was in 1914. But 1939 was a new age with the radio, which enabled coordination of supporting fire, reinforcements, troop coordination and mobility that now crushed the advantage the defending side had in 1914.
    1
  10. Taking Moscow didn't make Napoleon master of Russia, so it isn't certain Hitler would had been master of Russia either if he had succeded. Furthermore was the battle of Moscow in 1941 a bloody battle for Germany, it took more German soliders lives than all the wars for conquering Europe (in 1939-40) did combined. So had the German army also been involved in street fighting in Moscow like in Stalingrad, the German army would have been even more exhuasted by all extra losses. Barbarossa was bloody, Moscow battle was bloody, the city battles would have been bloody, the cold winter and the exhausted logistics would have added to the problems. So Germany would probably have been too weak to hold the city or getting encircled like the German army in Stalingrad in 1942. And on top of it all, you got a powerful force with over half a million men on your southern front, and a flanking attack from Kiev could easily have cut through the German supply lines and left the German army in Moscow to starve to death. So all in all, I think its strange that people say that crushing the Kiev pocket in 1941 was a mistake. I see it as common sense. A totally uncontroversial decision really.
    1
  11. It is true that Germany didn't begin the war with a big army and industry like in 1914. The re-arment and competent leadership could compensate for some of the shortages, and later on would plunder help too. But it wasn't until 1943 Germany was able to make large scale assembly line production like the allies. Before then Germany simply didn't have any large scale factories and equipment for such. One another thing worth mentioning is that an economic crisis can be positive for re-arment, since you don't have to take the unpopular decision of stealing workers from the private sector to feed your army with manpower. With the massunemployment, people rather happily went from unemployed to become a man in uniform, or going to a factory to make that uniform. Americas quick total mobilization for a war economy in 1942 wouldn't have been possible to make as smoothly without the massunemployment, and all empty factories that laid idle and could be converted into factories for tank production and building guns. The low standard of living under the great depression also made people more tolerant of war rationing, since they were used to meager standard of living. Had the economy been rolling along well before the war, people might have been protesting the higher taxes and lower standard of living and the limitations put on concumer choice. But things wasn't like that, so the reaction in USA to the war became quite different. People remember it as a time when the American people became one. Everyone, rich and poor, black and white, women and men had to make sacrifices for the final victory. Unemployed was no longer seen as worthless, but as military service men worthy of respect and deserving of veterans benifits for risking their lives for the country. Other unemployed got jobs in the war industry with well paid wages, and since foodproduction actully did grow under the war, America could afford both guns and butter, and people could get a much better diet than other wartorn nations. People got jobs, income, and unemployment in US went down to 0%! some factories owners even had to go out on the streets and start searching for workers themselves to fill the labour shortages. And the high inflation during the war had wiped away the large national debt. The economy was rolling. New innovations was ready to become the next generation of consumer products. And the people which was broken and starving, was now in good shape and had their pockets filled saved money, since the wartime rationing system had made it impossible to waste the money on consumer goods. And veterans was guaranteed housing benifits and could also contribute to the great demand for consumer goods that would create the economic boom after World War 2.
    1
  12. Yes, but even so it was too late for Germany. Even if the had built He-162 wich only needed one jet engine instead of two like the 262, adopted pre-modern missiles, and built the first SAMs.. the air superiority was still beyond reach for the Germans. The Americans totally outproduced the Germans, and to make matters worse the British and Soviet aircraft production was also overwhelming.. while the Japanease and Italian aircraft production was too small and pathetic to compensate even a tiny share for that. Furthermore would the allies have plenty of time to train new pilots and could move planes and skilled pilots from the pacific if Germany had fought on. And they had plenty of raw material to build planes, unlike the germans who lacked both fuel and rare earth metals for production of reliable jet engines. And the allies had the meteor jet fighter with a better engine than the 262. But even if it had rained every day of 1944 so Germany would have time to rebuild its airforce and having their factories running, I doubt the outcome of the war would have changed considering the huge manpower and stockpiles of equipment the allies had. The allies would probably had won even without the atombombs.
    1