How many people were mobilized during the Second World War

[@vanlande5772]

Holy smoke, those 35-42% mobilization rates. Germany, Italy, Finland and Soviet Union weren't playing games.

[@michaelmapes4119]

Probably that's where most of the fighting took place.

[@piersp38]

Say It to the idiots Who says " Italy swtiched side " , like It was a party , without knowing a fuxxx what Italy lived in 3 continents and moreover as civil war , which Is surely a percentage not included here . Difficult to believe both partizans or Social Republic Army were counted here , than They should be added.

[@Spicydanči]

And where Czechoslovakia ?

[@LordDavid04]

@@Spicydanči They were ceded to Nazi Germany prior to the war? Although, this is somewhat inaccurate anyways as it probably takes into account resistance numbers or those from those nations who joined/mobilized after their respective nations fell.

[@DonMrLenny]

Germany after the war for many years had one of the worst male to female ratios in the world that for every 100 women they had only 85 men

[@riccargonauta6836]

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding in the translation: Italy mobilized about 3.4 million soldiers... and 5.2 million civilians as workers (of whom 1.2 million were women). The Italian word "mobilitazione" is used for both military mobilization and civil conscription (this means that it is illegal for some workers to abandon their jobs or go on strike).

[@rjbmarchiac8693]

Same with France, and the period of mobilization is also unsure. They mobilized 5 million men in 1939, half of them in the army, half of them as workers in strategic industries, in services, in the fields to feed the army, as specialists being instructed.

[@botai_]

​@@rjbmarchiac8693and what about Vichy France?

[@rjbmarchiac8693]

@@botai_ The Germans let them keep an "army" of 100,000 without any heavy equipment, to secure the colonial empire.

[@markadal]

​@vonsausage6312really. France surrendered, holland, belgium, Norway, poland. Britain surrendered Singapore. Worst defeat ever. America surrendered the Philippines. When you dont have resources what do you do? If Britain didnt have Commonweath troops and others what do you think would have happened. Or usa re lend lease. Check out italian paratroopers of folgore. Praised by Churchill. And exploits of navy. Etc. Mere fact they surrendered in 1943 because the king arrested Mussolini. And many troops and partisans fought the Germans.

[@yurikozhokin8348]

Italian army was destroyed in just two weeks in December od 1942.

[@stefanavic6630]

Australia 1 million? I wish Hearts of Iron 4 would give Australia that man power.

[@The_fog_general]

I couldn’t say it better

[@razorburn645]

No kidding I wish 1.1 million to work with in Canada.

[@stefanavic6630]

@@razorburn645 Same here - I actually like playing the second tier powers and was really surprised about Canada's man power. They landed troops on D-Day for goodness sake.

[@noldo3837]

Well, HoI IV programmers and testers only care about how to make Nazi countries strong, Allies weak, and Commies absurd.

[@LibeliumDragonfly]

go for scrape the barrel

[@Leslie2112-u1q]

Minor note but the Canadian flag show in this video was not adopted until 1965. Prior to this flag, Canada used the Canadian Red Ensign which was a red flag with the union jack in the corner.

[@pbcoop62]

I noticed that too. The creator did a good job with the flag research, but I saw modern flags for Canada, Australia, and the United States, and the Communist era flag for Yugoslavia (although that might represent Tito's partisans).

[@Blaqjaqshellaq]

And the Canadian Navy used the Blue Ensign, with blue in the place of red.

[@Boksburg1982]

Wrong. It was the union flag of the united kingdom of Great Britain. The Union Jack is flown only from the bow of Royal Navy ship.

[@andyshaw7274]

@@Blaqjaqshellaq Actually, The RCN used the white ensign (same as the RN). The blue ensign was used for the jack. The RN used the white ensign, and the Royal Union flag as the jack.

[@Blaqjaqshellaq]

@@andyshaw7274 What's the difference between an ensign and a jack?

[@melorange1678]

Very disappointing that New Zealand was left out. Apart from serving with the NZ forces, many served with the British, especially the RAF. A small population that contributed way beyond in both world wars. Given that it was 67% of men aged 18 to 65 , it was a serious omission.

[@australianmade2659]

Probably better to just say ANZAC

[@maxdavis7722]

67% blows anything else out of the video, where did you get that stat?

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

I thought it was 0.76 of your entire population was killed ?

[@nurzhan888]

3:40 Италия 9000000=40% Китай 14000000=5%

[@kiwichris2971]

NZ was a small country of only 2.5 million back then and just didn't have the raw numbers to be on the top of this list. But in terms of the % of population (per capita) that served then we would be in the top 5 for sure. With a lot serving in other Commonwealth armed forces. I enjoyed this clip and there's nothing wrong with reasonable and respectful debate such as I've seen

[@BlauerBooo]

Take in mind: the mobilization rate and numbers are throughout the war. This means: over the time of 6 years max. - not at one moment. AND this also means: for some official standing armies the war was shorter than for orthers, so this puts into context their numbers as well - like for France, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, Poland and such, that were involved in fighting of their regular armed forces only for a shorter period of weeks or months compared to Germany or the Soviet Union for all the years.

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

The country that spent the longest period fighting was the UK. It entered the war on 3 September 1939 and its armed forces were still fighting when Japan surrendered on 2 September 1945. Also I wondered if the figures include the volunteers from occupied nations that fought for the axis ?

[@xajmaq]

Poland don't signed peace treaty with nazi Germany... So technically we are still at war :p

[@thomast8539]

@@lightfootpathfinder8218 Not so fast. The Japanese invaded Manchuria in 1931 which led to full scale war with China beginning in 1937. WW2 in Europe may have begun in September of 1939, but the Asian portion of the conflict started much earlier.

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

@@thomast8539 that was a war between Japan and China confined to Asia. Once Germany invaded Poland and the UK and France declared war it involved all of there colonies across the globe hence it was the start of the world war

[@Fox13440]

Even like that France never had 50millions man available (5millions is 5% so 100%=50)

[@peter300official]

How many men you want? USSR: yes.

[@k.a1z597]

All of them

[@earlbinvico]

And still to this day, the "echoes of war" in the Russian population remain. It really was horrible for them. No country had ever lost so much people in so little time with war as a direct cause.

[@peter300official]

@@earlbinvico its sad,the USSR lost 27 million people and no one care or respect today,if USSR lost in WW2 half of the world will be "german" today but after all losts the allies dont see the soviets as friends and after WW2 USA and UK start the cold war.

[@Alfonse-dm6ht]

USSR And Russia Are Different Entities And The Most People That That Dies Are Mostly Inside The Belarus (Whom Lost Half Of Their Population) And Ukraine And To Further Extent Western Russia And To Some Extent The 3 Province Tier Countries Latvia Lithuania And Estonia

[@romko4496]

​@@Alfonse-dm6htmost people by number where still Russians that died

[@RouGeZH]

The % of the male french population is wrong. 5 million is 25% of the male pop not 12.5%. Population of France was about 40 million in 1940.

[@mekenyk1028]

I thought so too when i saw Poland and than it hit me they are counting men "fit for service" then and now it was over 15 milion so they are not counting all people in the country only those who can fight

[@MultiKaramon]

I think it meant France with its colonies

[@silverpleb2128]

Colonies. Also including the french departements of north africa which were fully integrated in France.

[@RouGeZH]

@SilverPleb it's wrong too, male population of the French empire in 1939 was around 55 millions, and 5 isn't 12.5% of 55 but 9.1%.

[@silverpleb2128]

@@RouGeZH The guy made a mistake by not showing the colonies and the population of the DOM TOM and north african departements and the population of the colonies. But also, he made a mistake by talking about % of male population while showing the % of the whole METROPOLITAN population of france. And yet, 12.5 % is a correct number. 5 millions out of 40 millions is 12.5 %.

[@911-d2b]

You miss the *Czechoslovak mobilization which numbered 1,250,000 men.* I don't know what percentage it is from the total available manpower, but at that time Czechoslovakia had more than 13,600,000 inhabitants, so I would say around 25-20%

[@nuradinsadigi9148]

with only one soldier to shoot at Germans?

[@kromek_jga]

@@nuradinsadigi9148 Czechoslovak troops fought on the Western Front (as part of the British Army) and the Eastern Front (alongside the Red Army).

[@nuradinsadigi9148]

@@kromek_jga however you can neither refer to those units as "Czechoslovak mobilized" nor claim the stated number. Plus weren't there some axis slovak troops as well as Czech pro-German police troops ?

[@davidrajtr8332]

Yes Czechoslovakia had 14 800 000 people in 1938. But around 3 000 000 was Germans and another around 700 000 were Hungarians. So generaly the most of the soliders was slavic, Czechs, Slovaks and Rusyns. Anyway there was still around 100 000 Germans and 60 000 Hungarians who entered to CzSA. So yes generaly we can say it was 20% of male population mainly when count slavic parts, in german it was around 5-6% of male population, and hungarians similar to 20%.

[@911-d2b]

@@nuradinsadigi9148 The title of the video is "how many people were mobilized during the Second World War", in 1938 there was a general mobilization of the Czechoslovak population, with uniforms, weapons and equipment, just everything. The fact that they surrendered without a fight is another matter.

[@lewycraft]

A bit of a correction. While yes, overall, oficiall military numbers, that Poland managed to mobilise, was only 2mln, overall, more than double of that, was fighting after the fall of poland in the resistance, as well, as forcfully drafted into Wehrmacht.

[@JulianFilipsson]

It talks about mobilisation. Some countries had fighters in each side.

[@albertofernandez2490]

4 mln? Poland mobilised 1 mln in september 1939. Drafted into Wehrmacht maybe 400k. Do you think 2,5 mln served in the resistance?

[@lewycraft]

@@albertofernandez2490 some 500k fought in the West and East, some 400k fought in different resistance groups.

[@midnike8783]

@@albertofernandez2490 Add to this the 440K in Ludowe Wojsko Polskie, which fought against the Nazis on the side of the Red Army.

[@juno6602]

Poland's pre-war position calls for something like 40-50% of the country's population to be mobilized. Basically everyone who isn't a disloyal German or Ukrainian nationalist, a communist, a child, an alcoholic, a baked potato, or someone absolutely necessary to economic survival should have been given military training and put into the reserves.

[@kugellehr]

Also, some 40,000 dutch served in the Wehrmacht or Waffen SS as mostly volunteers. Thousands of Frenchmen and Spaniards also fought in the wehrmacht.

[@Jehan-Descoteaux]

Yep, there was also a ss division completely French the Charlemagne division. And fun fact : this division was the last one to defend hitlers bunker

[@Manu10900]

@@Jehan-Descoteaux Also the Spanish Blau division, made from veterans of the Spanish civil war. Was one of the most brave in the Eastern Front, expecially at Krasny Bor near Leningrad

[@lucatricky1457]

​@@Jehan-Descoteaux Vallons and Flemisch as well as Danish, Swedish, Russians, Hindus

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

There was even a tiny British free corps in the waffen ss

[@leneanderthalien]

the most from the french who fought in the wehrmacht was not volunteers but enlisted by force, from the regions annexed in 1940 (Alsace and Moselle), the most was send to eastern front and many of them die in combat against soviets or during soviet detention in Tambov...the last french prisonner was liberated from soviet union only in 1955!!! 40 000 french enlisted by force did die in soviet union, 6000 of them as prisonners in Tambov...

[@MaryBradley-s3s]

Videos like these never get it 100% right

[@YourFriendlyOfficeAssistant]

But are still informative.

[@houseplant1016]

@@YourFriendlyOfficeAssistant Totally wrong, he counted the million (North) African men with France, gives a wrong perception....While India does get a separate section.

[@YourFriendlyOfficeAssistant]

@@houseplant1016 That's just one mistake, albeit major. That doesn't mean it isn't informative

[@houseplant1016]

@@YourFriendlyOfficeAssistant There are more mistakes, look at the other comments... Something is only informative if it's true, this is just pure fiction or laziness.

[@beniciounfiltered7861]

Pissed me off when they counted Finland as “axis power”

[@francois-mariearouet9379]

Not so fun fact: Poland mobilised 14.8% of their male adult population and lost 25%.

[@vincenzo4965]

Mostly civilian

[@mordegardglezgorv2216]

@@vincenzo4965 mostly jews

[@boomboomm7136]

​@@vincenzo4965 Poland mobilised 4 mln. Soldiers in WW II. In september 1,2 mln, in soviet army 1 Armia WP i 2 Armia WP on east - 2,3 mln soldiers and Polish forces on west - 0,4 mln soldiers. In occupied Poland, partisan organizations operated in occupied Poland, numbering over half a million soldiers in total.

[@Reformed322]

Losing a quarter of a gender of your countries population, in just a matter of less than a decade, in insane to me

[@aguywithpotatoes]

it lost 25% of it’s whole population due to large Jewish population in that time which got mostly killed by the nazi Germans as you probably know

[@YourOwnFriedrich]

Slight note on the 400.000 troops of the Netherlands: i think its the Dutch Army and the KNIL (the army of the Dutch-East-Indies) combined, the Dutch army of the Netherlands fighting the Germans only had 280.000 troops

[@xornxenophon3652]

Either that or they added those units that fought for Germany...

[@YourOwnFriedrich]

@xornxenophon3652 Could be but most sources I see say that max 25.000 Dutchmen fought for the Germans, adding that to 280.000 you still "only" have 305.000

[@YourFriendlyOfficeAssistant]

And if we are doing that, then we need to count it as a percentage of the very large Indonesian population (70 million in 1940)

[@glen1555]

Did the Poland number include those who fought for Great Britain? Came across a cemetery in Hunstanton, Norfolk last Thursday, and there were about 20 war graves, including 6, which were inscribed "Polish Forces".

[@adione6269]

I think those numbers would be irrelevant

[@Agnemons]

@@adione6269 The number of Poles that fought for GB is not, was not and never will be irelevant

[@threepo9692]

Probably soldiers of Anders' Army. Information from wikipedia - The army was created in the Soviet Union but, in March 1942, based on an understanding between the British, Polish, and Soviets, it was evacuated from the Soviet Union and made its way through Iran to Palestine. There it passed under British command and provided the bulk of the units and troops of the Polish II Corps (member of the Polish Armed Forces in the West), which fought in the Italian Campaign. Anders' Army is notable for having been primarily composed of liberated POWs.

[@marekrondo9701]

​@@threepo9692 Żołnierze gen. Andersa, to tylko część sił. W samej Rosji tworzono polską armię dwa razy - po wyjściu Andersa, stworzono tam armię gen. Berlinga. Myślę, że podana liczba uwzględnia: 1. Żołnierzy kampanii z września 1939 r walczących od 1 września przeciwko Niemcom i równolegle od 17 września przeciwko Rosji. 2. Armię gen. Andersa (z Rosji przez bliski wschód do Włoch) 3. Armię gen. Berlinga (z Rosji przez Polskę do Berlina) 4. Nasze statki, które uciekły do Wielkiej Brytanii 5. Naszych pilotów biorących udział w bitwie o Anglię 6. Żołnierzy gen. Maczka, którzy czołgami wyzwalali Belgię i Holandię 7. Wielu innych formacji walczących na zachodzie w wielu miejscach, 8. Żołnierzy AK i innych, czyli kilku organizacji podziemnych w okupowanej Polsce, które były największymi siłami partyzanckimi w Europie. Samo AK, to ponad 300.000 partyzantów.

[@davidjones3712]

The South African flag displayed here is the old "Red Duster ", which was replaced in 1928 by the Oranje Blanje Blou.

[@keelanmurphy9941]

I love how India weren't even using 2% of their power and still made no. 9 lol.

[@Didier-Drogba1337]

They didnt use, it was the English that used them lol. India was a collony to the great England :D

[@atriox7221]

And all the Indian soldiers in the war were volunteers

[@vorynrosethorn903]

Pretty disproportionately from the Punjab. Also the Nepalese had a far higher rate percentage wise, hundreds of thousands took up the call to serve the British despite the much smaller population. Though it was partly a lack of trust in loyalty and partly the belief that most Indians weren't suitable as soldiers, the fact that a large portion of the country were agricultural workers and had little interest nor inclination to war and even less towards foreign travel (due to a belief they you would lose your caste) probably meant that the British were sensible in keeping them home. I wonder what impact the need for British officers with language skills and politically reliable Indian officers had on the decision, presumably they brought in more Indians as that seems easier than teaching Hindi, it probably worked, all accounts of the Indian and Pakistani armies I have heard make it sound like the institutional culture is still in the Raj, many somewhat archaic British habits have been retained, probably because the very British concept of regimental pride has preserved the old traditions, nationalist revival or no.

[@LiamTate-b1v]

​@@Didier-Drogba1337great Britain*

[@edcoates2456]

Where the hell is New Zealand in this? Good video either way though- Cheers!

[@KarlPHorse]

They didn't need to mobilize anyone. The Bob Semple tank was so powerful that it single handedly ended ended the war.

[@jankutac9753]

Damn they were drunk and late as always

[@melorange1678]

@@jankutac9753 Odd you say that. New Zealand immediately declared war and joined Britain within hours. You clearly have no knowledge of New Zealand's forces record in not just WW2. Don't know what country you are from , perhaps we can compare ?

[@jankutac9753]

@@melorange1678 haha you got me. I'm from Czechia. Ok ok I know, in WW2 we don't have much to compare . But we can beat you any time in football, hockey or beer consumption. But did NZ, CAN, AUS, SA even have the choice not to join Britain? I mean, as colonies?

[@ggarlick46]

@@jankutac9753 It was the Commonwealth and the ones you mentioned were independent countries even then. That was part of the Commonwealth pact to ally if any Country was attacked.

[@rafetizer]

Gorgeous artwork

[@danielrudolf5441]

Wrong flag for Canada. The maple leaf flag exists since 1965.

[@chickenchicken8097]

ok but who cares

[@reynaldoflores4522]

​@@chickenchicken8097 The Aussie flag is also wrong. The ANZACs fought under the Union Jack during WWII. But you're right. Who cares ?

[@RangerUF1987]

wrong for Yugoslavia too.

[@JH-ck1nr]

Where is New Zealand? They joined Britain and the Allies straightaway and saw fierce action. They should never be left out.

[@TheAnon03]

I really feel like Finland should be "it's complicated" rather than "Axis Powers"

[@МатвейКим-з9ф]

Why? Being an ally of Nazi Germany is same as being part of Axis Powers

[@angusrogers9366]

could say that for a lot of the axis since Italy, Romania and Bulgaria switched sides too when things were getting bad.

[@mv_5878]

​​@@МатвейКим-з9ф Then also USSR should be included, as Hitler and Stalin were allies until 1941.

[@МатвейКим-з9ф]

@@mv_5878 Except they were not. Neither of them were allied to each other in the span of war 1939-1945. Dividing Poland and Eastern Europe in spheres is not same as being allied. Otherwise, we should mark France and Britain as same, they allowed Czechoslovakian partition to happen, after all

[@mv_5878]

@@МатвейКим-з9ф Sure USSR and Germany were allies, big time. It's a very Russian way of thinking that Soviets could freely ally with Nazis, but when other countries do that, it's somehow wrong. As if joint invasion of Poland were fundamentally different from a joint invasion of Russia ))))

[@clidenorjr7928]

You’ve forgotten Brazil. We actually send FEB - Força Expedicionária Brasileira to fight in Italy, a division integrating the American fifth army. Brazil also fought in the South Atlantic against U-boats with a record to show. Thus, Primeiro Grupo de Caça - Senta a Púa, with its P-47s made history as a dive bomber unit.

[@madureirajustiniano7766]

Boa! Brasil 🇧🇷

[@МатвейКим-з9ф]

I'm not sure they were mobilized. Rather being volunteers and active military even before WW2. But maybe I don't understand what they mean by "mobilized" in video

[@gustavosinclair7185]

@@МатвейКим-з9ф mobilzed is just men taken into military, be it concripted or volunteer

[@grantbuchanan7295]

They've forgotten a lot of countries. Fairly poor effort.

[@ИванГригорьев-л5ы]

Перу тоже воевала с Гитлером. 😃

[@soaresbaiano]

Brazil was missing from that list. 25,000 soldiers were sent to battle in Italy. There was also confrontation in the South Atlantic. FAB vs the U-Boots.

[@LoLMasterManiac]

🥱 nobody cares about 🇧🇷

[@lucasdamotta]

Brazil didn’t mobilized more than 1% of our male population.

[@icaronogueira5193]

​@@lucasdamottaO Brasil foi o único país da América do Sul a mandar tropas para luta na segunda guerra mundial. E também nos fomos extremamente importantes para romper a linha gótica que freiava o avanço dos aliados na Itália.

[@lucasdamotta]

@@icaronogueira5193 fizemos nossa parte, mas com relação a mobilização foi bem modesto.

[@icaronogueira5193]

@@lucasdamotta E mesmo com pouco ajudamos muito.

[@st-ex8506]

You forgot to mention Switzerland. Yes, the country didn't participate in the fighting (with a few particular exceptions), but it mobilized up to 800'000 men, or 36% of the male population... no joke for a country which didn't fight!

[@roblogez]

from what I understand the Swiss have a doctrine of basically total war, with their militias and fortifications

[@WhiteAnims2]

I am sad how he didn't include the Philippines was not included in the video, they mobilized 260,000 men (6.5%) of the population. Most of whom became Guerrillas after the capitulation of the Philippines to Japan in 1942-1945. I mean come on man.

[@Lana-xd7ey]

Philippines is just a servant or canon fodder country for the European so why mention it?

[@badart3204]

He didn’t really account for partisans in general.

[@reynaldoflores4522]

Philippines was not a country. It was just a colony.

[@houseplant1016]

Or the many North African soldiers.

[@houseplant1016]

@@reynaldoflores4522 Then why did he mention India as a seperate country?

[@joeschembrie9450]

Greeks: "We're gonna put fluffy puffs on our shoes and wear capes. Because we invented logic."

[@zharziss]

If you're gonna kick Italy's ass, at least do it with style.

[@ΔημήτρηςΚετσετζής]

Nah in ww2 no one wore these except for parades and only the euzones regiments. The cape is to keep the soldiers on the mountains warm it was a hash winter P.S. these puffs were hiding blades(most of the time poisonous) when they were in use

[@vasilisgm8966]

@@zharziss That was our style. And that was one of the best in WWII because it scared the shit out of the Italians. I would not want to be in their position if I saw these light infantrymen rush at me with their bayonets and rifles.

[@CaptainHarlock-kv4zt]

Hahahaha!​@@zharziss

[@V-412]

I don't understand the purpose of those fluffy puffs lol.

[@Protey10]

It is worth considering that some of the listed Axis countries later went over to the side of the Allies. The same Finland, during the "Lapland War" of 1944/45, was at war with Germany.

[@kgb4973]

Everyone went against Germany when it started losing lol

[@rollerhockeynovorossiysk656]

We will see same picture nowdays. As soon as Russin become stornge and stronger, some EU countries will join to RUS-China alliance.

[@Eliel-Lin]

@@rollerhockeynovorossiysk656 no, because china and russia arent allies and russia is weaker everyday, while the EU is rearming

[@lottalarsson4121]

Finlan was not axis

[@ИванГригорьев-л5ы]

@@lottalarsson4121 Финляндия была союзником германии финляндия была палачом Ленинграда. Финляндия совершала зверства в концлагерях в рккупированной Карелии. Если интересно - могу привести факты и доказательства, что финлянлия участвовала в геноциде русских во Второй Мировой Войне.

[@MeMe-ph1wd]

Hello from Finland. Numbers matters, but % was more interesting. Father's father was shot to shoulder near Rukajärvi in Russia. He got 1 son, my father 1941. Mother's father was in supply troops, (maybe like this) the nerves could not stand to drive food to the front line with horse, were sent home. He got 6 children 1930-1945, my mother 1943.

[@dmitryshaykin3784]

Suomi was quite smart. They fought with Germans against Russia during the Continuation War, fought with Russia against Germany during the Lapland War. Every time with the winning side.

[@ilililil490]

You make due with shit options.

[@kohinarec6580]

​@@dmitryshaykin3784 Not with Soviets against Germans, but on Soviet demand.

[@dmitryshaykin3784]

@@kohinarec6580 On Soviet demand WITH SOVIETS AGAINST GERMANS. Of course, Germans were not happy and brutally destroyed Rovaniemi. So, that was a real war.

[@mv_5878]

Fun fact: Finland was at war with USSR, Germany and Britain in the WW2. Of the capitals in European countries involved in WW2, only London, Moscow and Helsinki were never occupied.

[@ignasiusdimascahyo3488]

If you means all capital in Europe. There're still Stockholm, Madrid, Lisbon, Dublin, Reykjavik, and Andorra la Vella.

[@mv_5878]

@@ignasiusdimascahyo3488 I specifically said of European countries involved in WW2 Sweden, Spain, Iceland, Ireland were neutral and did not see action.

[@ignasiusdimascahyo3488]

@@mv_5878 Iceland was Royal Navy base during battle of Atlantic, Andorra was transit place by jewish or Allies spy who escaped from Nazi and Vichy. There's some Spanish who join with Azul division, Spain was Abwehr base before their sabotage mission to Gibraltar base, Sweden sell their steel to German and Norwegian jewish escape place from Nazi and Quisling regime. On 1944 Sweden was transit place by German soldier who had escaped from Eastern Front and from Finland (Lapland War/after September 1944 Finland make truce with Soviet Union and out from Axis powers). Portugal was involved in WW2 because east Timor (Portugese's colony in east Indian island/Indonesia) had been occupied by Japanese. Ireland involved in WW2 because some Royal Air Force pilot or Luftwaffe pilot had been saved from emergency landing and they didn't realized they landing on Ireland during Battle of Britain. Some Irish soldier join into Market Garden Operation in 1944.

[@henrihamalainen300]

@@mv_5878 Iceland was occupied by Brits the same day Germany invaded Holland and Belgium...

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

That is interesting👍. Another fun fact Finland is the only democracy The UK has ever gone to war with

[@Alex_Gr0m_0v]

I assume that this is the percentage of the mobilized population not only for the war, but also for the most part for the military economy, production, logistics, etc.

[@aksmex2576]

Germany making the Soviet war a "total war of annihilation" probably wasn't the smartest decision considering the 35 million troops.

[@rogggggerful]

Without us-arms supplies the soviet union would hsve lost badly

[@potatometra]

​@@rogggggerful Wrong

[@blankeon6613]

@@potatometra Stalin and Zhukov disagree with you. The Lend-Lease was vital.

[@iamkj2008]

​@@rogggggerfulthey would still win, just pushed further east then dday would play a more significant role

[@АндрейЧепкунов-и3н]

@@rogggggerful look at real numbers. How many tanks and plains were provided by USSR between 1941 - 1945 and how many were got by Landlease. Russia as a successor of Soviet Union is grateful for GB, USA and other allies for aid during WW2. But please dont underestimate Soviet Union inner military production and its role in victory over nazis.

[@martinnovak5662]

What about Czechoslovakia? There was 1 250 000 mobilized men in Czechoslovakia

[@jairopalacioschanga5312]

ES DE ALEMANIA

[@KrysaGaming]

Pre západných teplošov zjavne neexistujeme.

[@mrobocop1666]

It was betrayed, and Polish didn't let Soviet troops to Czechoslovakia (ally of USSR) when Hitler wasn't that strong without experienced army and industries of whole Europe, and he could be stopped preventing 40+ million deaths in Europe. Instead, Poland divided Czechoslovakia together with Hitler, their arrogance and stupidity cost Poland 6 millions of lives and USSR 27 millions

[@Open_56]

It didn't exist in 1939

[@LangLebeDasKaisertumOestereich]

Can you do if with every country that fought in ww2

[@DylansPen]

Population of Australia in 1940 was around 7 million and a 1 million were mobilized. A great ally to have.

[@Kysushanz]

According to GOOGLE 140,000 NZ troop served in WWII - did you include this number with Australia??

[@Adrian-te2ii]

These data is incorrect, it assumes mobilisation effort as manpower strength. Women and men civilian workers that contributed to the war effort counted as mobilised, though didn’t necessarily fought or were involved directly in battle.

[@mausolus8466]

Such horror, so many people dragged into nightmarish war that never should have happened in the first place. Even many of those who survived would keep psychological scars for the rest of their life. And yet, instead of treating this as unfortunate lesson, there are still those thirsting for war. Maybe humankind is truly lost cause...

[@raposarommelofc]

If there were 30 countries that mobilized to WW2, why not to include te other 7? By the way, I loved the soldiers pictures.

[@proyectocms]

Are you sure about France?...if the data is real, it means that its whole population was about 80 million during the war...I think that the figure you show refers not to the % of the male population, but to the total

[@sylvaincroissant7650]

No it's a fortunate mistake that make France rank dip below the UK. In both total number and percentage of population. But that is not so. Total population of France was 40 millions, hence a bit less than 20 million were male (actually with the loss of 1.5 million French men in WW1 the male population was below 18.5 million). So 5 million out of 18.5 is 27 %. The number I found is a bit less, at 4.7million though . Also according to wikipedia, 3.5 million persons had served in the army by the end of WW2 in the UK. Not 5.8million.

[@daniel198123]

Brazil has mobilzed almost 40.000 , and 25.400 to figth in Italy with FEB and FAB. The others was in Navy and FAB , but in the South Atlantic, Coast defense and military convoys at the Atlântic.

[@darkfiction7092]

Rule 1: Don't attack Russia Rule 2: Don't declare war on the USA Rule 3: Don't fight a war on multiple fronts

[@darkfiction7092]

@@rodrigomachado5291 So thought Napoleon and Hitler. Not so difficult indeed. You're referring to a totally different era. Thanks for the comment.

[@sdertoofiveb2856]

​@@rodrigomachado5291During the time of the Mongol khanates there was no Russia

[@rodrigomachado5291]

@@sdertoofiveb2856 alright, keep sucking up to your imaginary invincible russian bear daddy.

[@darkfiction7092]

@@sdertoofiveb2856 So negates his original point. As I said, it was a totally different era.

[@Nidzadrugar]

and look at the Mongols now

[@VonMaisten]

The video is good but I would like to ask what sites you have consulted to make the video.

[@HistoryBattle]

do you mean the source?

[@VonMaisten]

@@HistoryBattle Yes

[@KrysaGaming]

@@VonMaisten He cant be bothered to answer because answer is wikipedia or another video- thats how it goes with these low effort clowns.

[@brettk9316]

American logistics pretty amazing if 16,354,000 mil men actually crossed those two gigantic oceans to get to the fighting.

[@oligultonn]

The US had the largest standing military in history in 1945 with more than 12.209.238 service members in the US Armed Forces. In Europe they had somewhere in the region of 4.000.000 troops.

[@ronanchristiana.belleza9270]

​@@oligultonnnot to mention Pacific two fronts that they have to fight

[@markobucevic8991]

​@@oligultonnnope. The soviet union had the biggest standing army, along that 80% of all besides trucks was made in the union too despite loosing half of their industry

[@nickbell4984]

Well not all of those 16.35 million were combat soldiers. The vast majority of that figure were involved with logistical supply or medical. Only roughly 14% of the army saw serious combat. Which is quite haunting, as it means that the regular Infantryman would've sustained constant military combat.

[@ayushjoshi8667]

@@ronanchristiana.belleza9270The US was able to do that since in Europe they were only facing about 15-20 percent of the total strength of the whermacht. The rest was in the east, fighting the soviets. And in total only 7 percent of the Soviet army was made up of lend lease material. This is from leaked military archives from 1945.

[@maikelbraon961]

Nice video, also what is the song name in the background?

[@roberthughes9856]

Where are the Kiwis? About 190,000 (around 25%) fought in North Africa,Crete,Italy as well as Battle of Britain and Bomber Command and with the Royal Navy including their own ships. Also two thirds of South African troops were White with Blacks and Coloureds mostly labour and transport troops. Don't rewrite history for lefty PC reasons.

[@pshehan1]

The Australian Imperial Force of WWII was, like the First AIF of WWI an all volunteer Force for overseas service. The Militia units served in New guinea and Pacific islands which were then Australian territory. The French were axis collaborators under the Vichy regime. I interviewed veterans of the Australian 2/14 battalion (the 2 denotes the 2nd AIF) who fought the Vichy French in Syria and Lebanon. One described it as a "nasty little war". Moshe Dayan got his trademark eyepatch serving as a scout for the 2/14.

[@1bgrant]

New Zealand had about 156,000 serve.

[@alandesouzacruz5124]

Make a vídeo about Raf squadrons 🇬🇧🛩️

[@b2tall239]

What does the "h" stand for after the number of people mobilized for each country?

[@Dryadenjoyer]

Humans?

[@ГеоргийМурзич]

hitlers?

[@thebloodwolf9906]

14 million soldiers Mobilization rate: 5% China be like: Cut of one head, 10 more shall take its place

[@KisHeszusz]

Hungary military losses in WWII: Killed in action:120.000-140.000 if we count those soldiers who died as POW more than 200.000 (GULAG is GULAG) Wounded:90.000-100.000 Missed in action: 120.000-130.000 Prisoner of war: 500.000-700.000 So if we count Hungary has 140%!? casualites.

[@fidel1803]

Conditions of Soviet POV in axis powers were hundred times more terrible than in soviet camps for POV.

[@ۥۥۥٴٴٴٴۥ]

Hope they learnt their lesson.

[@KisHeszusz]

@@fidel1803 Definetly! As I know there all the prisoner camps were under controll of the Germans and we all knew what did it mean for an "untermensch". I think the worst if you were a POW, you become a traitor of the Soviet Union.

[@victorhugoberckeranacleto7641]

About casualties, yes, that happens sometimes, actually. There's a video from Brandon F. called "Over 100% casualties in the Great War", in this video he explains that not every casualty is a death, and since many soldiers got hurt and needed to get out the front and then came back, just to hurt themselves again, this causes a high amount of casualties. Also keep in mind that census is a very difficult thing to do even today, imagine things back then, an example is the Paraguay War of 1864. Solano Lopes, the Paraguay "president" lied the total population of the Paraguay before the war, and after the end, the winners counted the population again, and comparing the two datas they realised only 50% of females and merely 5% of the males were still alive after the war, which was obviously not true. In the case of the Hungarians, maybe a little deviation could be occurred, but nonetheless the lost they suffered during, and mainly, after the war was huge.

[@вирус-у1р]

140% casualties. And someone think, that Hungarian army was good

[@akosromhanyi6124]

There should be another video exactley the same way, but with the casulties of each countries

[@HistoryBattle]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gnWaYoSdebCafpo

[@arturmazurkiewicz6821]

nice video. Author some countries had the whole war to develop mobilization. Others, such as Poland, Belgium and Yugoslavia, were quickly occupied. and this Pole is not in a Polish uniform but in a British one.

[@javierrojas976]

Erm you forgot Bajookieland we sent a total of 50% of our male population which is the equivalent of 5 people

[@sherlockrobin597]

The USA mobilised population is massively inflated- 16.4m, out of a male population of around 70m is about 17%, not 24.7%. The UK population is massively deflated - 5.9m out of a male population of about 19m is about 31%, not 24.4%.

[@bodonluiz7518]

And....Brazil, Mexico, Thailand, Manchucko, Slovakia ????

[@keithtonkin6959]

What about New Zealand? We were there at the Battle of Britain, Battle of the River Platte, Greece, Crete, North Africa, Italy and the Pacific. We lost 11,000 men all up. My father flew in the Pacific in the RNZAF. How could NZ be left out? You also left a lot of smaller nations like Malta and Cook Islands

[@charlesgrant-skiba5474]

The figures given for France and Yugoslavia are debatable. A significant proportion of the French and the residents of the former Yugoslavia collaborated or actively fought on the side of the Axis powers (Only Croats are listed here). The Italians also changed sides at the end of the war., etc. The total count given here is: Allies - 86,067,000; Axis Powers - 30,450,000, but missing Czechs, Slovaks, Albanians, Danes, New Zealanders, representatives of some African colonies (fighting on the side of the Allies), volunteers from Spain, Sweden and other countries. It is also difficult to say on what data this figures are based.

[@jeffkodiac]

"A significant proportion of the French " is that your job devoted to spread ignorance ?

[@charlesgrant-skiba5474]

@@jeffkodiac Dear Jeff, at the beginning of the war, only 2% of French adults were involved in an active and prolonged struggle against Germany and the Vichy regime. Initially, they were mainly communists (about 40,000 of them lived in France at the time - although some of them also collaborated, eg Louis Aragon). In the early phase of the resistance movement there were several thousand permanent members of the Resistance, in 1942 tens of thousands, in early 1944 over 200,000. It wasn't until late 1944, when the war was almost over, that the number of members of the Resistance increased to 500,000. After the war, about 270,000 combatant cards were issued, because only so many Frenchmen could prove their active participation in the resistance movement. To this, however, must be added almost 100,000 partisans and other members of the resistance killed in combat, shot and murdered in camps. However, it should also be taken into account that in the French resistance movement (Maquis, Résistance, etc.) also many foreigners fought (and thus non-French). When the Germans were already withdrawing from France, more than 120,000 soldiers of the French Internal Forces (so far collaborating with the Nazis as representatives of the Vichy regime) joined the fight against them. Nevertheless, according to the research of historians (including French), there were about 2 - 2.5 million opponents of Vichy and the Nazis (including those who manifested their opposition through various aid activities, reading underground press, listening to BBC radio, sabotage or passive resistance). This gives a maximum of 10% of French adults who expressed more or less firm opposition to German rule. It is enough to read the memoirs of French Jews or Polish forced laborers working at that time in France. You can also look at the list of writers who collaborated with the Nazis and the Vichy regime. They were not some obscure, second-class writers, but the real giants of French literature: François Mauriac, Jean Paulhan, André Gide, André Malraux, Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, Louis Aragon and Simone de Beauvoir. The latter was even awarded a special Goncourt Prize by the Germans. A separate topic is the so-called collaboration horizontale - "horizontal collaboration". In 1942, France experienced a demographic boom. French women gave birth to over 200,000 children whose fathers were German soldiers. This shows the magnitude of the phenomenon. Among the women living with the occupier there were not only "ordinary" French women but also representatives of the elite, including daughters of Daisy Fellowes, editor-in-chief of the famous fashion magazine "Harper's Bazaar", the famous Coco Chanel and also Arletty, a star of pre-war cinema, etc. Many of these women were later tortured and even killed (as well as gay men sleeping with the enemy). For Hitler, not only Vichy policemen and soldiers fought and died, but also French SS volunteers (their units even fought to the end in defense of besieged Berlin). Therefore, it is difficult to include the given number of French war casualties (military and civilian) as casualties on the side of the Allies (and this applies not only to France, although this is the clearest example). Regards.

[@antoineperrin-beau9138]

​@@charlesgrant-skiba5474 what you're telling is propaganda, of course most of the population was forced to collaborate, and his collaboration consisted to let germain soldier live with them, the part of real collaboration and was ridiculus (the collaboration was from the Vichy regime which wasn't accepted at all by the french, because they had been quickly betrayed by it), you're telling that ost of the resistance was people who saw that the war was ending but it's totally false, the real story was that General de Gaulle was calling from the english radio every day of the war, and because most of people didn't have access to it, the transmission of his message didn't take only a few month, and finally, the resistance was a lot more important than the collaboration. The worst is that the production of the collaboration was often destroyed by french resistance. NOW after the battle of France half of the germain air force was lost, hundreds of germain tanks were destroyed and the escape of the english is 100% thanks to the french who resisted to the germain even if the french high comanders were absolutly bad against great germain generals. Dunkerque is the perfect exemple of that, french who were fighting when english were leaving, a few french survivors could go on boats to retreat to UK of course AFTER all the english had leaved. NOW it's not finished, with the proportion of the french army who escaped the germain encirclement in France and with colonials soldiers, General de Guaulle had an army of almost 100000 soldiers who helped the english in africa (were hitler wanted the oil to continue the war). All of this exemples show that France deserved to be in allies side, I don't believe that you don't respect the hundreds of thousand of french who died by resisting, fighting in 1940 and with the colonial army, and prisonners. At the end of the day, the French died in the side of allies, and a ridiculus part of the French died in Axe side. It's eazy to compare France and Russia, if Russia had the territory of France, the number of soldiers of France, they couldn't suvrive a DAY. (because Stalingrad, Moscow, Kursk, every of these Russian wins were in overwhelming numerical superiority)

[@jansundvall2082]

You are missing that Sweden and Switzerland although neutral had significant numbers mobilised during Second World War

[@jeffkodiac]

@@charlesgrant-skiba5474 That's what I thought. This does not explain in any way, the ridiculous and unfounded things that you said at the beginning. That is to say that an important part of the French collaborated with the Nazis. Then if we base ourselves on what you say, like for example on Andre Malraux, that he would have collaborated with the Germans, whereas he fought in Spain against the Nazis and the Italian fascists, that he refused to publish in newspapers close to Vichy and that he entered the resistance. One realizes to what point what you say is a load of bullshit. Now, I would like to know what country you are from? So we can see how perfect your country was during this war ????

[@MrHababas]

Чистота через ярость, гордость через ненависть, и пусть огонь внутри сожжёт всё вокруг! Безделье - суть ереси. Безжалостность - доброта мудрого. Боль - иллюзия чувств, отчаяние - иллюзия разума. Бояться следует только поражения. В чистом разуме нет места сомнениям. Жалость - признак слабости. Жизнь - тюрьма, смерть - освобождение. За Империум Человечества. За Мать Землю!

[@-davorite-]

No matter which nation, if the uniform includes a Stahlhelm it looks automatically cool

[@Dicka899]

You may be a wehraboo

[@Piece-Of-Time]

Ushanka too, but maybe it's less practical

[@valerym1400]

History Battle! What about the death percentage of mobilized people? Could you add it?

[@HistoryBattle]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gnWaYoSdebCafpo

[@eduardodpino]

You forgot Brasil. We send troops to fight in Italy.

[@pagodebregaeforro2803]

20-25 mil soldados, menos da metade desses em linha de frente, não é quase nada em comparação aos outros. E nao chega nem a 1% da população masculina do país.

[@alastairbarkley6572]

Numbers are always difficult. Total for the British Empire was 12.8 million but adding up UK plus the the three largest doninionsplus India gives only 10,8 million here. To be absolutely correct you'd have to also add in NZ, Ghana, Nigeria, Jamaica and the Brutish Caribbean as well as British Honduras (Belize) but I still think the British Empire figures are understated here.

[@onkelfabs6408]

About 30 Million men fought against each other on the russian front. And more than 10 Million men died there. This must never happen again.

[@micindir4213]

About 1,5m died last two years in what you call "Russian front". It's happening again

[@Xilley1]

@@micindir4213 No? both sides combined is probably 150.000

[@mopsik56]

​@@Xilley1It's not 150000, but it's not 1,5 mil either. The first comment probably doesn't know what "casualties" include both deaths and serious injures. I would say the total amount of dead is something near 700000, maybe up to 1 mil at absolutely most but I doubt it.

[@Xilley1]

@@mopsik56 Where do you get your numbers from?

[@mopsik56]

@@Xilley1 Mostly from Wikipedia, "and up to 1000000 estimated casualties" (Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian war) with some mixing of other sources.

[@TheSten32]

Very good video

[@billj8513]

You read this and the numbers make your head spin. People today want to talk about the patriarchy and male privilege. Some countries mobilized two generations of men which made up a quarter of their male population. Never forget those who fought. 90% of those who served wasn’t by choice, it was their country’s need. Protect our veterans. SMH

[@marcintrzepla8743]

u count with or without netherlands,belgium and norway ss divisions?

[@paulstreet9162]

An important consideration is also the proportion of the female population in service or employment outside the home. The UK was the leader in that with Germany being notoriously inefficient with female utilization.

[@Remus-z6y]

Pretty surprised Japan’s mobilization was only 25%. Thought it would be closer to German or Soviet levels.

[@R2H1796]

India mobilized almost 2.6 million and it did not reach 2% damn

[@Jerry-tg7zx]

Untapped resource well indeed

[@LibeliumDragonfly]

@@Jerry-tg7zx not really, India was agrarian back then, tapping that manpower means no one producing food, which means famine, which means mass dying

[@dontsearchdocumentingreali9621]

Not India but British Raj

[@cassu6]

@@LibeliumDragonfly Yeah that debuff in HOI4 is ass

[@riharikaa809]

New Zealand was 25.5 percent total male population enlisted.

[@gertpotgieter6461]

South Africa made significant contributions to the Allied war effort. Some 135,000 white South Africans fought in the East and North African and Italian campaigns, and 70,000 Blacks and Coloureds served as labourers and transport drivers. Regarding the role of South African soldiers in World War II - according to Encyclopedia Britannica

[@clivemortimore8203]

The picture he has used is one of a member of the Kings East African Rifles recruited from Kenya and Uganda. Black South African's (known at the time as Bantus) as you rightly say served as labours and transport drivers and were not supposed to be armed.

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

Thank you for this video 👍 All these Indians that say they did all the fighting for the British empire in ww2 and the Brits didnt India🇮🇳 2,581,000 =1.6% of male population (90,000 military deaths) UK🇬🇧 5,896,000 = 24.4% of male population (383,000 military deaths)

[@Jerry-tg7zx]

The audible difference in population percentage of India really puts in perspective why it was described as an untapped well of unlimited manpower and resources

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

@@Jerry-tg7zx the British could have raised far,far more Indian forces but the sad truth is a lot of Indians were considered untrustworthy that's why they kept the British Indian army an all volunteer force. You just have to look at the amount of Indians that fought for both the Nazis and Japanese to see they weren't as loyal to the British as say the Canadians or Australians. With that being said a lot of Indians were loyal and fought gallantly for the allied cause in ww2 especially in Burma.

[@dakedakinson64]

Bengal famine casualties: 3 million.

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

@@dakedakinson64 that's from a famine not from warfare. India's combat deaths stand at 90,000 and not all of those were fighting on the side of the Allies

[@LibeliumDragonfly]

Considering China only mobilized 5% and was at the limit, your simplistic view of mobilization is laughable. Both China and India were full on agrarian societies, most food production and sustenance were produced via menial labour. You said the Bengal famine was famine, not war death, well guess what, if they mobilize more, guess how many more famines there could be? Nice Marie Antoinette right there not considering how poor and less industrialized some countries are.

[@ronniecoleman2342]

I doubt those mobilization numbers could be met in June 2024. June 1944 seems like another era now. Normandy and Bagration are just a memory.

[@stripemcr5722]

picture of the Soviet soldier with a cigarette is epic - clearly shows who is the chav here

[@fassotre2520]

Switzerland would also have been cool. (yes switzerland also mobilsed) But still cool video

[@CT-1311]

At 1944 the Royal Hungarian had 1.000000 men in service in the army 600.000 was at mid 30’s to the early 40’s but still great video

[@gogosurgov3611]

Bulgaria in 1944-1989 has a 450.000 soldier In ww2 has 825.000

[@Nick-u6q3f]

People don't get Europe is still recovering just think of the men and women we lost, plus the scars that are still their.

[@ИльяЧендемеров]

8 из 10 солдат вермахта были убиты на восточном фронте. Но помимо этого Хорватия, Венгрия, Румыния, Словакия, Финляндия, Италия ( экспедиционный корпус 250 000), Испания ( Голубая дивизия), Войска Ваффен-СС (добровольцы со всей Европы - 1 000 000) воевали восточном фронте. И всё они были разбиты. Поэтому такое количество мобилизованных в СССР и такое количество потерь.

[@speedruiner7213]

Wet dreams

[@ИльяЧендемеров]

@@speedruiner7213 Only facts. You think so, because in your schools they now teach you that the United States won the war, but they don't mention the USSR. In order not to be so ignorant, ask for a start:1) participation and number of troops of Hungary, Romania, Finland, Slovakia, Croatia in the war. The Americans did not fight with them at all. But where did they go? There was also an Italian corps of 250,000 in Russia. More than half of them stayed here

[@speedruiner7213]

@@ИльяЧендемеров That's the thing. It is your wet Dream whether or not it is factually correct.

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

measuring contribution simply by how many human casualties you inflicted is a very simplistic and short sighted method in a modern war. For example British and commonwealth forces sank 519 U-Boats in ww2 (the US sank 175 and the Soviets sank 15 btw) that amounts to approximately 23,000-25,000 men lost to British and commonwealth forces. Now that's doesn't sound a lot in comparison to the German losses in the land campaigns on the eastern front however if you consider that a U-Boat depending on type weighed the equivalent of between 30 & 50 Panzer IV's losing say four U-Boats would be roughly in (terms of materials lost) the equivalent of losing a panzer Division. Now if four U-Boats are sunk between 160 & 180 Men will be killed. If an entire Divisions worth of panzers is wiped out the death toll would be a lot higher so saying that killing the most men makes you the most affective force is not really accurate. My point is although suffering less in terms of casualties in terms of resources and war material the war against the western allies was just as devastating for Germany as the war against the Soviets was.

[@alauda1038]

​@@speedruiner7213сейчас Россия одна бьёт 50 стан нато и уже убила 420 000 🇺🇦🐷, 😁

[@peregrine1925]

There is a saying in my country : he who sows the wind reaps the storm. I love comments section under this video. 😂

[@da10cent41]

Where did you get these numbers from? HOI4?

[@SergeyIvanov12345]

exactly

[@Chabier-mx2mz]

What about volunteers? From countries not shown here

[@wafton10yearsago30]

Very upsetting that you missed out on Thailand, they mobilized about 80,000 men as an axis power in ww2

[@RoboticDragon]

Those last few numbers are wild

[@noheroespublishing1907]

The World owes the Soviet Union a debt that can never be repaid; the USSR took the brunt of the Fascist Forces, so much to that just the Battle of Stalingrad resulted in as many German deaths as German losses in the entire Western Front of the war, the battles in the Soviet Union are a level of scale we've never really come to grips with.

[@JRBX-09]

Proud to say that my gramps was 1 of the 260k soldiers that fought against the Japanese 🇵🇭

[@JRBX-09]

From a few articles I've read, the population of the Philippines at the time was around 16mil+, which makes him less than 2%!

[@JRBX-09]

From a few articles I've read, the population of the Philippines at the time was around 16mil+, which makes him less than 2%!

[@jorgeleandro4099]

Quando que terá mais vídeos desse tipo?

[@VEIOdoWT]

brasil nao ta ai!

[@NickZhukov]

Main part of "allies" of West Europe had big number of troops on Hitlers side.

[@insanitywolf3537]

Why Croatia is separate from Yugoslavia?

[@ArlindoBuriti]

Now... image the numbers of ww3...

[@Staxx0]

Little mistake made. Finland was NOT with the axis. They simply just weren’t allies with anyone. They stayed neutral against the allies and axis. Not to mention they fought some of the axis powers (Soviets) so they can’t be axis allies. Also the Germans only mobilized 14M over the entire war not 18M.

[@alexstoyanov6108]

There is a significant mistake. USSR mobilized includes pre-war Red Army numbers, but Germany`s mobilised - excludes. There were more than 21 million Germans adrafted into Wehrmaht.

[@Mentol_]

Нет, у кривошеева неправильно подсчитана довоенная численность вермахта. По документам она составляла 1.1 млн человек, а не 3.2

[@dimamimo5208]

слышал. что в вермахт призвали многие полицеские части, может их учли в эти списки. Но я тоже во многих источниках читал что всего мобилизовано было 21,2 млн человек

[@Mentol_]

@@dimamimo5208 по документам в вермахт мобилизовано 18.2 млн, а не 21.

[@dimamimo5208]

@@Mentol_ за время войны?

[@Mentol_]

@@dimamimo5208 за все время.

[@matiukelly]

Interessant, gràcies!

[@mrvk39]

I am surprised by high % drafted by far-away places like Australia and low percentage drafted by places occupied like the Netherlands and France. Why they drafted such a small percentage of population? Why didn't they resist the Germany more? I get how it wasn't an equal fight but UK was there with a far greater percentage drafted. Is it because they were occupied and couldn't draft successive generations turning 18 for 5 years?

[@jamesharper197]

I don't know the answer for sure. However, my educated guess would be countries such as the Netherlands were defeated too quickly to fully mobilise. You also have to remember that Australia were terrified of invasion by Japan so could be considered a front line

[@alastair9446]

Neatherlands fell in two weeks and you could say a surprise attack by Germans. Australia still part of British Emipre and had concerns with a Japanese invasion and thy 5 years to get that drafted.

[@sg0310]

Australia was because an Invasion by Japan was very likely until midway

[@mrvk39]

@@jamesharper197 good point about Japan being nearby (well not really but within reach).

[@mrvk39]

@@alastair9446 right on about mobilization not happening quick enough. I suspected that was the reason but wasn't sure.

[@ElysiumNZ]

Why is New Zealand not on this list? They contributed about 67% of the male fighting age population to the war. “Approximately 104,000 served in 2NZEF (the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force). The rest served in New Zealand or British naval and air forces. Back home, a further 100,000 New Zealanders enlisted in the Home Guard. In all, 67% of men aged between 18 and 45 served in the armed forces. “

[@arkadiuszkrasicki5478]

2:35 Poland called up only 1 million and 300 thousand people, including women, but if you count all the Polish regiments fighting on the side of the Allies, that is 240 thousand soldiers, then the total would be about 1,500,000 soldiers, I don't know where you got these two million soldiers , but if we had that much, we would not have lost, and besides, the Polish soldier in September 1939 did not look the same as during the battles for Monte Casino in 1944. The Polish soldier was armed with a Mauser 98k rifle, had a uniform jacket pattern 36 and a raincoat, on his feet were high-top officers' boots, on his head was a Polish helmet pattern 35, called "Salamandra" after the way of painting, or in the case of officer Rogatywka pattern 38, i.e. a Polish horned cap with a metal eagle, on his hips there was a leather ammunition belt pattern 34. Mauser ammunition, or fabric pattern 38. for magazines for the light Browning 28 carbine, in the case of the Officer, there was also a holster on the belt for the legendary ViS pistol pattern 37. That is, simply a Polish fake of the Colt M19.11, although quite successful, with an iconic backpack on his back. satchel" pattern 35, the ancestor of the favorite backpack of all ponies and metals, i.e. the cube. additionally two pattern 37 "offensive" hand grenades, a pattern 30 shovel and a pattern 26 or newer 36 bayonet. because Polish soldiers were trained very intensively for bayonet fighting, the Poles had some of the best equipment in the world at that time and this is something which we can be proud of, because it was even ahead of the American one.

[@robrob9050]

Poljska nikad nije imala kvislinga.

[@arkadiuszkrasicki5478]

​@@robrob9050 did I write something about Vidkun Quisling? Dude, I'm Polish, I don't care about any Norwegian Nazis...

[@AdamHimter]

He probably also counted in partisants of Warsaw uprising and Zamość Uprising, but yeah 2M is way too much

[@robrob9050]

@@arkadiuszkrasicki5478 There was song in Yugoslavia as protest against martial law coup imposed by commies in Poland 1981, the name of the song is "Poljska u mom srcu" by group Azra, it means "Poland in my heart", I took it from there "Poland never gave Quisling". Sorry for misunderstanding...

[@robrob9050]

@@AdamHimter The Armia Krajova (AK) had large numbers of personel. Wikipedia page states that in 1944 AK had 400.000 members probably also large group of sympathisers and followers.

[@arcanuss86]

Unfortunately, Poland was attacked suddenly by Germany and two weeks later even more unexpectedly by Russia, so it had no chance for greater mobilisation :/

[@grantottero4980]

--- 1): Canada had not that flag, in those years. --- 2): Yugoslavian royal flag was different: the one with the red star was used only by Tito's partisans. --- 3): The flag of the Kingdom of Italy (the only one used until September 1943 and used also after September 1943 by the part of Italy who remained loyal to the king and started fighting against the Germans) was different: the one you show in the video was merely the battle flag (not the State flag) of the fascist "Italian Social Republic" ("Repubblica Sociale Italiana" = RSI) created (in opposition to King's Italy and with the purpose of continuing to fight aside Germany against the allies) in autumn 1943 in the part of Italy under control of German army, and wich lasted until the final defeat in April 1945. But during the most important warfare events in which Italian royal army was involved (Egypt, Tobruk, El Alamein, Tunisia, Somaliland and Ethiopia, invasions of Yugoslavia and Greece, invasion of USSR...) it was the royal flag which was used... --- 4): Both the State (and party) flag and the battle flag of nazi Germany were different from that one you show in the video, which never existed.

[@AboHazem2]

How do you design these clips I mean what program do you use to design a clip like this

[@soundsidecolour]

Many ways to achieve this. One way is creating one very long image, and have it move across the screen over time in a software like After Effects.

[@AboHazem2]

@@soundsidecolour Good But I did not find a clip that explains to me how to work. Can you point me to a clip that explains to me how to do that?

[@soundsidecolour]

@@AboHazem2 No, I can't point you to a clip. First, figure out how many 'panels' you want. Say you want 60 panels. Then decide how many panels you want on screen at once. Say you want 3 at once. That means it has to be the width and height of the composition/3. Once you have that, on PS you can create a canvas that is 60* the width of 1 panel. Put them all in a row and export as one long picture. Then on After Effects, its a simple keyframe animation from right to left of the image over a given time. put this into chatGPT if you're still stuck.

[@kyarailumi]

use transition to connect every picture