World War Two Performance Tier List (Part 1)

[@spectrum1140]

Part Two coming soon. It's really a matter of paperwork why it isn't out as well, in truth. Get Established Titles: establishedtitles.com/Spectrum

[@veshoo1046]

You forgot to pin this lad

[@dinodavid5315]

You should do a Cold War tier list

[@Jim-lg8sf]

you should talk about the Netherlands to since it fought in Europe poorly but fought the Japanese very viciously

[@bernardobiritiki]

Do a video on best Roman ruins to visit. I just passed one on my way back to Lisboa, could use a helpful guide

[@ianjackson4721]

There’s also a relatively unknown story from ww2 where a guy called Leo major managed to captures an entire Dutch down by himself.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

Seven Years War performance tier list. I want flaming hot nuclear takes on the absolute tom-fuckery that was mid 18th century warfare.

[@fissionabledolphin]

omg yes

[@randomperson4l4l4]

you mean ww 0.9

[@czizkejk6919]

it was about to write that

[@Dr._Nope]

Yes plz

[@chezkelhui1010]

zzzz cabinet wars, everyone is so nice to each other even in war

[@DIO-vw6me]

Fun Fact: Brazil actually sent a force to Italy which performed quite well and captured many thousands of men

[@ninjaa6952]

Yea this was way at the end though when German soldiers where surrendering in mass.

[@satnav9699]

@@ninjaa6952 No it was in 1944, also the Germans only really surrendered at late 1945.

[@wifi_soldier5076]

​@@ninjaa6952 not necessarily. they fought against Gemran paratroopers in one battle and wom.

[@cristiandumitrescu1744]

yes they fought bravely, only 19 km from where I live now

[@ragglefraggle9111]

A force that comprised 1% of allied soldiers there

[@Fancy_Bear]

I feel like the UK's intelligence services should bring them up to A, they ran circles around the Germans.

[@wesleyfravel5149]

Eh issue is that was part of why they were so great the latter half of the war. Really it’s the early war that brought Britain down so much.

[@ArvosCrusader]

@@wesleyfravel5149 I’d put the Brits in lower B tier tbh, their performance in the pacific was downright horrendous and embarrassing, I don’t see how they can be placed above the Japanese.

[@10gamer64]

@@ArvosCrusader The Japanese had a terrible grand strategy plan, as in they had effectively had no real grand strategy, some officers in the Japanese army effectively caused them to invade China without any real plan, which caused them to get bogged down there causing them to need resources which they didn't have, notably oil, which caused them to attack the Allies, with which they basically crossed their fingers and hoped the war would turn out like the Russo-Japanese war, with no backup plan, and it didn't, causing them to collapse.

[@wesleyfravel5149]

@@ArvosCrusader Japan had an opposite thing of the British, they started strong and took A LOT of territory, but they collapsed as the war went on.

[@mappingshaman5280]

@@ArvosCrusader Britain had barely anything in the Pacific and still dunked on the Japanese in the battle of imphal.

[@dorito_crusador5858]

Nationalist China fought Japan for 2 years before WW2 even started. They kept fighting even when it seemed like suicide, they tied up Japanese Soldiers not allowing them to reinforce the pacific. They faced genocide and human experimentation under unit 731. They did heck of a lot of work.

[@ultimatestuff7111]

And they suffered 3 to 1 casualties, which I mean considering their guns were from the 1890s and they had literally no Air Force that’s actually not terrible

[@AnonymousIdealist]

They did, but this video is talking about military performance and how they fared. Nationalist China performed poorly against Imperial Japan and many of their units had outdated equipment. The only good units which Nationalist China had were the German trained troops and the new 1st army. It still doesn’t change the fact that the allies saved China. Even when Japan was starting to lose, they were able to pull of the Ichi-Go offensive and capture a sizable portion of Chinese territory.

[@AnonymousIdealist]

The Ichi-Go offensive happened in 1944 btw.

[@AnonymousIdealist]

@@ultimatestuff7111Yeah.

[@СоветскийСоюз-щ1щ]

@@AnonymousIdealist It is true that some soldiers used old weapons, but most of the soldiers used weapons imported from Germany and the United States.

[@shawnzorf]

Fun Fact: Chile was the last country to enter war and did it just for trolling, declaring war only to Japan. Some 30 years earlier, the Emperor had sent hundreds of cherry trees to mark the centennial of Chile. They were planted in a park later known as "Parque Japón" (Japan Park) in Santiago. When Chile entered the war, they stopped watering the trees and renamed the park "Parque Gran Bretaña" (Great Britain Park). By the end of the 1940s those trees had all dried out. That was the only "act of warfare" that Chile did during the war. In 2010, guess what the Japanese community did: Yep, they gifted cherry trees and planted them at the very same park.

[@jshooa4840]

That ending is so wholesome

[@cronoros]

One note on the Polish border defence. Beyond being a bad plan in general, another consideration was that the Allies didnt guarantee Polands full territory so Polish leadership wanted to try to retain as much territory as possible as they were worried they might not get it back

[@comradedawid5292]

You can call me a salty Poles or say i'm biased, but I think Poland did really well in WW2 and the lead up to it. Pre-war it tried to appease both the Soviets and the Germans in a way so as to not provoke either side. The Germans attempted to provoke Poland to attack them multiple time and our government did give them the chance, e.g the time the Schwielstig-Holstein showed up to Gdansk port unannounced. The Poles didn't shell it, demand it leave or try blockade it's path. and when confronted the Germans said it was there for some sort of event. The Polish high command had one of the largest starting up tank programmes and began a overhaul reconstruction of it's army to prepare for the coming war attempting to heavily mechanize Polish troops and build an economy to facilitate this change transferring the semi-agricultural economy into a more modern one beginning in the early 30's. Keep in mind Poland did this with a very unstable and constantly changing political climate. Poland even under the brilliant Marshal Pilsudski proposed a pre-emptive invasion of Germany when Hitler came to power, but France and the UK refused thinking the Germans wouldn't want another war. In 1939, our army was only semi-mobilised and yes, poorly organized. however your point about the Wisla river being used for defence is not the best. The Polish command considered pulling back but the Wisla was at it's shallowest in a particularly hot year and wouldn't be as effective for defence. The Polish navy in particularly chose the "Peking manuver" as a way to evacuate most the Polish navy so that it can "live to fight another day" with the submarines like the ORP Orzel being very effective in the war. The Polish airmen also proved invaluable in the war thanks to the experience gained in Poland and later France with the 303 being the most effective squadron of the battle The airforce followed a similar train of thought, constantly redeploying. Even after the capitulation a Polish army was able to defeat the Soviets in the East before running out of supplies and surrendering. The Poles greatly assisted in the breaking of the Enigma code too, something they're rarely credited for. The resistance was very effective being the largest or 2nd largest in Europe. It co-ordinated with the allies and the government in exile to use it's limited resources well. They were able to co-ordinate effective rescue of Jews out of the country and also sabotaging German supply lines. The Warsaw uprising lasted 2 months and depleted the German troops in Warsaw while the Soviets refused to assist. Operation Ostra brama, saw the resistance liberate major cities like Lwow in a few short days. In short i think Poland played the hand it was dealt, and greatly helped the allied war effort. The Enigma would have been cracked much later, if at all if it wasn't for the Poles efforts even as far back as the early 1930's. The Battle of Britain would have been costlier for the British without Polish pilots being redeployed to France and later Britain. The Eastern front would have also proved much bloodier for the Soviets particularly during the "liberation" of Poland. On the Tactical level Polish officers were very talented and well trained. on the Strategic level the Poles did their best to think about the long-term fight, doing their best to help their allies defeat the Germans. You can't blame Poland for not performing the best because basically "they were foolish enough to trust France" as a reason. I think a Poland is largely overlooked in the war and the Polish government in exile did a lot of pulling behind the strings that is credited to the allies because the Poles fought under their banner. Even in uphill battles our commanders tried to salvage the best they could, e.g Market Garden despite being doomed by choices out of their control. The reasons above are why i think Poland, considering it's pre-existing circumstances, pulled it's own weight and then some in the war. I think it should be ranked at A tier, if not S tier, since it's largest hindrances were poor timing(as in economy building up and army overhaul), limited industrialization and bad choices from their allies and on some occassions their own.

[@comradechristmas6508]

@@comradedawid5292 Very well said. I am in complete agreement. The section of video talking about Poland was very much lacking in polish accomplishments and you covered their involvement much better, which I appreciate. And also not to mention a Polish destroyer went 1v1 against the Bismarck. I believe the ship was named the Lightning or Thunder. Point being, thank you for taking the time to write this comment Comrade Dawid.

[@comradedawid5292]

@@comradechristmas6508 it was piorun, but i didn't mention it as i belive if was gifted to Poland afyer the Peking manuver and so can't be attributed to the 1939 general strategic leadership. I already said how good Polish tactical level leadership was and so i thought it wasn't necessary to further prove othereise i would have included the Battle of Wizna where 700 Poles held up 40,000 Germans for 3 days to buy time for the Polish government.

[@cronoros]

@@comradedawid5292 it would be an interesting alternative history to see what would have happened had Poland been allowed to defend based on tactical concerns rather than political ones certainly. The problem as it applies to this video is how do you rate it and from when do you rate it. From Sept 1 to Sept 30 1939 it wasn't good but as said that was circumstances forced upon them from outside that time frame. So how do you rank it? Poland for definite had a far higher potential rank than what they ultimately achieved. In pre-war they did well diplomatically in a really impossible situation, its just a really bad location to be stuck between Germany and Russia, its been the recurring theme of Poland for a long time and reflects why it had been conquered pre ww1. Their work on cracking the enigma too is indisputable. During the initial invasion and after the fall Polish fighters showed how well they could fight but were completely snakebitten by politics time and again.

[@toreq1127]

Lmao not true, the polish plan was to retreat everything to the romanian border, it was a terrible plan because 1. Most of the army got encircled around warsaw 2. The soviets invaded

[@TheWolf-xt7kb]

The Poles did not withdraw from the natural lines of defense, so that the Allies would not think that Poland is giving the territory to Germany and withdrawing, in such a way that they would not help Poland, but when they went beyond the lines of defense, the Germans took advantage of this situation and surrounded Polish troops. Besides, fighting almost anywhere they could. Battle of Narvik, Breaking the enigma code, Battle of Britain, 50,000 Polish soldiers defending France in 1940, The Battle of Tobruk, the conquest of Monte Cassino by Polish troops, fighting together with the USSR against Germany after 1941, Escape from Auschwitz and telling the world about this camp, Liberation of Breda (the Netherlands), and participation in the Battle of Berlin.

[@bumpierfall2493]

Poland didn't crack the enigma code and the battle of Tobruk was fought by predominantly commonwealth soldiers

[@news_oftheweek]

Poles are generally underestimated in this war, although their effort and contribution was significant indeed. Poles created one of the most complex Underground States ever, which had a wide range of activities, including sabotage and military uprisings. Polish mathematicians cracked the Enigma code (or at least did a ton of work here, because whether they or Britons contributed the most is debatable), Polish spies noticed the V2 German missiles and plans of making a nuclear bomb. The Poles also described the atrocities commited by the Germans in death camps and Polish cities, which would give a majority of evidence while the Nazis were prosecuted during the Nürnberg Trials.

[@TheWolf-xt7kb]

@@bumpierfall2493 Poles broke the enigma code even before the war, but Enigma had it to itself that it improved itself. The British later used the work of the Poles to crack the enigma code one more time.

[@TheWolf-xt7kb]

@@bumpierfall2493 The mathematicians I mean are Henryk Zygalski, Marian Rejewski, Jerzy Różycki

[@ptasznik5973]

He also forgot about deystroing German supply lines and assasinating many German officers

[@greenoftreeblackofblue6625]

New rating system woo-hoo. The common wealth being B tier makes alot of sense, it's like if you play super Mario baseball these countries are like the B tier of that game pretty good. You combine them with the British that's a solid A tier.

[@Darkfawfulx]

You bringing up Mario Superstar Baseball gives me joy.

[@solarwalker1044]

So excited for this! What are your thoughts on a Napoleonic War Tier List?

[@spectrum1140]

I plan to do it, but for much, much later. There's quite a few videos ahead in schedule.

[@solarwalker1044]

@@spectrum1140 looking forward to all your stuff in the meantime-thanks for the quick reply :D

[@joshuabradley6624]

I was gonna ask the same question 😀

[@joshuabradley6624]

Poland and Bavaria def B+

[@davidcobb2682]

France need to be nerfed , how you have a revolution and also beat up the entire continent... multiple times

[@HG0124]

Guy has completely forgotten about Poland fighting abroad and Polish intelligence gathering intel for allies.

[@RedHairedWarlord]

I think he was solely talking about the official armies of the countries

[@panzerwaffel5281]

​​@@SebisDropshipping and fighting on several fronts, saving Italy's ass in Africa, researching the most advanced technology, tactics which are in the use in today's armies and fighting for 5 years with the biggest country in the world, keep defending for 3 years being completly fucked up, with no fuel, ammunition and man. It is like nothing I quess...

[@PolishGuy54]

​@@panzerwaffel5281dude wrong discussion you are talking about Germany and everybody else is talking about poland

[@Twiggo_The_Foxxo]

​@@panzerwaffel5281"most advanced technology" suuuuuure buddy

[@panzerwaffel5281]

@@Twiggo_The_Foxxo Maybe not in the literal sense of "advanced technology", but the Germans introduced very innovative weapons, often going beyond the boundaries of the era. Jet planes, assault rifles, guided bombs, night vision placed on rifles, innovations in the Panzer IV. As for that last one, and to expand on that. Panzer IV had exits from the tank for each crew member, which significantly increased crew survivability. The Panzer IV was also a low-profile tank, which was less ikely to be detected by the enemy. In general, Panzer IV can be said that in terms of its rationalization it was the most innovative tank of this war, not the most effective, of course, but one of the most modern, which significantly influenced the development of tanks in the 1950s. Back to the main topic, Germans has just introcued technology that overcame them and they had no sufficient resources to maintain it and no opportunity to develop it properly.

[@fot6771]

I'd like to mention that Britain had the highest economic impact on German war effort. The very existance of the Royal navy made German planners even before the war realise that Germany cannot trade with whoever it wants, needs to win very quickly and will be screwed for oil and rubber until synthetic production can make up the difference. (it only did in 1944 after it was clearly over).This resulted with 80% (not accurate figure but it was definitely over 60%) of the German army marching into Russia with horses and wooden carts. All of this resulted in the southern offensive gambit in 1942 where the very overstretched and somewhat outnumbered Germans went chasing after oil but got bashed over the head in Stalingrad. A big detail nobody mentions when discussing Germany's resource problems, fertiliser. Europe MUST import fertiliser or it will starve. The war didn't last long enough for it to be much of a problem for Germany directly, but only because they took everyone else's food and let everyone else starve first. Even if the east turned into a stalemate favourable to the Germans after Stalingrad, they would've starved eventually. The Luftwaffe never recovered from the battle of Britian, and also because Britain was flattening German cities every tuesday after 1942. The bombing itself did minimal damage and but big and proud Hitler decided invested a fortune of what little finance and resources they had into huge flak towers and flak guns covering europe head to toe, underground bomb-proof factory complexes and tying up what was left of the Luftwaffe trying to shoot down the bombers. The physical land army was perhaps the only part of the war that Germany had an edge over Britain with, but the difference became less and less the more time went on, with the British army going on to destroy 90% of axis armour on the western front after DDAY. Britain's plan is to win slowly over time, that has ALWAYS been Britain's plan. Worked against Napoleon, worked against the Kaiser, worked against hitler. Even if it means Britain loses early battles, victory will come eventually.

[@XXXTENTAClON227]

I think one of the most interesting things I’ve learned about Britain is that the Rothschild family literally bet on them to win a war every single time because of this factor. They would go all out with their loans for Britain on the assumption that countries would, as usual, assume that boats are overrated and if worse comes to worse they’ll just cross the channel… it says a lot that Germany could’ve had all of Europe besides the USSR yet still be worse off than the UK even if they literally just sat there. In an alternate universe, Madagascar fought against an evil African empire that took the whole continent and did the same thing probably, the joys of being an island

[@kordellswoffer1520]

Thank you.

[@Kopesy]

Hear, hear!

[@tizi087]

90% by the brits? gotta give me a source for that

[@fot6771]

@@tizi087 search up the battle of Caen, operation goodwood and operation totalise. I can try and search for sources later if you’d like but I know that the vast majority of German tanks were focused on the coastal area where the British army was. The 5th panzer army with 3 reserve divisions and what was left of the 21st panzer division were committed to the British sector. The northern area of France was just way more flat, open and suitable for tank warfare and the Germans would’ve swamped DDAY pretty quickly if they captured the ports on the coast so they chose to attack there. The US army captured most of central France and everywhere else which was fairly hilly, wooded and not ideal for tank battles. If you want to count the tanks in the falais pocket as American “kills” (despite most of them surrendering and the whole thing being a joint operation) then the number would be different. It probably isn’t 90% but it isn’t below 80%. It’s just a fact that the vast majority of German tank groups were in the northern section where the British army was fighting

[@captainfatfoot2176]

Established titles is a well known scam

[@redster459]

brazil being said not to have done anything is a crime, they perfomed really well with their expeditionary force in italy, arriving demorilized, undersupplied due to south americans being treated as lesser and in a climate completly different from their home, yet still performed well, having towns in italy still partying on their release by the brazilian BAF, theres even a popular story of the 3 brazilian heroes, that fought until the end against massively superior numbers, later having their graves found with a cross that read "Here lies three brazilian heroes" in german.

[@anaccountmusthaveaname9110]

The effort is still minimal compared to the size of the country.

[@space4166]

@@anaccountmusthaveaname9110 Not really. They did escorts and hunted German uboats mostly in the Caribbean where the allies couldn’t patrol Brazil took that job all though they sent 26K men it wouldn’t arrive long. There was a running joke in Brazil “when the snakes smoke we come” or something like that but snakes don’t smoke so it was a joke that the Brazilian army wouldn’t help only the navy until they arrived in Italy and they were called the smoking snakes. They fought in monte something I forgot. And Brazil was gonna send more men but the war ended and the president who joined the war due to unite Brazil behind him and gain power the President was so scared of the Brazilian army because of how good it was he disbanded it. That’s how they were made a president disband the army.

[@anaccountmusthaveaname9110]

​@@space4166 26k for a country of Brazil's size is nothing. Every relevant country had at least hundreds of thousands in arms. Some had millions.

[@redster459]

@@anaccountmusthaveaname9110 the video is about how well a country performed not the scale of said performance

[@anaccountmusthaveaname9110]

@@redster459 Sending only a few troops is bad performance if you could send much more. Quite simple. It was a war of numbers, production and logistics.

[@drotterton793]

I feel like poland was kinda under appreciated here. Not only did they crack the early enigma codes, they also put up insane defenses like at the Danzig post office, and their pilots were better than all other British pilots in the Battle for Britain. Couple this with the Polish Home Army making sure no German was safe, and the victory at Monte Cassino, I think they are a solid A Tier.

[@bigsmokes2708]

A teir really? In 1939 germany’s highest loss figure is 30,000+ Poland lost 250,000+ soldiers as a lowest estimate just against the germans. it goes even higher if you combine losses inflicted by germany and ussr.

[@drotterton793]

@@bigsmokes2708 Fair point. However, it is important to mention that a lot of those losses came from bombardment and such, not neccessarily from direct fire fights. Considering Poland's techinical inferiority, the fight they put up is worth the A tier in my opinion

[@muriloback5210]

Brazil was the only country in South America that sent troops (25000) who acted in the liberation of Italy, they were trained by the Americans, they did a great job Liberating several Italian villages and dominating important territories (such as Monte Castelo) that made it possible for the allied troops to liberate Italy, to this day these soldiers of the FEB (Brazilian expeditionary force) are remembered and celebrated by the Italian villages with several tributes I think they would at least deserve a mention, as they are still seen as heroes not only in Brazil but in Italy as well

[@annamajchrzak5357]

I really like that list, but one thing bothers me: Poland. Its totally understandable, if we only count regular military achievements, but if we look at overall performance we have too count not only invasion of Poland, but also achievments of Polish home army (and other organisations), Polish forces on the exile, as well as Warsaw uprising and non-military achievments. Polish army on exile played a major roles in: siege of tobruk, battle of Narvik, battle of england, retaking netherlands and many more. Polish resistance, was organised much better than french one. Polish partisants killed a lot of notable germans officers and damaged logistic. Lots of people dont realise, that engima code was cracked by two polish mathematics, and Alan turning stole their succes.

[@zeux6634]

The enigma machine was stolen and reverse enginnered by poles, Alan turing made a machine to decipher it automaticlly

[@annamajchrzak5357]

I wonder what is your source, but poles broke the code in 1932, and yes, machine was stolen, but after the code was cracked and they only needed it to create a machine that would automatically translate it. And even if what you saying is right (its not), poles broke it first.

[@lesdodoclips3915]

The classic polish myth. The Germans changed the code the polish cracked, the polish also cracked a code, not all codes. Credit goes to Turing and his team.

[@annamajchrzak5357]

@@lesdodoclips3915 First of all, I wonder what does "classic polish myth" means. Alan turing created the machine to decipher it automatically, knowing the work of Marian Rejewski. Without knowledge gathered by poles, it would be much harder or impossible. Not all credit goes to Turing and his team.

[@lesdodoclips3915]

@@annamajchrzak5357 so it’s almost like Turing didn’t steal his success.

[@Rob_-dv6ei]

Personally, with Operation Mincemeat, the cracking of the enigma code and the general resilience of British morale during the brutality of the blitz I would put them in A tier. Great video though.

[@bobthebuilder4345]

Yeah it's just we messed up hard in the first year and a bit, letting france get annexed easily

[@canadamoving581]

@@bobthebuilder4345 how we're we going too stop France collapsing when we were not mobilized for war and there army all but collapsed when paris fell. We had the BEF. They could hardly defeat the Germans alone

[@bobthebuilder4345]

@@canadamoving581 Yes holding France by ourselves was impossible but our tactics at the start were bad, we expected a rerun of ww1 and got outplayed by Germany. Still, Britain should be A tier

[@bigenglishmonkey]

@@bobthebuilder4345 Britain thought it would be like WW1 yes but France wouldn't have fallen if it wasn't for its own incompetence from not defending the Ardennes if France had even put a single garrison there the allies could have at least known about and adjusted to counter the German push and possibly stop them reaching Paris. plus even though he said the WW1 tier list was just a bit of fun in that one he said Germany was top tier because it basically had to fight the allies by itself because its own allies were so terrible. and during WW2 Britain was in the same boat, after France fell for a whole year it was effectively the British empire vs 13 countries, also by the time America even joined the war Britain had around 4-5 million British troops and 10-11 million colonial troops fighting all across the world.

[@finng.3694]

British morale is a bit overstated for most part, the bombings of british cities by the germans were relatively few, the allies did the same to german cities at a much larger scale, yet noone talks about that

[@francogiobbimontesanti3826]

Brazil actually performed well. I don’t think they deserved the question mark.

[@flatsurfaces1913]

What did Brazil even do?

[@bigenglishmonkey]

@@flatsurfaces1913 joined the joint offensive in Italy and helped the American forces surround and capture German armies while Britain and other countries took surrounding strategic points like ports and command structures. also brazil was part of a south America alliance under the command of the USA and they weren't given an opportunity to fight till Italy. and after Italy fell brazil became THE occupying force in Italy so everyone else could continue towards Germany and join up with the men who landed on D-Day

[@francogiobbimontesanti3826]

@@flatsurfaces1913 sank a fuck ton of submarines and was the third 4 largest army in the invasion of Italy. Sent 20k men, lost 400 men. Captured 14800 Germans killed another 3k. Sent 13 tanks, captured/destroyed 138 panzers. It wasn’t anything that would change the outcome of the war but Brazil definitely has a solid performance.

[@henriquebras]

@@francogiobbimontesanti3826 The germans surrounded to brazilians because they knew they would be better received. If a german surround to a french polish or british...

[@jamesgavin6171]

Well clearly performance of a small force is to insignificant to even be mentioned in the history books.

[@lhassir1005]

The Netherlands performed admirably during the war, for such a small nation, they slapped the Luftwaffe -hard-. Almost 300 aircraft shot down, 4 armored trains demolished, capturing 1500 men and causing several operational failures for the initial German paratrooper assault? If the Netherlands were a larger country, it likely would've held out longer.

[@ssleeg]

Don’t forget the naval effort of the Dutch both before and after the fall of Java. Dutch submarine sunk many Japanese ships, especially under Admiral Helfrich.

[@VersusARCH]

In comparrisson Yugoslavia did far better yet was deemed a C tier...

[@nakaruhikamura3901]

*Allied Powers:* Turkey, will you join the war? *Turkey:* Yesn't.

[@alpizar1177]

I wonder how much of an impact Turkey would've had

[@QWERTY-gp8fd]

@@alpizar1177 turkey joining the war basically ended ww2 in europe. that speaks for itself.

[@alpizar1177]

@@QWERTY-gp8fd if Turkey joined the war germany would've given up immediately

[@QWERTY-gp8fd]

@@alpizar1177 there is no if. turkey joined war and war ended.

[@alpizar1177]

@@QWERTY-gp8fd no, turkey joining the war would've scared hitler so much, as turks are ancestors of wolf's. Turkey would've ended the war as adolf hitlerl would've become scared of the turks In summary turks are strong 🇹🇷🐺

[@Johnny-Thunder]

In my opinion Japan deserves a far lower score: I have recently been viewing some videos on the disfunctional relationship between the Japanese army and navy and it is simply appalling: they didn't trust eachother; didn't want to share information or technology, and rather than putting their ships in danger by supplying the ground troops the navy just let thousands of army troops starve to death. Not only that, but the Japanese philosophy that an honourable death is better than admitting defeat let to many strategic blunders and the useless waste of valuable officers and pilots. Had they not handicapped themselves by that they would have made for a far more formidable military force.

[@lief3414]

I gotta disagree with that. The army-navy relationship didn't really influence the outcome given they were pretty much at roadblock on every front. Similiary their tactics while questionable did have a positive side too and made them quite fierce, especially at lower scale. They were doing really good until they basically took all there was to take and were slowly grinded down by much superior numbers and eventually economically exhausted. I see no reason to deny them A-tier.

[@kekya1999]

​@@lief3414 Sorry man, but A-tier doesn't do them justice even if you're correct that they did good initially. The Japanese flip-flopped between gunning for Mongolia and/or Siberia and the colonies in the south held by western powers, all this in the middle of a war with the Chinese. And when the army failed horribly against the Soviets (Khalkhin Ghol), they looked south. Got their timing when the western powers issued them an ultimatum to stop the war with China or be economically isolated. The rivalry between the IJN and the IJA existed even before the war, it just came up at the worst possible moment and both had to reorganize themselves because neither is helping the other in their war. If the navy wanted to snatch an island from the Allies for example, they'll have to do it on their own with their own ground forces. Maybe it didn't influence the battles on the frontline, maybe things would still end up not in Japan's favor in the end. I don't know about you, but you suck as a military power when you don't even know what you are doing, can't decide which way and how far to go or if you should stop and consolidate your gains, and let cliques to form in your military. Their only redeeming grace was that the west couldn't just iron focus on the situation in Europe and ignore Japan. Literally, their "Banzai charge" that people romanticize or joke about to this day for some reason is just the old WW1-style human wave tactics that pretty much everyone else have already grown out of.

[@BurntCollypso]

@@kekya1999 It's funny to consider, bringing up the points you made were quite impressive, although... Almost every nation had difficulty with co-ordination with the Navy and Land forces, even maybe the Airforce. Germany's Kriegsmarine acted independently to everything else, The Soviet Airforce might have supported the ground units but early in the invasion they were doing practically jack all to help the Red Army since most were stationed in Finland even after a year of the end of the Winter war, and the Navy was out in the Channel and North Sea. I think Japan just had it worse, considering the Emperor Showa leaning too far to one faction would create revolts in another, basically leading them to running into a lamppost, Or running into a brick wall. This just doomed the Japanese, Since the Americans were much more organized no matter how hard the Navy pummelled the Americans or how many Banzai charges would work would ultimately be futile. Considering what You said, The Banzai charge was ultimately both a upside and a downside for the Military, as it would scare the flip out of the Americans, but trap the Japanese into a cultural Dilemma, "" Do I Die In Honour or be tortured and killed dishonourably? "" And this ultimately stuck forever, handicapping the Japanese Imperial Force from gaining the upper hand in total, do not forget they failed to develop the resources in China effectively, sticking them with a missed opportunity to gain a footing, they also struggled to communicate because of the state Shintoism. The IJN was ultimately the only fearful thing in the Imperial Military, despite being disorganised and being the ones to allow the Pearl Harbour attacks, they had quite some formidable Admirals that gave the Americans and British a run for their money. Yamamoto, etc would effectively defeat the enemy navies, and even having the American and British Admirals to respect him even though they saw the Japanese as blood lusting, cannibal brutes. The only thing I can reckon was that the Airforce was the most competent area in the High command, effectively supporting the IJA and IJN with CAS and Air superiority, and even later on in the war, with little to no planes and fuel, they still had the spirit to make the IJA fear. Leading to Kamikaze attacks, Either way, Good day to you stranger :)

[@bot01020]

@@lief3414 the Japanese had poor tactics and war strategies, the Chinese were battling with hunting guns and long swords against tanks and artilleries at the beginning of war, they had lower number of military factories than southern Africa, I wouldn’t call that a tremendous success for the Japanese bc even with such military strength differences, they still failed to advance into central China

[@what_in_the_world8724]

I fully agree the Japanese were barely able to control Chinese territory’s most the Chinese countryside and on top of that they were very arrogant they underestimated their enemies and that caused them to lose a lot of battles that could have been avoided. I feel like it was very unethical for the Japanese still using the Bushido code cause it only caused the Japan soldiers to lose their lives. They lost all their experience pilots and instead of producing more experienced pilots they forcefully recruited young inexperienced Japanese men to pilot Kamikazes and this was all tranced to the Bushido Code. The Japanese thought more traditionally than actually thinking more militarily.

[@gguyllago]

I think that when it comes to Germany it's important to acknowledge the elephant in the room: the massive spending of money, manpower and resources on their horrible crimes against humanity we call the holocaust. When a nation hinders their own military effort to inact their goal of preforming large-scale systemic genocide is to me a big and unforgivable grand - strategy mistake

[@tokivikerness8863]

Total monetary value of stolen Jewish property roughly 12 billion add that to the monetary value of the slave labor force created out of the holocaust jews and its safe to say they paid their own way plus a lot more. It can hardly be considered truly, the amount of resources spent on the holocaust was minimal and when compared to what nazi Germany gained in return its not worth mentioning. Everyone knows about the holocaust doesn't need to be shoehorned in to a list about war success.

[@benedictjajo]

that's the reason the Nazees got support in the first place.

[@tanker00v25]

​@@benedictjajo and the same reason why they lost it

[@mrtrolly4184]

@@tanker00v25 the nazis lost support because Soviets, Brits, Americans and many others killed them all. The Germans were all too happy to continue and even ramp up the amount of murders they were doing as the war went on.

[@tanker00v25]

@@mrtrolly4184 nope. The nazis lost support both in teritories they occupied and at home once the news of their crimes started popping up. In fact, a lot of nazi policies were unpopular from the get go. For example: when the public found out that mentally ill people were secretly euthanised in mental hospitals, the gean public was outraged

[@titanschannel585]

I think that Brazil should be on another tiver, since they sent armed forces to fight in Italy (and they have a sabaton song)

[@ragglefraggle9111]

Yeah, I'd say they ought to be D tier.

[@jai4085]

I’ll show my bias and argue Australia going “A-tier”. The struggle against Japan wasn’t just strategic or supply, but terrain. Any combatant nation in the South Pacific and Burma has to have the terrain they faced thrown in as a factor. Jungles and mountains just tore people up but good planning, logistics and soldiering prevails. Respect to anyone who trekked the Owen-Stanley’s.

[@dragonstormdipro1013]

Agreed. Similarly India should get A-Tier too for East African campaign and North African campaign, and Monte Cassino.

[@thelegacyxyphoenix3798]

you wanna put Australia above the UK?

[@space4166]

Lmao put aussies above UK. India maybe. But some Indian troops weren’t well trained so.

[@dragonstormdipro1013]

@@space4166 TIK has a very good video about how by 1945 many Indian troops were better than British troops

[@space4166]

@@dragonstormdipro1013 1945 the war was gonna end. But sometimes it doesn’t matter about training more of generals, morale, supplies and bravery etc

[@imperatormaximus8952]

To be fair to Polish Generals, falling behind the Vistula would mean that they would be giving up the majority of Polish industry and wouldn't be much help when the Soviets arrived. Moreover, France and Britain threatened to not help Poland if they mobilized early out of the fear of provoking Germany.

[@pete9320]

Minor suggestion; in strategic studies it's strategy>operations>tactics. Just that there is an academically based way to label the three levels. 😇 Also both Thailand and Brazil were important. Thailand maybe as a F-tier? But Brazilian troops did matter in the Italian campaign.

[@greenoftreeblackofblue6625]

I think it fair to cite the soviet invasion as to why Japan surrender but the reason they started is because they knew Japan would surrender to the U.S. after getting bombed. In which even after the *very* successful invasion from the soviets, Japan still in the end surrender to the U.S. and pretty much just occupied from them. I just want it to be clear it's not 1 factor or another but the combination of both of them happening.

[@rafaelglopezroman1110]

This is false the Soviets aren't even a top ten reason for the Japanese surrender. The US singlehandedly wiped out the Japanese fleet, blockaded all of their supplies from their conquered territories effectively negating all of their conquest, (this is game over by itself because Japan needs imports just to feed itself), the US supplied the shit out of the Chinese and nearly pushed them out of South China, the US already destroyed their major cities through fire bombings killing millions, and the Japanese army was scattered and was incapable of fully aiding the mainland because of the US naval dominance. The tanky myth of the Soviets been a reason for the Japanese surrender is one of the most extreme myths of WW2, even more extreme than saying the atomic bombs were the reason Japan surrendered. The real reason they surrender was that the Japanese military completely lost power over the government due to their failures, and couldn't forced the government to continue.

[@philswiftreligioussect9619]

That's what the Soviets thought. The specific reason to why Hirohito chose to surrender is still debated among scholars. Nobody knows if Hirohito surrendered because of the Soviets or the nukes.

[@1TakeDrake]

Cute

[@DOSFS]

For me, the argument of what is the reason Japan surrender is kinda like who sunk Bismarck. Yes, you can argue for all day what is the final stew but the outcome and event before are the same. For Bismarck, British ships and planes already dealt so many damage as the ship is dead long before she sunk. For Japan, US already destroyed most of Japan warfighthing ability at that point, without Soviet or Nuke they gonna lose to US who approching their homeland anyway at that point, sooner rather than later even if they decided to continue fighting.

[@qwopiretyu]

A god-emperor saw two cities vaporized. If that doesn't bring you down to earth Russians invading the China you stole won't.

[@APoleYouKnow]

Give Poland some credit. Even once they were pretty much beaten by the Germs, they still showed constant resistance. From civilian uprisings to smuggling intelligence to the allies, you could argue the Poles did more damage as civies than as soldiers.

[@Spacey_key]

We are a good fighters, just not in our country

[@Spacey_key]

@Bread Boi it depends who you ask, because, few years ago I would say that we won with Soviets but today I can say that it was a draw, because at some point both Poland and the Soviet Russia failed to achive they goals, at the beggining our goal was to liberate as much of Ukraine as we could and then with the new, fresh forces of Symen Petlura liberate the rest of Ukraine, Soviets wanted to recapture Ukraine and Belaruss so they launched a offensive, at this point our goal was just to survive and the goal of the soviets was to launch an European revolution, they failed we succed and vice versa

[@Spacey_key]

@Bread Boi everyone who fought Russia/USSR call it a win

[@Spacey_key]

@Bread Boi nah, the red army at the time was a joke, besides they also fought with the white armies, and probably some blacks, on the other hand we had planes and tanks, so I can say that we were better equiped than the bolsheviks, if you read about the early days of the communist revolution you will find out for example that the bolsheviks tried to use shrapnel ammunition against buildings, mostly they didn't knew what they were doing

[@APoleYouKnow]

@@Spacey_key And we make for good allies, just not to eachother.

[@Innerste_]

Brazil should be ranked as it sent soldiers to Italy that actually did really well

[@wesleyfravel5149]

It could be a thing of “not enough done to properly rate them.”

[@justinian536]

Three men stood strong As they held it for long Going into the fight To their death that awaits

[@ajrtuber]

It was, ? Tier

[@noidea5984]

20.000 men in such war is not enough to rank them

[@riograndedosulball248]

@@noidea5984 25.000 men*, + controlling the southern Atlantic + the sheer VOLUME of raw materials we got for the Allies, THEIR ENTIRE SUPPLY OF RUBBER was provided by Brazil ffs, that took 50.000 men dead within the Amazon jungle, it deserves a rank >Mfw Logi player aren't taken in consideration outside of Foxhole too

[@FandersonUfo]

ty for mentioning Canada - we did perform well in WW2 according to friend and foe alike

[@Merlilein_]

Poland actually would likely have done better but the British told them not to mobilize for their Defence fully as they hoped to talk it out with Germany, being afraid that fully mobilizing could provoke Hitler

[@redtob2119]

Canada played a very important role in the atlantic war having the third largest fleet made up of primarily asw escort fleet

[@lalitthapa101]

Nepal's contributions to WW2 very very underrated. Like for a fairly small nation,the fight the Gorkhas put all over the world and the honors they won speaks for itself. Many might say gorkhas became world renowed soldiers after WW2.

[@KaiHung-wv3ul]

Nepal wasn't independent at that point was it? I thought it was a British colony then.

[@lalitthapa101]

@@KaiHung-wv3ul Nope. Britain never fully colonized Nepal and recognized its sovereignty with the Rana Regime of that time and the British being pretty good friends. Infact that's the only thing any Nepali will ever give the Ranas credit for which is keeping Nepal independent (The Rana Era is seen as a Dark Era for Nepal overall but that's off topic lol) That's why the Ranas gave support to Britain in all its wars and even quashing the Revolt of 1857 in India. Nepal doesn't celebrate Independence Day for a reason and If we are technically speaking, Nepal is the oldest Sovereign 'Nation State' in South Asia

[@CMitchell808]

The Japanese surrendered twice: once after the bombs, and once after the Red Army swept the Japanese from Manchuria. Both surrenders mentioned their respective reasons and both were addressed to different people. The first was to the Japanese people, the second was to the Japanese army that refused to stand down.

[@hansgruber788]

I'm excited for Italy. Thing with the UK is that we've never been a continental power, and so we never field large powerful armies but instead prioritise Naval Warfare being an island, highly skilled raiding parties and intelligence warfare. How much of an advantage did Mi6 and Bletchley park give to the allies in winning battles. British Intelligence won the battle of Kursk as we told the russians exactly when are where the Germans would attack, how many numbers etc.

[@lachlanhawkes-law3396]

And commonwealth nations making up for infantry like Australia, Canada new Zealand India ect

[@urmum3773]

@@lachlanhawkes-law3396 Australia, Canada, New Zealand are literally British by blood, and nationality up until 1960.

[@deason2365]

In hirohito's speech he states the reason for surrender being the bombs and makes no mention of the Soviets

[@alexanderishere6205]

Of course he would say that the us army was right behind him at the time and a us general reviewed the speech before also the Japanese hated the soviets and honour was one of there main things so no way would they say we surrender because of the soviets

[@deason2365]

@@alexanderishere6205 the us reviewed the speech? How? No us plane of boat had yet touched down on the island and it was before the official surrender in Tokyo bay. They wouldn't say they surrender because of the Soviets because it wasn't a factor, the soviet declared war on the Japanese because they knew they were about to surrender and want Japanese territory for nothing. Why would the Japanese hate or fear the Soviets more, they had no navy, a terrible air force, and no atomic bomb, while the us for months had an air force and navy larger and more advanced then the rest of the world's combined. Yeah the Soviets had the largest tank park in the world but tanks don't float, well atleast soviet ones at the time didn't

[@youtubehasbigcringe]

@@alexanderishere6205they surrendered when the Soviets entered the war because it meant the Soviets would not mediate a peace deal between the Allies and Japan, which was Japan’s last hope

[@reaperz5677]

​​@@youtubehasbigcringe Nah that's bullshit. The Soviets weren't their leverage, island hopping was their leverage. Both the Soviets and the nukes compelled the Japanese to surrender. The military was scared of the massive red army (and a new front), meanwhile the civilians were scared of, you know, the U.S. fuckijg nuking cities.

[@KaiHung-wv3ul]

Britain should be A tier, they did pretty badly at the beginning and in the Pacific but very well everywhere else, doing excellently in the Battle of the Atlantic, the African Campaign, and doing admirably in the Italian Campaign, and the eventual liberation of France.

[@NoName-hg6cc]

😂😂😂😂 hid away until USA and Russians arrived 🤣

[@Finnbobjimbob]

@@NoName-hg6ccYou have a very poor understanding of history

[@NoName-hg6cc]

@@Finnbobjimbob No, you know History very little or not at all. I suggest you to STUDY it

[@justaguy723]

Bro, you did Poland so fucking dirty.

[@brickrealm3458]

This Established Titles Ad did not age well.

[@comradedawid5292]

You can call me a salty Poles or say i'm biased, but I think Poland did really well in WW2 and the lead up to it. Pre-war it tried to appease both the Soviets and the Germans in a way so as to not provoke either side. The Germans attempted to provoke Poland to attack them multiple time and our government did give them the chance, e.g the time the Schwielstig-Holstein showed up to Gdansk port unannounced. The Poles didn't shell it, demand it leave or try blockade it's path. and when confronted the Germans said it was there for some sort of event. The Polish high command had one of the largest starting up tank programmes and began a overhaul reconstruction of it's army to prepare for the coming war attempting to heavily mechanize Polish troops and build an economy to facilitate this change transferring the semi-agricultural economy into a more modern one beginning in the early 30's. Keep in mind Poland did this with a very unstable and constantly changing political climate. Poland even under the brilliant Marshal Pilsudski proposed a pre-emptive invasion of Germany when Hitler came to power, but France and the UK refused thinking the Germans wouldn't want another war. In 1939, our army was only semi-mobilised and yes, poorly organized. however your point about the Wisla river being used for defence is not the best. The Polish command considered pulling back but the Wisla was at it's shallowest in a particularly hot year and wouldn't be as effective for defence. The Polish navy in particularly chose the "Peking manuver" as a way to evacuate most the Polish navy so that it can "live to fight another day" with the submarines like the ORP Orzel being very effective in the war. The Polish airmen also proved invaluable in the war thanks to the experience gained in Poland and later France with the 303 being the most effective squadron of the battle The airforce followed a similar train of thought, constantly redeploying. Even after the capitulation a Polish army was able to defeat the Soviets in the East before running out of supplies and surrendering. The Poles greatly assisted in the breaking of the Enigma code too, something they're rarely credited for. The resistance was very effective being the largest or 2nd largest in Europe.It co-ordinated with the allies and the government in exile to use it's limited resources well. They were able to co-ordinate effective rescue of Jews out of the country and also sabotaging German supply lines. The Warsaw uprising lasted 2 months and depleted the German troops in Warsaw while the Soviets refused to assist. Operation Ostra brama, saw the resistance liberate major cities like Lwow in a few short days. In short i think Poland played the hand it was dealt, and greatly helped the allied war effort. The Enigma would have been cracked much later, if at all if it wasn't for the Poles efforts even as far back as the early 1930's. The Battle of Britain would have been costlier for the British without Polish pilots being redeployed to France and later Britain. The Eastern front would have also proved much bloodier for the Soviets particularly during the "liberation" of Poland. On the Tactical level Polish officers were very talented and well trained. on the Strategic level the Poles did their best to think about the long-term fight, doing their best to help their allies defeat the Germans. You can't blame Poland for not performing the best because basically "they were foolish enough to trust France" as a reason. I think a Poland is largely overlooked in the war and the Polish government in exile did a lot of pulling behind the strings that is credited to the allies because the Poles fought under their banner. Even in uphill battles our commanders tried to salvage the best they could, e.g Market Garden despite being doomed by choices out of their control. The reasons above are why i think Poland, considering it's pre-existing circumstances, pulled it's own weight and then some in the war. I think it should be ranked at A tier, if not S tier, since it's largest hindrances were poor timing(as in economy building up and army overhaul), limited industrialization and bad choices from their allies.

[@kurnugiakurn3567]

Tbh for nations that capitulated quite early in the war, there should be a mention of the partisan and expeditionary forces. Since both were important factors in the war effort imo.

[@thattimestampguy]

0:48 The ? Tier 1:24 WWII Was Decided by Production [who could keep a war front fortified the longest?] 3:54 These Countries are ? 4:12 Canada 🍁 Ye Fought Wel 4:41 Australia 🇦🇺 Try harder next time 4:57 New Zealand 🇳🇿 You supported 5:06 South Africa 🇿🇦 Liberated Madagascar 🇲🇬 5:16 British India 2.5 Million Men 5:35 Axis Japan 🇯🇵 pounded China 🇨🇳 to the point The West would no longer allow it _Battle of The Midway_ 🇺🇸 Disaster after Disaster until ☢️ 8:33 🇨🇳 China _Battle of Shanghai_ 9:57 Recovered lost territory when Europe came in 10:20 Communist China, ? 10:51 Axis Germany • Planned, Productive, Quick Overwhelming Attacks Poland 🇵🇱 ✅ 1 month Denmark 🇩🇰 ✅ Norway 🇳🇴 ✅ 11:42 France 🇫🇷 ✅ Battle of Britain 🇬🇧 ❌ *Consolidation of Central Europe* 12:19 Greece ❌✅Yugoslavia ❌✅ [Germany Italy 🇮🇹 and Hungary 🇭🇺] 12:45 Russia 🇷🇺 ❌❌❌✅❌✅❌ 14:28 FAILURES - Overstrengthed - Hubris - War with US too soon - Weaker Allies 15:15 Poland 🇵🇱 🤕 “Hopelessly Outmatched” Bravery medal 🎖 16:52 Slovakia 🇸🇰 “Fought Well”, despite being kinda irrelevant, Axis Puppet State 17:34 OI MATE 🇬🇧 19:00 Evacuate To Dunkirk 19:45 (Italians in Africa L ❌] ✈️ No Fly Zone ❌❌❌❌❌ _Alamein_ ✅✅✅✅✅✅✅ ☕️ 🫖 20:45 High B Tier 🎖🪖🪖🪖🪖🪖🪖🪖🪖🪖🪖🪖🪖🪖 🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸🩸 🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦

[@JJLvfx]

Nice

[@iamkanye443]

Please change the PRC flag to the ROC 🇹🇼 since that was their flag at the time

[@thanosofthecommunistdruzhi9107]

Japan was the only ones to use chemical warfare, and they did not stop there. Even Hitler abhorred chemical warfare, due to being a victim of it. In my book, due to this, I loathe Imperial Japan during ww2 more than Nazi Germany, but the latter's crimes cannot be said to have been better

[@benjaminkeys6887]

@@iamkanye443 he needs those social credit points

[@simplifier_]

@@iamkanye443 I agree with you, communists were just some illegal gangs

[@dilloncrowe1018]

I think you did Brazil dirty, for how small their forces were, they kicked some major @$$ in Italy.

[@lalitthapa101]

Same can be said for Nepal. Like we contributed a lot and the honors gorkha soldiers got says a lot

[@bipolarbear8890]

What? You can't just say the Japanese surrendered because of the Soviet Union declaring war on them. The Soviet Union only got involved after Stalin promised to the US that he would attack Japan after Germany was defeated. The Japanese knew America had them cornered but America convinced the Soviets to join in to show how hopeless Japan's situation was, but the bombs were what really brought Hirohito to the negotiations. The idea that America could strike anywhere on the Japanese homeland with the world's most destructive weapon with nothing anyone could do to stop it is much more likely the cause of surrendering rather than the Soviets invading a Japanese colony.

[@ethanwmonster9075]

It's obvious that Germany definitely has S-tier level performance, but military defeats and strategic blunders leave them in A tier.

[@Enterprise6126]

Also the logistics problems

[@43sumfilmz1]

They had some S tier level performance but here are my main problems with them Poor Logistics Hubris Lack of long term strategic planning. This ties in in part with hubris, they never really planned for a drawn out war, and I understand they knew they couldn’t win a drawn out war, but for example prior to Barbarossa they had told factories that their workers would only be gone for 3 months, which when you consider the length of the war in the east sounds utterly delusional Lack of evolution. They kept trying the same things that worked in 1940 for the rest of the war basically, and never adapted while the Allies did

[@ninjaa6952]

@@43sumfilmz1 The major issue is making to many enemies and having terrible allies.

[@43sumfilmz1]

@@ninjaa6952 which is hubris

[@ragglefraggle9111]

Yeah, Hitler dismissing his best generals probably cost Germany a tier at least

[@snkermenda]

Bruh its like "World war two performance tier list", but while talking about Poland its like "1939 Performance" ignoring rest of the war

[@panzerwaffel5281]

Bro is like ignoring the fact that Germany occupied the half of Europe by itself and putting it on the A tier anyway. Fuck it that Germany saved Italy's ass in Africa, Germany was researching to most advanced technology, tactics which are in the use in today armies, that Germany was fighting with the biggest nigga ass country in the world for 5 years and for 3 managed to defend itself with bo fuel, ammuniton, man and logistics.

[@PolishGuy54]

@@panzerwaffel5281 dude WRONG Country!!!!! He is talking about POLAND!!!!!

[@thatguyfrommars3732]

7:56 Japan's surrender was due to the Emperor's personal intervention, and what moved him most was the atomic bombs. He was horrified by the dramatic escalation in suffering that a prolonged nuclear bombardment implied, and lost confidence in the Japanese military's ability to defend their mainland from the US. Prime Minister Suzuki articulated this by saying that "the Americans, instead of staging their invasion, will keep dropping atomic bombs." Until that point the Japanese hoped that the US invasion would crash on their massive defenses and that President Truman would be compelled to negotiate. Atomic bombardment, as horrible as it was, threatened to upend this strategy completely. (Little did they know that America still intended to invade even after the bombs.)

[@bobbobinson6209]

Well said. The Soviets were threatening their client state and holdings in mainland Asia. Afterwards it would have taken them 6 months to several years to invade the home islands depending on if they were supplied with landing craft or not. And if they did win the most likely outcome would be a japanese client state. The americans strait up deleted 2 cities that actually mattered to Japan. That and the fire bombing was what did it. No glorious bushido last stand like they were expecting to preserve honor, just hellfire dropped on helpless cities at an ever increasing efficiency. It was intolerable. The soviet meme is just the inevitable pushback against previous conclusions of older historians. This time they got it right.

[@kylevernon]

Exactly, if the Soviets were the real reason he surrendered then he would have personally met with someone like Stalin or Zhukov. Instead he met with MacArthur. It was clearly the US with the bombs that ended the war. Japan and Japanese people even says this.

[@alexcc8664]

It was more due to the Soviets. He was persuaded by staff to surrender to the Americans cause if the red army did invade-bye bye royal family and Japanese culture

[@thatguyfrommars3732]

@@alexcc8664 ​ And how would the Red Army invade? By swimming? There was always paranoia about internal threats from Japanese communists, but the main enemy was the US. It was previously hoped that American troops would suffer huge casualties in mainland Japan and then the US would have to negotiate, but after Hiroshima and Nagasaki Hirohito feared America would just sit back and bomb them without needing to invade - which meant Japan had no leverage left. He even alluded to this in his surrender speech.

[@alexcc8664]

@@thatguyfrommars3732 the red army navally invaded several islands . I dont think Stalin would care like the US how many men he lost if he had the chance to take the Japanese out. Plus the Japanese had sent their men to the south of the country to wait for the US

[@normalguy7877]

I think you completely overlooked brazils participation on the war, they were an important factor in the Italian front

[@kitcutting]

Great video. It just sucks how you can't show the actual flag of this specific German state (for obvious content reasons,) even if it's for an educational purpose. The true face of the enemy must be known.

[@prequelanimations539]

14:12 great video---but i'm gonna make a correction The allies and the soviets came together in the Yalta Conference to decide who gets what in Europe. The Americans, instead of going for Berlin which would cost many lives just to give it back to the soviets, decided to go down South to break the alpine region before it had time to fortify and organize.

[@spyran5839]

11:33 I would add, that the land invasion was very successful, but in the naval theatre they lost many destroyers to the Royal Navy.

[@pleaseignore3055]

"I put the United Kingdom in high B tier" *Spits tea over monitor* I've never been so offended by something I completely agree with.

[@redtob2119]

I’ll just copy and paste here why i think it should be in A It is astonishing to me that you failed to mention the majority of the UK naval war and their successes like the artic convoys, the battle of cape matapan, defence of malta, British submarine successes, battle of taranto, battle of north cape ect ect. Or mention their spy network which was famously the best in the war. Or all the planning and deception that went into D day. Or mention the technology they brought like the Radar, merlin engine, “advanced” computers and more. The British were logistical geniuses also and help cripple Germany with its bombing efforts while also keeping them under a blockade from most of the world. They definitely deserve A tier.

[@RedHairedWarlord]

@@redtob2119 the British had a lot of egregious blunders as well tho. Most notably Singapore which is the worst loss in the history of the empire

[@nightowl3218]

@@RedHairedWarlord you can’t expect them to win in every corner of the world

[@RedHairedWarlord]

@@nightowl3218 it’s not just about losing, it’s how badly they screwed up in certain places. Id still put them at B+ but with the terrible blunders they made from 1939 to 1941 it’s hard to put them in A Tier

[@FedulAis]

I should point out that Mongolia did quite a lot. It fought Japanese and its puppet states on numerous occasions in ranks of Soviet army. Supplied a impressive amount of horses, meat and warm clothes in most crucial time of eastern front. And finally retain its independence i a chaos of Chinese civil war. Maybe not militarily, but a good performance nonetheless.

[@benogurok5175]

True. Mongolia had provided a lot of support for the Soviet Union in form of supplies - cattle, wool, meat, money, and later on took full part in invasion of Manchuria. It is totally worth recognition, given that Mongolia's People Republic at the time had a near-constant therat of Japan right untill 1945.

[@reececannon8890]

only a matter of time before this channel explodes, keep grinding

[@theRTSchultz]

Okay, but Thailand is the only one I disagree with. They beat the French when they were under Vichy Control, and got land in Malay and Burma, surely that's gotta be something! Other than that, great 👍

[@noidea5984]

They were more, had way more tanks and more equipment but could only take a small part of Indochina after being defeated in the sea, daddy Japan came to calm the situation, not incredible honestly

[@mappingshaman5280]

@@noidea5984 not incredible, but surely deserving of at least d tier instead of "? Tier."

[@theyakamoz1]

I have been waiting for this!!!! You should do Napoleonic Wars performance tier list, 7 Year’s War (like some other people have suggested), and/or others with a lot of belligerents.

[@MatejaMicic]

Maybe portuguese colonial war or the gulf war

[@VictorSilva-qf2tu]

Brazil sent 25.000 men to the Italian front in 1944 and was active in combat against U-boats in the southern atlantic since 1943

[@Chadius_Thundercock]

25k for the size of the country and war isn’t enough of a contribution to get out of ? Tier

[@VictorSilva-qf2tu]

@@Chadius_Thundercock absolutely not. As it contributed more than all the other countries in the same tier. Only 25000 were sent as it was an expeditionary force. Not a full invasion force with several divisions.

[@randomchannel-px6ho]

To be clear, the Soviet entry into the war against Japan compelling Japan to surrender was motivated less from a perspective of "we still had a chance but now also facing the red army it's hopeless" and more of "If we continue to prolong this war the Soviets might be able to establish a Communist foothold in Japan. It would be better to surrender to the Americans now than to risk that unimaginable horror"

[@barbarossavr]

Being a first time viewer it's hard to explain how relieved I was when I saw that you understood blitzkrieg isn't a strategy lol

[@tutucaman8496]

established titles is a scam

[@polishlithuaniainanutshell5146]

Quick note for confusion: The poles didn't retreat from their main defenses due to the uncertainty of the western allies not joining the war without casualties. Had the western powers fully guaranteed polish independence, Poland would have survived a bit longer than a single month. That is debatable since the East Prussians managed to cross the main defenses of the polish.

[@benjesterw]

I'd love a 30 years war tier list, tons of combatants and tons of reversal of fortune.

[@CroGamer002]

No, atom bombs did indeed contribute way more to Japan's surrender than the Soviet invasion. Soviet amphibious invasion of Japan was a fantasy and regardless Japan planned to holy off Soviet offensive in Korea, as Manchuria was indefensible with most of their army being in China and home islands. Atomic bombs made these defensive operations pointless.

[@kekya1999]

The Soviets never planned to invade the Japanese proper, though? They only took the islands in the north and had an agreement to let the U.S do the actual island invading business. Most of Japan's industrial base were in Manchuria and when that fell in Soviets' hand, they lost their ability to equip whatever army they still have. IMO, the nuke shooked the Japanese. But the Soviet intervention in northwestern China forced their hands, which they only learned after the northern parts of Korea were taken. Mf trying to make it a contribution contest lol.

[@BraveGisgo]

You are kind of missing the point. The japanese surrendered because when faced with 2 million americans, 1.5 million russians, and and unknown amount of nukes, theres simply no chance japan will be able to outlast the allies in a brutal war on japanese soil. Many didnt even want to surrender with these odds. Saying X was more important than Y or Z is arbitrary, because its the sum of the 3 that broke their will

[@KingCrofty]

Australia should have been A tier. For their ability in the war, they were instrumental in africa whilst also having to fight off the japanese at the same time, much more than any commonwealth nation did other than britain, and performed above all other CW nations during that.

[@gizel4376]

Canada, with a population of 13milions total, they bring over a milion soldier in the war, they were not the main allies in western europe, but they really outperform their part in the war, if you wanna know how a single canadian soldier liberate a whole town alone, search for Léo Major, they call him the Quebec's rambo.

[@lachlanhawkes-law3396]

The new Guinea campaigne can't be overlooked as well the Australian army were the first to repel the Japanese defeating them at the battle of milne bay and in doing so broke the illusion that the japanese army were unstoppable also the kokoda track campaign was arguably the worst terrain any army fought on in the whole war. And again the battle of tobruk in North Africa the battle of tobruk was mostly fought by Australian troops resulted in the first serious land defeat of the German army. I could go on for days. To me it's not too much of a leap to put Australia infront of Canada at least bare in mind I know how well Canada performed and how much they contributed in France and the Netherlands.

[@ArkaSaurusRex218]

I would argue that Canada also deserves A tier though also due to personal bias, to taking to the front lines in Europe, and providing their land as training grounds for allied forces, despite themselves having a smaller army than either America or Britain. The Atlantic supply lines also can't be understated.

[@warshawgameshd3432]

@@lachlanhawkes-law3396 Yea but along with Canada's military prowess (having their own d-day beach and going the furthest inland on the second hardest beach), they also trained all the allied pilots, and supplied all the water and uranium for the atomic bombs and their development, along with their role and supplying Britain during the air raids, taking on u-boats in the Atlantic and escorting supplies from North America. They also supplied 60% of the allies trucks and logi vehicles, while after the us being the biggest contributor in other supplies as well.

[@asianperson104]

Nationalist China should be at least b Tier and even A tier. China lost 20 Million people in the war, fought the longest, and tied up most of Japanese manpower and resources. Chinese resistance was the reason why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because the Japanese had to take the oil rich regions of Asia to continue the Chinese front. Imagine if the 750,000 Japanese soldiers from operation Ichi-go were instead used to garrison south east Asia and the pacific islands. Without Stubborn Chinese resistance, the island hopping campaigns along the liberation of south east Asia would have been absurdly slow.

[@advicehydra6332]

Thanks for recognizing Thailand! We were not involved much 😳. We don’t talk about the fact that we let the Japanese build the deadly railway 😳😳😳😳

[@Dr._Nope]

I hope Malta is in part 2. It was a part of the British Commonwealth at the time and while its impact wasn't that of countries like Britain, Germany, etc. it was key to the Allied victory in North Africa, though it was the British forces who were doing the majority of the fighting there and not the Maltese.

[@XXXTENTAClON227]

Don’t worry Britain forever appreciates you

[@adelbertbellgika9890]

When i saw „commonwealth” i thought this is how you called poland since it was named the “rzeczypospolita obojga narodów” or “the commonwealth of two nations” and it’s official name during world war 2 was “rzeczypospolita Polska” or “The commonwealth of Poland”. As you have probably guessed, i am a filthy poll.

[@zeux6634]

jestes sondarzem? Pole to polak

[@vermillioncap8784]

How is it being polish?

[@dinkle3206]

Omg I've been waiting for this I the ww1 one. I loved that one. I can't wait fro pt2

[@shnobi441]

Really? Brazil stays in the same irrelevant tier as El Salvador, Honduras, Liberia? Sure...Alright... Ok... Fine...

[@carefulgorgi5309]

All of your subscribers have seen this video that's how much we love you

[@felizdesdichado]

Brazil in the Question mark tier? they did more that some continental europe countries! they deserve to be considered as an actual combatant.

[@nevets2371]

People always cite the soviet invasion of Manchuria as the reason for Japanese surrender, but it can be a bit misleading. They usually say it like the Japanese were more afraid of the Soviets than the Americans, which isn't exactly true. With the atom bombs, the US demonstrated that they had the capability to annihilate Japan with very little risk to themselves, and the Japanese had already decided that they would rather surrender than go through that, but they were holding out hope that they could get the soviets to arrange for anything better than unconditional surrender. When the soviets invaded it took away their last hope of avoiding unconditional surrender, and even then there was an attempted coup to try to prevent the emperor from surrendering. I usually get annoyed with people who harp on the soviet invasion, specifically to try to make it seem like the atomic bombings were completely unnecessary, but as you can see the bombs and the soviets combined provided just enough pressure to force their capitulation. So they were hardly unnecessary or overkill.

[@ricflairsayswooo2457]

Japan didn’t surrender due to soviet entry into the war, that’s just a contrarian myth. The Soviet’s had zero capability to invade the home islands and that was all the Japanese government cared about at the end of the war. They were actively pulling troops back to the home islands and away from mainland Asia to prepare for a defence from an anticipated American naval invasion. The soviets did not have the transports to conduct any invasion of mainland Japan, and even if they did the Japanese were prepared to fight to the death to defend their homeland. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made it abundantly clear to Japanese high command that there would be no glorious death or bleeding the allies into negotiating more favourable terms. It was surrender or be wiped off the map.

[@ernestobastidaspulido5904]

Ive been waiting for this for so long

[@MrGecko-dm9kh]

Canada deserves to be A tier for the sheer grit of our troops and the impossible odds in which we prevailed

[@yahyaj4845]

Everyone is going to comment this about their own country

[@landonshowalter-maxson2170]

The odds really do seem impossible when you're allied with the USA, USSR and UK

[@MrGecko-dm9kh]

@@landonshowalter-maxson2170 We single handedly took Juno beach, won and lost 30 000 men at the bloodbath of Caen, contributed over 100 pilots to the Battle of Britain, were the allies’ guinea pigs at Dieppe, defended Hong Kong against the Japanese, helped take Italy, helped win the battle of the Atlantic, and more. That’s punching WELL above our weight for a nation with 14% of the population of Germany and 8% of the USA at the time

[@landonshowalter-maxson2170]

@@MrGecko-dm9kh WOW 30 000! its not like the soviets lost over 1 000 000 in the bloodbath of Stalingrad. Canadians did not contribute enough to gain A tier.

[@MrGecko-dm9kh]

@@landonshowalter-maxson2170 Again, it’s proportional. Canada punched above its weight in the war, the Soviets, Germans, Brits and Americans performed as expected

[@Tinfoil_Hardhat]

The Soviets were not the major factor in Japan surrendering like the text on screen proclaims. There’s no real truth to that. It might have played a role, but in reality the majority of the Japanese military wanted to continue fighting. It took Hirohito finally deciding the war was lost. Japan was preparing for a full scale American invasion, there isn’t much that changes with the Soviets in play, the atomic bombs on the other hand would’ve prevented Japan from even fighting back at all at that point.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

Mmm i feel like Brazil did enough to get a rating.

[@drumkommandr9779]

@15:18 All I see at that phrase is lazerpig describing the Piorun charging solo into battle screaming 'i am a Pole' on their signal lights

[@plamantin2937]

For me Brazil should be Higher and Canada should be just behind the big 5, us,UK,germany,russia and Japan

[@fbm9357]

Argentina's participation was basically send large amounts of food (mainly beef) to the united kingdom, for that reason the uk wanted argentina to stay neutral so the supplies could not be interrupted by the germans operations on the Atlantic ocean.

[@lahire4943]

Unpopular opinion: If you go beyond the memes, the fallacies, the simplifications, and you study the war in a bit more details, you'll realise one thing. French troops did far better against the Germans than British, Soviet or American troops in their early engagements against the Germans. Unfortunately for them, they were fighting on their own ground and didn't have a huge territory to retreat on. Often geography helps. The Soviets had an entire army utterly annihilated against minimal German losses, but were able to fall back and rebuild a massive army while the German army stretched thin. The British had their expeditionary force saved from annihilation by the French at Dunkirk and Lille, retreated to their island without fearing any real possibility of invasion (which makes it easier not to surrender), suffered a disaster at Crete in 1941 and opened a secondary front in North Africa, where they could have lost the campaign as early as at Gazala only to be saved by the French (second time). Not to mention the surrender of Singapore. The Americans, who also didn't fear any invasion of their territory, had quite a hard time during the North African campaign (Kasserine Pass was in itself far worse than the breakthrough at Sedan, it couldn't have the same consequences though...) and whether in North Africa, Italy, France or Germany, you seriously wonder what they would have achieved without an overwhelming numerical and logistical superiority in every sector against a second-tier demoralized Germany army lacking of everything, including fuel, and they still had a very hard time. Tactically, the French more than matched the Germans during the battle of France. Narvik, Hannut, Gembloux, Flavion, Stonne, Montcornet, Abbeville, Lille, Saumur, etc. The Soviets, British and Americans didn't tactically match the Germans at all on their first engagements with them. The French suffered a breakthrough that could well have been stopped had the French general of the sector (Charles Huntziger) not taken some strange decisions. And no, the French didn't think the entire Ardennes area was impenetrable. It then fell apart like it would have fallen apart for everyone, the Eastern front being a great example of how it falls apart after a successful breakthrough. However on the Eastern Front there's a lot of ground to retreat on. The British evacuated and the French fell back to protect it. With the British gone and the Belgians consequently surrendering, that's 1 million men gone in two weeks. It was obviously over. French troops suffered 60,000 killed in one month and a half (i.e more than twice the number of Americans killed during the battle of Normandy which lasted two months and a half and is the deadliest military campaign in American History) and 200,000 wounded. The Germans suffered 50,000 killed and 111,000 wounded. Staggering casualties, largely comparable in terms of intensity to the number of killed and wounded the Axis suffered at Stalingrad. The French airforce performed excellently. Despite being critically outnumbered, French aircraft had a kill ratio of 2.35:1. 36% of the Luftwaffe had been lost, which obviously greatly helped the British during the battle of Britain. French tanks also performed very well in numerous tank battles. Ultimately, the defeat was due to a strategic failure (greatly made possible by Huntziger) in one sector and the collapse that logically followed. Finally, not signing an armistice would have been totally irresponsible. On the other hand, Soviet, British and American early encounters with the Germans were all disastrous defeats on a tactical point of view. Thing is, they could not lead to the same consequences. Although in the same situation as France, they would have. As Robert Forczyk writes in "Case Red: the Collapse of France": French tankers did far better on their first encounter with the German Panzer-Divisionen than Soviet tankers would do at Minsk in 1941, or British tankers at Gazala in 1942 or American tankers at Kasserine Pass in 1943; the DLMs inflicted equivalent damage on the enemy and survived to fight another day. The Vichy French won significant victories at the battle of Dakar, the battle of Ko Chang, Operation Terminal and Reservist, despite obviously limited forces. The Free French performed excellently in every later campaign of the war (Kufra, Keren, Massawa, Bir-Hakeim, El-Alamein, Tunisian campaign, Garigliano, Monte Cassino, Ist, Operation Dragoon, Operation Romeo, Falaise Pocket, Strasbourg, Operation Nordwind, Belfort, Colmar Pocket, Black Forest, etc.) The best example being the second French armored division which was easily one of the best allied armored divisons in 1944-1945 and was the first unit to reach the Eagle's Nest. The last defenders of Hitler's bunker were also French... France was the major power with the worst possible position. Nobody would have wanted to swap with them at the beginning of the campaign. Had the breakthrough at Sedan been contained for one or two days as it could have been, the French victory at Gembloux might have done the exact opposite of what happened, i.e the only thing that stopped the French from pursuing and routing the Germans after Gembloux was the breakthrough of Sedan. Had the plane crash not happened, the Germans wouldn't have changed their plans and would have done exactly what the French wanted them to do. The moral of the story is that it's easier not to be defeated when you can't be invaded... Hence in that case, it would be cool not to give lessons about how to act when invaded.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

Dude is this copy pasta’d from your dissertation or something?

[@wesleyfravel5149]

I will say there is a popular saying I believe with France: it had some of the greatest troops they could hope for, and was headed by croissants. The ground forces were superb, but the head command made so many decisions that were less shooting themselves in the foot and more stepping willingly into bear traps. (Example a lack of use of radios. This meant orders needed to be done by messenger, something that at times could cause hours of delay at minimum, as well as for instance their tanks communicated by flags.) The French fighting men were decent, but that gets you so far when your command has its head up its ass.

[@elizner]

France was conquered though lol

[@43sumfilmz1]

6 weeks

[@lahire4943]

@@43sumfilmz1 The problem is that you need to use your brain in order to think

[@carrott36]

For a time, a few Japanese submarines parked themselves in Darling Harbour, and managed to sink a single ship. Tbh I find it funny to think what us Aussies thought back then ‘Oh yeah, that’s where the submarines are, don’t mind them’.

[@g.ricepad9470]

My man did establish titles 2:25 Bruh

[@VCRider]

I just noted the irony of Britain engaging their colonies (from conquered, colonized lands with resettled people) in a war declared against another nation for conquering and resettling.

[@livingthemcdream]

Nepal: gos into question mark tier **sad gorkha noises**

[@bigbo1764]

In the case of Germany and Japan, they were both performed way beyond their means, but this being supplemented by terrible grand strategy and diplomacy basically killed the war effort. In Germany’s case, I won’t even bother, the horse has been beaten to death 20 times over and I’d just be wasting breath by repeating the obvious. In japans case, they really did throw extremely hard. They were historically allies of the British, and while their relationship with the U.S. was always complicated, they had always remained relatively amicable post Meiji. The west didn’t support the invasion of China, much the opposite, but I believe it was within Japan’s means to gain western support if they remained amicable with the British and placed themselves as clearly opposed to the Rome-Berlin axis, which would effectively force the west, at worst, to simply supply the Chinese and watch with grit teeth, and at best, lead to western withdrawal and potential Japanese nominal membership in the Allies just as they were with the entente. This latter option doesn’t seem entirely unrealistic, as the nationalist and communist Chinese weren’t particularly appealing to the west, and if the Japanese positioned themselves as bulwarks against the Soviets, it wouldn’t be too hard to gain western support, especially towards the end of the war as it became evident that Stalin had no plans of leaving the lands he conquered in Eastern Europe. The Japanese choice to side with the axis is obviously due to the terrible balance of power struggle between the different factions of the country and the simple fact that siding with the Germans could yield immense land gains, but to call this a gamble would be to ignore the facts mentioned; Japan was already outnumbered by the Chinese, so attempting to fight the Indonesians, Indians, Australians, and the U.S. in addition is effectively willful suicide and is unwinnable in even the best Japanese odds. It’d be accurate to say that Pearl Harbor was basically the beginning of a banzai charge, there was no victory, only the chance that they could inflict notable damage with their own downfall.

[@MuxauJ7]

Mongolia did supply a whole lot for the war effort. I don't remember all the categories off the cuff, but in quite a few essentials - like covering shortages of basic foodstuffs for displaced civilian workers and soldiers who lost their supplies, clothes and winter gear, possibly some pharmaceutical components (don't quote me on that) as well as quickly plugging up emerging supply chain gaps. Like, for example, clothes - buttons, buckles and such for which, if memory serves, they quickly supplied pretty much the entire soviet industry with for quite a while, while ours was getting sorted. They far outpaced western aid to USSR too, from what I remember reading - both quantities of some categories and their help arriving much earlier. That's just USSR, and I believe they were helping Chinese quite a bit too?

[@spectrum1140]

I will concede putting certain countries on the ?-tier, notably Brazil and Mongolia, could be the wrong call. Of course, I know more about certain things than others, and, though I knew Mongolia helped the Soviets through supplies (and later entered the war with the Invasion of Manchuria), I don't know about it in great detail. I found absolutely nothing on Mongolian-Chinese relations. There's surprisingly an agreement between Mongolia and the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo, but nothing on China.

[@MuxauJ7]

@@spectrum1140 Well, supplies are maybe not as noteworthy to some viewers as direct and major war involvement is, but still - holding up homefront should be a commemorated point of pride of each country and citizen that did it. I just hoped it would put some light on it for curious to dig a bit. Got me by surprise when I first heard of it about a decade ago. I knew we were in disarray the first few months, and learning just who, somewhat unexpectedly, helped out in major ways through some of the most embarassing parts of near collapse has put a good perspective, on it really being a group effort and a total mobilisation of all availiable resources.

[@ottovonburger7594]

The main reason the poles deployed their army on the German border was to ensure French and British entry into the war, they were worried that if they hid behind the Vistula then the German may seize Poznań, Danzig and the surrounding area and then just stop without any actual fight which may give the British and French a reason to stay neutral instead. Of course the French and British entry into the war didn’t do much for the poles and it would’ve been much smarter for them to use the Vistula but still something to note.

[@anarcopablo]

Brazil at least should be higher than the other ? countries due to having a Sabaton song

[@jameslockhart4507]

a 100 years war tier list, but going over the actions of the French and English monarchs rather than the kingdoms

[@Nednerb14]

Congrats on 50K my guy. I’m a Huge fan of you’re content and can only see bigger and better things ahead for you. Can’t wait!

[@commodoreluigi1596]

Canada was after the U.S. the greatest contributor in terms of sheer production outputs. They produced 60% of all trucks and logi vehicles of the allied powers. I give them S tier for that and being so fucking badass

[@schanulsiboi0837]

16:50 i would argue that Poland put also up a very brave resistance movement and fought the germans until the end if the war, so i'd probably put them low b tier

[@Ball-pt4su]

I haven’t fully watched the video yet but, FR, I AGREE, FO REAL

[@Dock284]

Brazil actually send troops to Italy and won their battles with minimal casualties. And their navy also helped to secure the Atlantic battle

[@tymeksamol8943]

Polish effort is underated from cracking the enigma to being the best aces in the battle of britain

[@leolinguini260]

Sidenote about Germany declaring war on the US. Looking at how High Command talked about the US, prior to pearl harbor, you can see that the Germans considered themselves already indirectly at war with the US. It simply wasn't fully official yet. This is supported by the wording of the actual declaration of War, as it read more like a confirmation of an ongoing state of affairs, rather than a formal declaration of war.

[@redtob2119]

It is astonishing to me that you failed to mention the majority of the UK naval war and their successes like the artic convoys, the battle of cape matapan, defence of malta, British submarine successes, battle of taranto, battle of north cape ect ect. Or mention their spy network which was famously the best in the war. Or all the planning and deception that went into D day. Or mention the technology they brought like the Radar, merlin engine, “advanced” computers and more. They definitely deserved a seat in the A tier.

[@Genevasplaytime]

He has a grudge against them you can see it in the ww1 video aswell...quite ungrateful..

[@danielsmith9476]

@@Genevasplaytime where is he from

[@Genevasplaytime]

@@danielsmith9476 probably poland

[@lawbringer9857]

@@Genevasplaytime No he's from Portugal. A lot of them have a weird hated of Britain because they think we took advantage of them in the past. Despite the fact that Britain is the only reason why Portugal still remains an independent country and not instead a part of Spain.