Were too many German soldiers tied up occupying Europe?

Some argue that too many German soldiers were tied up in occupying Europe, and so a lot of German manpower couldn't go East to fight the Soviet Union. This then "disproves" the idea I presented in a previous video ( The Axis Population outnumbered the Soviet Population in 1942 • The Axis Population ou... ) which was that the Axis actually outnumbered the Soviets, and could replace their manpower losses until 1943. Well, it turns out that, no, there weren't too many German soldiers tied up in occupied Europe during 1942. Let's find out why!
🔔 Subscribe for more History content: / @theimperatorknight
⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
The THUMBNAIL for this video was created by Terri Young. Need graphics or thumbnails? Check out her website www.terriyoung...
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
Specific Source list for this video
docs.google.co...
Full list of all my sources docs.google.co...
- - - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from KZbin ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos (note: I'm behind with the Q&A's right now, and have a lot of research to do to catch up, so there will be a delay in answering questions). There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribes...
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - - -
📽️ RELATED VIDEO LINKS 📽️
The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL • The MAIN Reason Why Ge...
BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD S1/E1 - The 6th Army Strikes! • BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD...
My “Why I'm Passionate about HISTORY and What Got Me Into it” video
• Why I'm Passionate abo...
History Theory 101 • [Out of Date, see desc...
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Let's see if the moron that's been reporting and & deleting my comments does the same this time 😂 I'm practically daring him at this point - go on, delete all my comments, see if I care!

[@thefrenchareharlequins2743]

Come out ye moron who keeps reporting my comments, Come out amd fight me like a man

[@TruetoCaesar]

What if I told you the KZbin comments were moderated by a Sith Lord?

[@TheImperatorKnight]

@@Edax_Royeaux It could be the 77th Brigaders, but it's more likely to be a Marxist.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

@@TruetoCaesar It wouldn't surprise me at this point

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Bit of a warning guys, if the pinned comment gets reported and deleted again, all your comments will be wiped too. So if you want to ask me a question or say something you want to survive, best make your own comment rather than reply here

[@aviz8590]

“There’s no point sending soldiers to war if there’s no ammunition to fight with” Meanwhile: *China 1937-45*

[@samsonsoturian6013]

Even in the Korean War they were still using men for tasks ordinarily reserved for horses.

[@panzerofthelake506]

If they can stick the enemy with a knife that's good enough send them in

[@aviz8590]

@@Edax_Royeaux ahh yes WWI, spanning 7 years from 1937-1945

[@aviz8590]

@@Edax_Royeaux ok, however when it’s mostly just people without guns (Chinese front of WWII) things aren’t gonna go to well

[@dantecaputo2629]

@@Edax_Royeaux I think he also was alluding to the experience China gained in fortifications and how this would be used successfully against the Japanese. For more information, see the Battle of Changsha.

[@sillypuppy5940]

Remember that being occupied isn't the same as being defended.

[@IL2TXGunslinger]

The German Generals diaries and autobiographies - many, admittedly full of distortions - do in fact document the logistics issues. I think the problem is that laypeople, who haven’t served in the armed forces in times of duress - or in staff/logistical positions - can’t get their heads around it. But, war is logistics 1st - all the other factors being secondary.

[@ElGrandoCaymano]

The supply shortages within the pockets themselves are well-documented (though some were supplied successfully by air (Demyansk and also Velikiye Luki too), but are the quotations used prior to or after the Uranus offensive?

[@ЕленаИванькова-м5х]

You can have a huge army, several times superior to the enemy's forces, and there is a huge amount of ammunition, but if your army is poorly trained and not properly motivated, it will scatter, and the enemy will get the ammunition

[@Ronbo765]

The German army was outnumbered prior to the invasion of France. Operational strategy won the battle. German logistics was sufficient. Oil was not.

[@BOB-wx3fq]

@@Ronbo765 battle of France Germany 141 divisions Allies 135 Personnel Germany 3.35m France/allies 3.3m Italy 300k

[@Ronbo765]

@@BOB-wx3fq That is soldiers. Not tanks or guns. 3,383-4,071 French tanks to 2445 German. 13,974 guns allied guns vs. 7378 German. 120,000 motorized vehicles, compared with the 300,000 of the French Army. German logistical transport consisted of horse-drawn vehicles.

[@SecNotSureSir]

I really geek out on all these statistics and analysis videos.

[@Karelwolfpup]

hope you feel better soon, TIK ^w^

[@gonsu35]

I hope you get well soon Tik

[@andrzejalf82]

Did TIK also count Luftwaffe and Gestapo ?

[@orapronobis1040]

TIK! Your chess board is set up incorrectly!

[@benwalker8447]

In 2 years when Stalingrad series is done haha (not a comment on the episode rollout I know it’s a bloody big job and encourage taking breaks), do you have any plans to cover anything else

[@TheImperatorKnight]

I want to finish the North African Campaign, Torch, Tunisia, Sicily, Italy, then Normandy, whilst probably doing more on the Eastern Front. The reason I want to go back to North Africa is because we're nearly at Gazala, and then, shortly after, El Alamein, so makes sense to do more on it and get it finished.

[@amicus1766]

@@TheImperatorKnight That is wonderful, I am increasingly fascinated by the ME in WWII. I would love to see you look at the U-boat war and apply your economic and logistical analysis to balance the tactical and strategic history done by others. I think that and the Battle of Britain both need that kind of work in more breadth and depth. Also, it would be interesting to look at Speer and the slave economy in the 1942-44 period. Keep up the good work, rest up, take a vacation/holiday and keep well. God bless.

[@celdur4635]

@@TheImperatorKnight That whatever floats your boat dude! I support it all! Do whatever gives you energy to continue!

[@manco828]

@@TheImperatorKnight When you are eventually done with this WW2 series, it will be a monumental achievement. I hope you are saving all your videos locally.

[@jobsonindustries]

Would love to listen to a campaign podcast format - similar to Dan Carlin.

[@maps9]

don't forget soviet troops at Turkish border, soviet troop at Iran and troops at far East on Manjuriya border.. and don't forget that many SS divisions were not german..

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

True. Despite the Japanese having gone for war with the US in 1941 instead of the USSR the Red Army maintained a very large force in the Far East throughout the war that could probably muster up to two full Fronts. Aside from freezing your nads off in the Siberian winter this was probably THE place to be (until August 1945) if you were like Edmund Blackadder and valued not getting killed in yet another operation called Certain Death in the Honor of Comrade Stalin!

[@manco828]

Years ago I was shocked to learn how much of the Wehrmacht's supply lines were horse-driven! The Panzer divisions were the small minority of the army.

[@cotnesiradze3520]

@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 I don't think many had that attitude considering what was at stake.

[@spqr1945]

@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 My friend's Grandfather was serving there and food situation was very scarce, soldiers were on a brink of starvation and many actually died because of lack of nutrients, their immune system was really diminished because of hunger.

[@odysseus2656]

@@manco828 Funny, but my father who was a veteran, had a book on WW2 published in 1947, AND it made it very clear that the German army was NOT mechanized and was horse driven. Funny how in 1947 that was obvious and part of the war narrative, and then for about the next 30 years the lack of German mechanization was forgotten.

[@markaxworthy2508]

TIK is here making a mistaken claim that there were only 40,000 German troops occupying France in 1942. The figure of 40,340 comes from a book by Paxton and refers only to the number of men in Landesschutzen battalions deployed in Occupied France. Their average age was apparently 48! It takes no account whatsoever of the the 520,000 other younger Heer men in 23 divisions and supporting services deployed in the Netherlands, Belgium and (mostly) France on 1 July 1942. The idea that France, with a population of 40 million and a residual Vichy Army of 100,000 would remain passive under occupation by only 40,000 near geriatric German WWI veterans is implausible.

[@matthewwilson3651]

yes correct I fell over when tik said that very poor research

[@Bismarck1941]

To that figures we must add the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine personnel, thousands of them, in naval bases and airfields.

[@MWcrazyhorse]

Well they were guarding the cost.

[@markaxworthy2508]

@@MWcrazyhorse So? This doesn't stop them being (1) on French soil and (2) a continuous implicit threat to the French population, as they proved by occupying Vichy France on November 1942. 40,000 geriatric German WWI veterans with little transport and no more than small arms couldn't have done that on their own.

[@MWcrazyhorse]

@@markaxworthy2508 Apparently they did. Just like the Germans defeated France in 6 weeks. They must have figured "meh we'll just leave 42.000 geriatric old guys here. That should be enough". And I think they got the number quite right. What helped of course was Vichy France and the fact that the German occupation was very civil. And so the French people did not feel a need to fight a bloody rebellion. They let things develop and drank some wine.

[@martindice5424]

Also troops stationed outside Germany eat the food from the regions they are garrisoned in. Germany’s food problems were dire for most of WW2 and so outsourcing these to the conquered territories was essential.

[@steadyjumper3547]

Excellent point, there are many account from those occupied territories of German occupational forces takes from local villages and towns. Taking alcohol and animals for officers.

[@sorsocksfake]

Worth noting that this doesn't logically help a food shortage, but it does help on the logistics. They still eat it, they just eat it closer, presumably, to where it's grown.

[@firebird9711]

What do you need food for? Just go to the nearest medical box and recharge. Then wait for a panzer to spawn. Why is that so hard?

[@martindice5424]

@@firebird9711 🖖😘🤣

[@DTOStudios]

Germany's food problem actually wasn't that dire during WW2. The only people who ate better than the Germans were the Americans. It got very desperate towards the end of the war, but from 1939-mid 1944 to early 1945, Germans ate better than everyone but the Yanks. Crash Course has a video on WW2, where they specifically focus on food and they discuss the caloric intake of the different nations during the war

[@nobleman9393]

People who don't care about logistics: Just create more Panzer Divisions lol

[@maximilianolimamoreira5002]

these idiots might as well make the Tiger 1 only challenge, because, proper management of resources is for fools, we screw ourselves up really good.

[@odysseus2656]

Yes, but I find it humorous that many many people know all about Napoleon's disastrous retreat from Moscow and it was totally due to lack of logistics....yet so many people still think logistics, and the home front economy, are just not important things when it comes to discussing wars.

[@menajev]

@@odysseus2656 Most people knowing 'all' about Napoleon's retreat still thinks it was all because of winter...

[@unclelarry8842]

lol these are the same idiots who unironically say "HURR DURR JUst InvaDe BrItAin BeFORE UsSR" lmao this what happens when you play too much hoi4

[@fatherelijahcal9620]

HOI4 is getting a major expansion that will cover logistics, so hopefully that will shut these ignorant people up to some extent.

[@markaxworthy2508]

In 1942 Germany moved at least 20 newly created Reserve Divisions (numbered in the 148-190+ series) belonging to the Ersatzheer into occupied territories in West and East. These were actually part of the Reich's training apparatus, not Feldheer divisions. They were not usable on a battlefront even though they each added up to 10,000 men to the apparent strength of the occupation forces. They were intended to double as occupation troops, but when used for this it interrupted their training schedules and reduced the quality of replacements they sent to the Ostheer. That was why the Ostheer had to create a field training division in each army group - to complete their training behind the Eastern Front. In Denmark each Wehrkreis sent a battalion of recovering wounded to undertake occupation duties on the Baltic side. These were also not deployable on a battlefront even though they appeared on occupation strength returns. There are other examples, such as frontier guards, who were not usable on any battlefront.

[@matthewbadley5063]

Also excellent point. Quiet sectors were used for troop rotations. Although, the less land Germany could've occupied, the easier it would've been to rest and recover troops.

[@alexrennison8070]

Huh, interesting. Excellent comments on this video all round.

[@Gert-DK]

Denmark was used for fitting and refitting Divisions and training and retraining. It's a job that have to be done somewhere, so it might be fair to say that not all 6 divisions was "allocated" for occupation.

[@yochaiwyss3843]

Man, they needed 3 whole divisions just to counterbalance the King, they abaolutely needed all 6.

[@thomashjensen1556]

While I didn't know that, I had heard that the Germans referred to Denmark as "the front of whipped cream" ("flødeskumsfronten" in Danish).

[@TheIfifi]

@@yochaiwyss3843 yeah denmark was a pretty calm front. The king was epic but narh. We mostly cooperated with tge nazis. At least until 43 which turned mostly into passive resistance.

[@micfail2]

Not to mention that when we are talking about warfare on the scale of Eastern Front, six divisions isn't even a drop in the bucket...even if Germany could supply them in the field.

[@jussim.konttinen4981]

@@thomashjensen1556 From Denmark, they could potentially have gathered 500,000 men, but in reality less than a division of volunteers. In addition, a couple of companies in Finnish uniforms. Outright luxury treatment compared to Finnish experience, not to mention total destruction of Poland.

[@thefrenchareharlequins2743]

10:34 Why didn't they just make 50 width cav divisions with MP and use that as the occuparion template?

[@janehrahan5116]

You need some armored cars to increase unit hardness man.

[@aviz8590]

All the mills were spent building infantry

[@juliantheapostate8295]

Or better yet, get a spy to go on a mission to reduce resistance

[@MultiCrispyChicken]

@@aviz8590 More like planes. Edit: And ships

[@aviz8590]

@@MultiCrispyChicken Whispers: Mills can’t produce ships...

[@АлексейГоликов-н1к]

get well TIK! we need you and wish you good health!

[@oceanmadrosci3381]

"How did Hitler want to starve the great britain with 300 submarines, while reducing the amount of fuel for the Krigsmarine to 50%." I hope someone asked this question.

[@insideoutsideupsidedown2218]

He was gambling as usual that Britain would capitulate.

[@krisfrederick5001]

You just did my friend

[@Anthony-jo7up]

His plans went from "They will surrender once we take France." to "They will surrender once we destroy the RAF." to "They will surrender once we bomb their cities." to "They will surrender once we sink their supply ships.". Just like how he thought that the Battle of the Bulge would win the war in the west, he could only hope for the best possible outcome given his options. As his options decreased, so ludicrous did their probability of success appear. I think compared to tanks and planes, the navy requires more fuel by far. Using all the fuel for the navy doesn't help win the war in the east to get more oil.

[@sci-fihorizons2867]

@@Anthony-jo7up His strategy was a mess. Just pick a damn front...

[@timcahill4676]

@@Edax_Royeaux from what I’ve seen they seemed to blame the British aristocracy and above all Churchill for keeping Britain in the war

[@markaxworthy2508]

There is something wrong with the 40,000 figure that sticks out a mile. It is the equivalent to 1,000 troops (a battalion) to hold down each million French people and guard against invasion. It is even rather less than half the reduced 100,000-man army the Germans had allowed Vichy. It effectively implies that the Germans had all but abandoned France and the French were in a position to liberate themselves. Common sense should tell us that there is something very wrong with this figure.

[@daniellee9328]

Vichy French police and forces did most of the work, they feared Germany crushing them if they rose up so the police were the occupying force.

[@markaxworthy2508]

If there were only 40,000 German soldiers in the entire country then there wasn't much reason to fear "Germany crushing them". Even the Vichy Army was over twice that size!

[@daniellee9328]

@@markaxworthy2508 Germany would return with a much larger force there were also a lot of far right elements in France who supported new management of a pro nazi Vichy government. 80,000 Vchy French troops decide to attack the German garrison the garrison holds out until a large force attacks this time with massive reprisals.

[@markaxworthy2508]

@@daniellee9328 There is a thread on Axis History Forum that gives the following: The figure of 40,340 comes from a book by Paxton and refers only to the number of men in Landesschutzen battalions deployed in Occupied France. Their average age was 48! It takes no account whatsoever of the the 520,000 other Heer men in 23 divisions and supporting services deployed in the Netherlands, Belgium and (mostly) France on 1 July 1942.

[@thelistener0]

Yep that number is wrong. The number never went below 240 000, most of the time it was more than that

[@juliancate7089]

The Allies did a pretty good job, both with direct action like commando raids, bombing, and aircraft carrier strikes, but also with intelligence ploys to keep the Germans guessing about Norway. To those who think the Germans had deployed too much in Norway, imagine if the Allies retook Norway in late '43 or early '44 because it was weakly garrisoned. That would have meant Allied airbases in Southern Norway. German coastal shipping would have been completely cut-off, not only in the North Sea, but the Baltic as well. How would Germany have gotten Swedish iron? How would she maintain lines of supply to Finland? How would her Uboats function when even their bases and construction yards in Germany could be attacked with ease from bases a short distance away? No, Norway was critical to German defense and devoting resources there was not a mistake.

[@allanfifield8256]

Outstanding post!

[@Grondorn]

War is a risk, despite the importance of Norway, the USSR was still a prime objective that would decide the war. Still, I believe it was more German complacency than the perceived threat from the West that kept them investing more in the East.

[@juliancate7089]

@@Grondorn Thanks for your comment, unfortunately, I think you're wrong on both counts. Germany needed to attack and occupy Norway (see any reference to the background on the Norwegian campaign for reasons), but Germany did not need to attack and occupy the Soviet Union. Hitler could have continued to trade with the Soviets for needed resources. It was only Hitler's evil ideology and his ridiculous economic theories that made war with the Soviets inevitable. Not to mention that TIK already explained that moving 2 or 3 divisions from Norway to the East would have made no difference to the war at all. Something I complete agree with.

[@Grondorn]

@@juliancate7089 I agree that Norway was extremely important strategically, but Germans potentially could have transferred some troops from there to the war theaters despite the risk of an attack there. Pulling troops from Norway alone would probably make only a difference locally, but I think a dozen divisions could have been extracted in 1942 from all theaters combined to the East. Considering Soviet-German trade relations, it seems that the Soviets exported a modest quantity of needed resources to Germany, possibly deliberately. For example, from the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact to the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, the Soviets exported around 900 000 tons of oil in total, which is a measly amount considering the German oil crisis.

[@juliancate7089]

@@Grondorn One thing I've learned about discussions on this channel is that people never accept that they are wrong, or that their opinions are ill-informed. So frustrating. It would be nice if people cared more about facts than trying to pump their egos. Firstly, I am not sure I agree with your assessment that the total trade was "modest", but even so, IT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN. Part of the reason for the "modest" trade is that Germany wasn't paying the Soviets. Germany COULD have done so and increased trade. TIK explained in the video that Germany had already moved many divisions from the West to Russia. More would have simply allowed the USA and it's allies to waltz into Germany that much faster. But hey, have it your way. I'm out.

[@alexstoyanov6108]

USSR also had to keep a million-strong army against possible Japan invasion, at 01.07.42 it numbered 1440 000. It outnumbers greatest TIK’s estimation of German troops in Europe

[@_Abjuranax_]

Which is why they were immediately sent to the defense of Moscow, when Soviet Spy's were able to confirm that Japan was in no position to threaten them in the East.

[@alexstoyanov6108]

@@_Abjuranax_ It was constant presence on Far East and it never was less than 1 million from 1941 to the end of war. And it’s actually grown from 1,1 million in 22.06.41 to 1,44 million in 01.07.42.

[@alexstoyanov6108]

@@_Abjuranax_ And, well, nobody ever would move an army group because of information of a spy.

[@johnnyfortpants1415]

Great point. Didnt they also fight into Sakhalin?

[@celdur4635]

@@_Abjuranax_ That's actually a myth, the troops that saved Moscow came from Central Asia!

[@thefrenchareharlequins2743]

40,000 men used to occupy France... so much for almost everyone thinking that the French Resistance was the best resistance movement evar.

[@CA-jz9bm]

more french fought for germany than against it

[@TheImperatorKnight]

That was just in 1942!

[@orenoitchiro4744]

Before 22 June 1941 the resistance was againts Vichy France government not Nazi occupation

[@MB-fo2sk]

Great straw man there.

[@janehrahan5116]

Did anyone ever really think this? I thought everyone knew the french resistance was a larping cope for them surrendering so easily, not a real resistance, that's why civilian casualties in anti partisan actions were so low unlike poland or yugo.

[@michelguevara151]

get well soon, TIK

[@catholicmilitantUSA]

1) Norway was an anomaly in the German occupation strategy because they were always afraid of an allied invasion. It was therefore heavily defended by both the army and the navy. I don't think you could compare the Norway case to that of other occupied territories. 2) Get well soon TIk :(

[@engelsteinberg593]

What kind of joke is this?

[@allanfifield8256]

Norway is a special case. In case of allied invasion, Germany can not move troops easily from point to point on the ground, To defend against any Norwegian resistant 1/4th of the number would be plenty.

[@mixererunio1757]

Acting as a devil's advocate for HoI4 they implemented pretty nice garrison system. But still it's very simplified. But it gives me an interesting idea for a game where you have to allocate resources to either garrisons or fronts.

[@maximilianolimamoreira5002]

my only complaint about the game, is that it's laggy to some PCs.

[@Anthony-jo7up]

@@TheImperatorKnight The new logistics system isn't out yet, but it looks really interesting. Rail-based supply, the option to switch to truck-based logistics. Even the artificial ports the British used. Might be out by the end of the year. The only massive logistics-based thing which isn't being covered is food. But since the game doesn't cover civilians I suppose it isn't a huge deal.

[@sld1776]

I dunno, man, I just did the no oil challenge: capitulate Poland, France, and the Soviet Union without ever using fuel. Finished by late 1941. Logistics may be a tad oversimplified...

[@theeccentrictripper3863]

@@sld1776 It's funny cuz I think the new DLC coming out is attempting to answer that critique, although with Paradox it's a dice roll on whether it'll be any good or not. I want to believe, HoI4 is pretty fun and it'd be more fun if you had to account for more real world factors.

[@dusk6159]

@@Anthony-jo7up Indeed, still that

[@kalimurahagrid]

Hi TIK, get well! I would like to add that Soviet Union had to keep forces on Far East front waiting for possible Japanese invasion. My grandfather served on the Far East front during the ww2 and at some point was relocated to Leningrad. He met end of the war in Königsberg.

[@brucealbert4686]

Chenny achovsky's front!

[@soviettankmen]

königsberg is one of the bloodiest battle that soviet faced. iirc even soviet commander there (Chernyakhovsky iirc) died and was replaced by stavka staff, marshall Vasilevsky

[@williamst.romain7393]

The Germans never had 400k in Norway, though I can't specify an exact source. Its been years since I heard it, but a documentary on D-Day specified 250k. Still, this is a significant number. What needs to be remembered is that just because an army has X number of men doesn't mean each and every one of them is fighting on the front lines. Only about half of Germany's soldiers were combat troops at the beginning of 1942, with the number steadily increasing as the war went on. The Soviets, by comparison, never had less than 70% of their manpower on the front lines. It is an interesting study of how the Soviet Union fought WW2, but I highly recommend it for anyone interested. Basically, throughout the war the Russians were fighting on the edge, always in danger of running out of critical material at crucial moments. This is a big reason for way the Germans were able to inflict huge loses on them even into 1944. Manstein's famous counterattack after Stalingrad so often passes over the extent to which the Russians became overextended after their victory.\ By comparison: the United States had the largest military force in human history, a total in excess of over 16 million! But fewer than 20% of these were ever getting shot at. Most were involved in the massive supply chain which not only kept our own forces fighting, but dozens of other nations too.

[@ScawerGaming]

Yoyo, imma just pop in here and tell you you're wrong. Saying they never had 400k in Norway and saying you got *no* sources to back that claim is like saying "I think I'm right but I don't care to prove it". Relying on a D-day entertainment documentary is worse source selection than someone relying on Wikipedia for an academic science paper. The correct answer is that we are not quite sure how many German servicemen there were in Norway during the last few weeks of the war, but it is probable in the 400k region, considering Norway became the most heavily fortified country Germany had occupied including France, the most strategic exit and safehaven for warships and submarines, which therefore the majority of the Kriegsmarine became stationed in Norwegian harbours. And comparatively, I got authors to recommend who have written about Norway during WW2 if anyone wants to know more: Henrik O. Lunde, Walther Hubatsch, Carl Axel Gemzell, Rolf Hobson, John Keegan, T. K. Derry, Despina Stratigakos, François Kersaudy, among norwegian historians like Magne Skodvin, Helge Paulsen, Berit Nøkleby, Lars Borgerud. There, stop being lazy watching documentaries that are skewed towards an entertainment industry with minimal historical work put into it.

[@abbottshaull9831]

Uhm...I would dare say the Soviet Military was way above 16 million all total.

[@williamst.romain7393]

@@abbottshaull9831 Depends on what you mean. An estimated 35 million served in the Soviet military at some point during the war. But there was never more than 10 million at any one time. They suffered very high casualties.

[@erikhalvorseth3950]

I believe you are wrong but only partially wrong. The number of German troops in Norway reached its peak when all troops that were originally deployed in parts of Finland and the Murmansk region retreated after Finland got a separate peace with USSR. So its a bit academical- if we are discussing 'stationed or earmarked for Norway' the number probably never was even close to 400k, arguably somewhere around TIK's estimates. But in the chaotic days during the retreat from Russia/Finland from ca Sept '44 onwards the significant contigents of the late Gen Dietl's Mountain divisions along the arctic coastline, the 'Engelbrect' Div, the 6.SS.Div 'Nord' and other units from central Finland etc increased this number dramatically, although these units never originally were earmarked for deployment in Norway. Most of these battled-hardened and experienced units, like 'Nord',were shipped to Germany to more urgent war theatres. If one to this add Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe men, historians have estimated the number of Wehrmact personel in Norway to peak close to 400k. But for mentioned reasons, the number is pretty academical

[@joegerhardusa9017]

The communist threw men at the Germans. Period.

[@johnmn3500]

I like when Tik says "mad man Hitler" haha

[@kurts6741]

I recently read that when Paulus surrendered on Jan. 31, 1943, not all soldiers surrendered. Around 10,000 kept fighting, basically to the death. It took the Soviets until mid-March to end the battle of Stalingrad.

[@matthewwilson3651]

yes i have read the same

[@markkelly9621]

Apologies, I know you're ill, but I must criticise the video response to the viewer's question as you have not addressed the question properly. Plus, I was listening to the video in the background so an happy to be corrected if I state something that is wrong. The question was posed in relation to an earlier assertion by you that the total combined populations of the axis countries outnumbered that of the USSR. Presumably you argued that therefore the potential manpower for war was more that the USSR (if utilised correctly). However, in your video you have only taken into account the German units garrisoning of occupied territories. Although you explicitly mentioned Italian and Bulgarians occupying territories , these have not been taken into account when you have worked out the size of the occupying axis forces. Whereas mentioning that logistics might have limited the manpower at the front for the axis powers it does address the point made by the viewer about manpower employed elsewhere. I would have suggested you could actually have explained that the USSR's forces were also spread to defend in the East for example.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

It's alright, you have valid criticisms. I would say that a lot of the Axis countries (except for Italy) wouldn't have been doing much occupying. Bulgaria, for example, only occupied a relatively small portion of Greece. The Romanians (largest contingent in the East after Germany) didn't occupy any territory except the Soviet territories. Italy is the only one which had large occupation forces, so that is a factor and I will concede that. True, I didn't mention the USSR's forces, but many people already know that they had troops in the Far East etc. In fact, several commenters have pointed this out, and I've hearted their comments. My main focus though was to show that the manpower wasn't actually the issue, but the logistics. They could technically replace the manpower, but couldn't actually do it and keep those replacements supplied due to logistics issues.

[@ElGrandoCaymano]

The Italians had approximately 30 divisions or 500,000 troops across Yugoslavia (17 d), Albania, Dalmatia. Rhodes, occupied Greece & Greek Aegean islands up to the time of capitulation (Op.Achse). I believe Crete alone held approximately 30-50k German troops and its garrison didn't surrender until 10 May 1945.

[@ivokantarski6220]

@@TheImperatorKnight Bulgaria occupied territories which were not made Greek in culture and ethnicity and in Yugoslavia there were millions of Bulgarians. As u may know Macedonian nation is a new invention. They were Bulgarians. So Bulgaria didnt had to use great forces to occupy. Dont have to name Bulgaria at all. It had no plans sending troops in the east since the troops wont feel like fighting those who once set them free and those who write in Bulgarian alphabet and speak a language who is potentially understandable while being on the side of some dreaming ancestors of Rome aka Romanians, or Hungarians or Germans who maybe we like but being real werent cultural relatives. It like why Italy was getting embarrassed in Greece. They are kinda cousins.

[@jamesmortimer4016]

"Didn´t have to occupy other countries." Iran is not real

[@hopfinatorischerkuchenkrieger]

@Belagerungsmörser the Sheep Based.

[@roberthansen5727]

@Belagerungsmörser the Sheep Cringe

[@samsonsoturian6013]

Not just Iran, Chechnya revolted during the war, and many areas required their own garrisons because they had broken off and been reconquered within the previous 25 years when WWII was happening. Not to mention the paramilitary actions of collectivization that also took a toll on Soviet morale.

[@samsonsoturian6013]

@Belagerungsmörser the Sheep that's not funny

[@samsonsoturian6013]

@Belagerungsmörser the Sheep i don't know why you're treating Persian as an expletive. Besides, the modern Persians call themselves Farsi.

[@awesomehpt8938]

I didn’t know German soldiers were into bondage lol

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Apparently they were all subs, also known as u-boats

[@awesomehpt8938]

@@TheImperatorKnight hey man, love your work. Your videos on ideology and oil were great.

[@spoonwithoutleg]

It was well documented in Allo, Allo!

[@maximilianolimamoreira5002]

well,they were into repressing resistance groups.

[@keeblerorc]

@@TheImperatorKnight That humor is just below the surface

[@mdbr155]

As for Greece, the Germans had occupying forces only in Athens, central Macedonia, part of Crete and a few islands.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

The Allied goal in the West was to draw away or engage 40 German divisions that could otherwise be used on the Eastern front.

[@firebird9711]

Amongst other goals, such as liberation of Paris, taking over the industrial Ruhr, and attacking Berlin if strategic conditions allowed.

[@aldinf512]

First

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Well done guys!

[@eniskaantasoren]

@Wulf Im your first witnesses first witness

[@rogerloger1935]

Im frist whitnessing your whitnessing, that you have whitness.

[@kaustubhillindala2643]

How do you even do this

[@IrishTechnicalThinker]

Get well soon brother. God bless from Ireland Belfast.

[@akk-nd3vj]

that 400k could also include german troops in north finland fighting russians. if count those and occupation troops might get lot closer to 400k. great video as usual, get well soon.

[@Duncomrade]

It specifically didn't count those in Finland, as they are counted towards being on the actual Eastern Front.

[@LjubomirLjubojevic]

7:23 in late 1941 only 30.000 German troops were stationed in Serbia, with another 10-20.000 in Croatia. After uprising in december 1941 total troop number was 70-80.000 but dropped to 40-50.000 around february 1942. During stronger resistance in Croatia in 1942-1943 "corp Croatia" was formed with expansion to 130.000 German troops in Croatia with around 30.000 German troops combined in Serbia and Slovenia.

[@rudolfrednose7351]

C’mon people, make TIK’s patreons list three rows wide!!!!

[@BridgeportIPA]

Tik - love to see a similar assessment of Japanese manpower allocated to occupation of the colonised territories in Asia- which I don't think I've seen before in any detail. Admittedly, it may be somewhat less interesting because there weren't substantial Japanese collaborators. Nonetheless, I'm sure the Yanks were quite happy not to have to face, say, 500,000 more Imperial troops in Okinawa. I wonder if the Japanese faced similar logistics problems throughout Asia that would have hampered such a full-throated return to defend the homeland and other Pacific Islands. Thanks again and get well.

[@w0lfgm]

USSR did had occupation forces - just check Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran from the August 1941.

[@nekomakhea9440]

"Mad Man Hitler put too many troops in Norway" Since the Allies didn't stage their beach landing there, he was arguably successful in his strategy of deterring a amphibious assault on the beaches of Norway with such a large build up.

[@nophdcoyote3635]

I think that was mostly due to project Harpo

[@andro7862]

Plenty of Norwegians pointed out that an amphibious invasion there would have been a total slaughter.

[@axelpatrickb.pingol3228]

As if 1940 wasn't remembered...

[@AnImperialGod]

No, he wasn’t successful because it never occurred. What you are saying is called specious reasoning.

[@Treblaine]

When troops are garrisoned in somewhere like Norway they don't just cease to exist, they're training, they're organising, they are acting as a reserve force and depleted units can be sent to places like Norway to be reconstituted into new fully equipped units. I think this thoroughly debunks the idea that the failure of Barbarossa and Case Blue was simply due to "human waves" of Soviet troops, the Axis were beaten at their own game. And logistics was the bottleneck.

[@markaxworthy2508]

TIK's maths are obscure and quite possibly wrong. The Soviet population in 1941 was a lot higher than in 1938 because the USSR had acquired millions of Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Byelorussians, Ukrainians and Romanians in 1939 and 1940. The initial Soviet total should include these people, because they are presumably all among the 62,400,000 people in German occupied territory in 1942.

[@dondajulah4168]

"but they were Italian troops" doesnt hold if you are comparing AXIS potential manpower to Soviet potential manpower. You have to count those in the total for occupation if you are going to count them as part of the population comparison. It is unclear from the video whether you are including them or not because you talk about Axis manpower throughout the video which implies that you are not discounting the non-German occupation forces. In any case, the main point you make is that the war on the Eastern Front was about logistics, not manpower. At least that is the case when the USSR withstood the initial onslaught and Germany had to fight a war of attrition deep in Soviet territory. It was not an unreasonable expectation for Hitler to think the USSR might surrender or fall into a state of chaos. It certainly was Germanys only chance to win the war with GB not giving up and the USA eventually entering the war against the Axis.

[@z000ey]

Just what I wanted to say... Axis is more than Germany

[@kaustubhillindala2643]

Oh no, tik's sick

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Don't worry, I'll survive

[@kaustubhillindala2643]

@@TheImperatorKnight right now I’ve just had a right bitch of a cold. My sympathies

[@TheImperatorKnight]

@@kaustubhillindala2643 That's probably what this is, although feels more like flu.

[@normzemke7824]

Very good points! However, I do wonder if having a million older men tied up elsewhere caused other issues. For example, the arms industry could have used them. Also one wonders if they could have been put to use straightening out the logistics issue by building roads or laying railroad tracks behind the front. ---- As always, I love these videos. Keep them coming!

[@haroldhardrada7449]

Although I agree with your general conclusions about supply & logistics, one point of correction. When counting the axis population you counted all the countries, but when counting the military you only counted the German army. If you discuss the entire population, then you have to calculate the ENTIRE axis military. This should include the Italians and other minor powers, including the Italian navy which was quite substantial. I would expect the number of non-German troops not in Russia to be well over one million.

[@XtReMz98]

“There is no point sending men to war if they won’t any ammunition to fight with.” -TIK Russian generals: “Hold my vodka and watch this.”

[@hjalmar4565]

I'm starting to feel more and more sorry for the people in Luxembourg. Even TIK ignored them in the occupation numbers!

[@Drain_Life_Archive]

Sick and still puts out a good video. Too good for this network TIK. Need to take some days off to get better. Did you ever play the CNC remaster on Steam? Really good.

[@Black-js5ke]

Morning!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Evening!

[@TheDa6781]

@@TheImperatorKnight get well soon TIK

[@Black-js5ke]

@@TheImperatorKnight Hope you get better soon

[@EvilGNU]

My Grandpa and his unit (Wehrmacht, Heeresgruppe Nord, Inf. Div 269) were pulled from the Frontlines of the Siege of Leningrad at some point after recieving "a serious beating" (iirc early to mid 42 but could be wrong here) and stationed in Norway until late in the war when they were "reused". I know a batallion or two of the division also got reassigned at this point. I know this is anecdotal but pulling depleted units into the rear seems to have been a thing. Still at least this would not use up "a lot of manpower"... because depletion. Also didn't they also use a lot of Police etc units to occupy and "second rate troops" like old conscripts etc.. ?

[@aranos6269]

At the same time stalin had to deal with various uprisings chechnya for example, I think crimea had serious problems even around Volga during move to Stalingrad there was anti Stalin resistance

[@fiddlersgreen2433]

Those were quite small issues compared to the number of troops guarding the turkish border & far east.

[@jonsouth1545]

You provide no evidence for your Greek and Yugoslav numbers and make several other assumptions and miss out on other factors and just suspect numbers were less in Yugoslavia that may be the case but a responsible historian should be very careful about such numbers. I also have not found numbers for 1942 but have found that in 1943 there were 320,000 Italian Troops, 70,000 Bulgarian Troops, and 40,000 Slovenian troops in Yugoslavia and that in 1942 both Tito and Mihailovich were very active. So your Estimates for Greece and Yugoslavia are probably on the low end. You also didn't include Garrisons in places like Czechoslovakia 1942 was the year Heydrich was assassinated and we know significant operations were done in the aftermath of Heydrich's assassination. Thus in all likelihood, your estimated figure is way off and the real figure is significantly more likely to be in the 1.5-2 million range. This number is factoring in Czechoslovakia and Austria who are often ignored due to being pre-war annexations, but both especially Czechoslovakia did require significant pacification. You also didn't factor in other troops in those countries like the logistics troops who are often not counted as being part of the garrison as they fell under a different command structure. Although I agree with you about the horror show that was the German logistics set up and that those troops could never have been used and thus would have made no difference. I agree that they couldn't have maintained an army in the east but I think you do underestimate the amount of troops needed to control Europe and those troops were not doing nothing and were often heavily involved in anti-partizan operations.

[@jonsouth1545]

@@TheImperatorKnightYou are falling into the classic trap of assuming that the garrison is the total number of troops in a specific area like Poland or Tobruk etc. when it isn't. The Garrison is a very specific military term and is not the total number of troops in a region but the number of troops in a region tasked to defend/hold that region and those troops support system. It is very common to have a large number of troops in a region who are not part of the Garrison and are thus counted separately as they are on a completely separate command structure. Especially when you have to move supplies through a Garrisoned area to supply forces further along. When it comes to counting the number of troops in occupied Europe one of the problems is the way logistics troops are counted as there are two separate groups the garrison logistics and the logistics troops in-country who are attached to units supplying forces further along. For example, Axis supplies went through places like Poland, Czechoslovakia, and even allied nations like Hungary and Romania to the Eastern Front, and their supply chain was kept separate from the supply chain for the garrisons themselves the Germans also had forces in their puppet and allied nations to prevent supplies intended to reach the Eastern front accidentally ending up in Hungarian or Romanian hands, etc and thus those forces are not considered part of the Garrison. There were also large amounts of other support troops not counted in the garrison numbers providing material support to allied nations and assisting them in controlling their populace and helping them in other ways as by 1942 large numbers of German forces were already in Italy helping the Italians supply forces in North Africa and providing security to German airbases as well as similar forces in Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia helping to keep those governments remain in power. When you also factor in those numbers 1.5 to 2 million is a much more accurate figure. You also completely ignored pre-war annexations and those garrisons. As well as the German Home Army another thing you have to remember every single supply train would have had a detachment of soldiers attached to it for security reasons and that's a lot of trains.

[@Arkantos117]

The real question is what Germany could've done to improve the logistical situation in Russia. Giant snowshoes? A massive collection of planks to make the mud more traversable? Sending their logisticians back to school?

[@captaincoxwaggle6882]

I would go with letting the Soviets attack first, allowing the Germans to utilise internal infrastructure, and probably mash a Soviet offensive at a point where it is most overstretched. And then hoping that this would inflict enough damage to the credibility of the Soviet Union together with the military losses to make a drive into Russia a more viable proposition.

[@ElGrandoCaymano]

Have the older men and fortress troops stationed in Western Europe be used in maintaining in-country (USSR) logistics depots and escort supply convoys to the troops at the front lines?

[@firebird9711]

Infinite numbers of 6x6 trucks with monster truck tires, infinite fuel to run them, and air supremacy to protect them.

[@darklysm8345]

That a topic which isnt very talked about. Yes the logistics was bad, but they could have improve it.

[@David-il9xw]

Or stop murdering and alienating Russians, Ukrainians, and Jews of all nations, but that would make the master race look a little less masterful.

[@starflakmyriad5394]

The real question is Norway! Why 400,000 German troops in Norway? I think the answer is that Norway was to Germany what the Mediterranean was to Britain. In other words, the way to defeat Britain was not to invade the British Isles, as the Germans sought to do with Sea Lion, but the real way to defeat Britain was in the Mediterranean by taking North Africa and the Suez Canal. Likewise, perhaps there were so many men in Norway because the real way to defeat Germany would be to have a force in Scandinavia, which could threaten Germany's ore supply thus crippling its manufacturing base and turning Sweden and Finland to the Allied cause. In addition, invaders would have air bases within striking range of Germany. The distance from Norway to Germany or occupied Denmark was worrying to the Nazis. Just a theory...

[@jussim.konttinen4981]

Perhaps 400,000 in the spring of 1943, when the Finnish front had come to a standstill and not yet US troops in Europe. Morgenbladet says 358K in may 1945. Makes sense. Why go to Berlin, since the eastern front was in Lyngen.

[@stuartmcalpine9468]

I’m going to take a wild guess before I can watch this: The same thing some people prefer to ignore……the category of logistics and how many people it takes to do it.

[@josephking6515]

Read an interesting story about 4 or 5 older German occupiers sent into a French rural location. It seems these guys had been farmers and spent most of their time basically working as labourers on the French farms because that is what *they* wanted to do. They were well known by the locals and also well liked. The Germans were told they were getting inspected on a certain day by their regional commander and took time to advice the French to *not* greet them while the commander was doing his _ inspecting_ and to actually avoid looking at them and to behave as if they were a little bit subservient to their German occupiers. This made the commander think they were keeping the locals under control so he left happy and everything returned to the normal "happy family" status once he exited stage HQ. I wonder how many other locales had the same or similar "arrangement" with their German occupiers due to their affiliation they shared with the land. IIRC in the case of these guys the French hid them until the allies had over run the area so they weren't in danger of being sent to repel the allied landings. I can't remember if they stayed on the French farms as labourers or if they ended up as POWs. I hope you can find sufficient _brass musical instrument_ medication to rid yourself of the dreaded lurgy so it will soon be Goon(s) and you will return to your normal well self. 👍 If you can source sufficient medications then I have the contact details for a Mr Neddy Seagoon aided by his assistant Eccles and a Mr Moriarty who can acquire most things at exorbitant prices. 😁

[@Texscripter]

Sounds like the '77th Brigade' is watching every Reich-related video just to get new ideas on how to manage us plebeians.

[@corsa701]

My grandfather was stationed in France. Mostly, because he had severly damaged his right hand by a band saw as a young boy and could not use it after this sccident. And as far as i know, the troops in France where also rather poorly equipped. He had a Mauser rifle, but that was mostly the only weapon type they had. So, even if they fought on the east and supplies would come in, their combat value was still rather low.

[@samr8603]

Another great and informative video on WW2.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Glad you liked it!

[@samr8603]

@@TheImperatorKnight yep indeed studied World War 2 at Uni and unfortunately the oil situation was barely mentioned. Seemed even the lecturers believed Germany could just invade all his neighbours without there being logistical and fossil fuel issues.

[@kocovgoce]

From 1942 to 1943, there were 800,000 troops on the axis in Yugoslavia, one part were Croatian Ustashas, ​​Chetniks, Italians, Germans, Albanian ballists ,Bulgarian, Hungarian and Romanian armies totaling 800,000 troops on the axis in end of 1942 and begin of 1943.

[@oceanmadrosci3381]

TIK is ill:(, I hope you recover quickly

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Thank you, it's lingering, but I'm sure I'll recover soon

[@braydendavis4282]

@TIK Soo I believe that I found a contradiction in your ideas at 11 minutes, where you said it was a logistics issue, not a manpower issue (in regards to moving more divisions east). But in your battle storm Stalingrad video you showed that the German high command had, lets say, forgotten to send reinforcements to the Stalingrad front. We already know the German logistical system can handle those Stalingrad divisions at kinda full strength (as the divisions weren't always depleted) and had the ability to reinforce their troops as they lost them (as its core to your argument that general was incompetent and deserved to be fired). So it seems that either your wrong about that dude neglecting the Stalingrad front, or your wrong about logistics being the chief concern and not the manpower. Of course I'm assuming each of the army groups (?) had relatively independent logistics and that dumping those extra one million old men onto army group souths logistic system wouldn't pull logistic assess from the other army groups. (an assumption that is probably wrong?) Edit: So, I think you covered everything I mentioned at the end of your video, but i haven't slept in two days, so everything that was said was completely lost on me......

[@deanmurphy5735]

Hello Tik. Does England have any laws protecting free speech? I know in Australia there is no direct law, it is just implied in the constitution. Not like the US.

[@puzzled012]

well there were volunteers from plenty of occupied or "occupied" countries, plus all of the production of those countries went to German war effort, plus huge chunk of population of USSR was under their control (some were friendly to nazis), plus there were allies (Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary, Finland, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria + Slovenia, Austria, Czechs were part of Reich), plus there were volunteers from "neutral" countries (Spain, Sweden)

[@michaelstanton7904]

I'm sure when the Allies landed on Normandy, it was overwhelming to the Germans.

[@insideoutsideupsidedown2218]

As to the effect it had on Germany's ability to wage war, the Battle of the Atlantic and the Air Campaign over Germany I'm sure took a considerable amount of men and material as well. Throw in the campaign in North Africa and the Italian Campaign, when the Allies landed in Normandy and then southern France, there had to be generals that knew it was over.

[@weirdshibainu]

@@insideoutsideupsidedown2218 Germany was just spread too thin. Might have had a chance if they'd focused on North Africa, consolidated victories in Europe and delayed Russia for a few years. Stupid to fight a 2 front war.

[@nerdyali4154]

@@weirdshibainu Would Stalin have sat around waiting for Stalin to conquer Europe? You don't think Stalin had plans to attack Germany? Hitler was probably cautious about overcommitting in Europe in case Stalin seized the opportunity.

[@weirdshibainu]

@@nerdyali4154 There's always been a debate about Stalin's intentions toward Hitler. Surprisingly, Stalin ignored the frontline intelligence, even on the eve of Barbarossa that an attack was imminent and was legitimately surprised that Hitler broke the non agression pact. Stalin had a number of domestic issues at hand. I think Hitler probably had a 5 year window.

[@iddomargalit-friedman3897]

@@insideoutsideupsidedown2218 There absolutely were, they attempted a coup and failed.

[@casparcoaster1936]

Wait a minute... what about German troops in (of all places) Germany??? How many at home on leave?? How many running the panzer chop shops???

[@bucketlisttrips6408]

TIK, there cannot be only 40,000 troops in France in 1942. These were not enough to deter Britain and the U.S. not to land in France in 1942. My understanding is that there at least 30 divisions of 10,000 each (not at full strength) in France in 1942. There are three German Armies: the 1st Army which was positioned on the Atlantic, the 7th Army which was in Brittany and Normandy, and the 15th Army at Pas de Calais. The 1st and 7th Army participated in November 1942 in the Case Anton, occupying the French territory of the Vichy regime.

[@herrrobert5340]

I also have a hard time believing there were only 40.000:- soldiers in France in 1942.

[@thelistener0]

Yes that 40 000 number is wrong. In 1942 OB West had 25 divisions. In november 1941 Germans had 395 000 men (28 divisions) in france. In May 1942 249 000 823 divisions)

[@synthetictechnocrat9270]

Supply is an issue in Hoi4 as well; it's not like Risk! If you concentrate too many divisions in an area, especially with insufficient infrastructure, your division start to attrition and takes a major hit to its fighting capability. This can get really ugly on the Eastern Front or in Africa, both of which have horrible infrastructure areas.

[@samsonsoturian6013]

I just had a thought about the mismanagement of logistics: All those troops being sent to Army Group Center by a Halder who butted heads with the high command. Was Halder advocating a push in the center around that time? If so, it may be that he intended to create a fair accompli.

[@NeoSpartacus17]

Cool video, I was only generally aware of the number of Axis troops stationed in Yugoslavia beforehand (~100 000). I was wondering whether you would ever do a video on the 2nd Sino-Japanese war or something related to Japan? Love the vids

[@z000ey]

Actually TIK is pretty wrong about Axis troops in Yugoslavia, as Axis is Italy too. The number of Axis troops in Yugoslavia was pretty much >300.000 from late 1941. onwards and rising, this not counting local troops. In detail in my post here.

[@dernwine]

Tik you've made a bit of a mistake here. You're comparing the total *Axis* population to the total Soviet population, but then only compare the total German soldiers garrisoning occupied territories, not total Axis numbers. If it's a comparison of how many troops the Axis had in total, vs the number of Soviet soldiers in total in 1942, and you are subtracting Axis garrisons because Soviets don't have garrisons you need to count the Italians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Romanians, etc too.

[@keeblerorc]

Dont forget the strategic value of Norway as to supply of Uboats and navel patrol/anti shipping air assets... A lot of cargo used that north sea route to supply Russia.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

I haven't - in fact, that's another Patreon Q&A I have to answer soon!

[@azralandar]

Alot of the high numbers come from when the Germans Pulled back and surrendered later.. @TIK where is your source for population numbers? Why did you use All axis population vs only Soviet Union and not the Allies Total? ( Soviets where in the allied camp ) What about all the occupation forces in the soviet union? Did you also calculate how much personal that was pulled back due to Stalins burned earth tactics?

[@Crimson_Hawk_01]

Shout out. I think your videos are very well done. I really like how you listen to your fan base. Thank you.

[@88porpoise]

I don't disagree with your conclusions, but I do have one critique. The original basis of comparison was German and Italy's combined populations, but you specifically excluded Italian forces from your numbers.

[@stevewatson6839]

Thanks for answering one of my queries TIK. Tripling forces in Denmark makes sense, the Danes resistance was more subtle than blowing things up and you could actually rest and refit troops there, fed from local resources adjacent to the Reichs rail network still and also in a position to reinforce Norway if necessary. The figures I had in my head for Norway were quite a bit larger than you showed here. The Scandinavian deployments make more sense now the exagerated information I was relying on has been corrected. Take your time geting well, it should be obvious from Stalingrad the dire effects of running on empty. You are doing a great job; but YOU are more important than it. TTFN.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Glad you liked the video, but sorry it took so long to get to it. I've got a couple more of your questions to answer yet too (will do them in upcoming videos) so I'm stupidly far behind And yeah, Stalingrad is killing me, although this particular cold/flu isn't battle fatigue haha

[@T0000000000001]

The Murmansk/Karelia question is likely significant. Given that the Murmansk railway runs through there and the lack of the Murmansk railway before early 1917 (it was a wartime project) was almost certainly a severe hindrance to the Russian Empire`s WWI effort, not taking the railway was likely significantly harmful to the Axis cause. I suspect the Soviet position in the northern winter of 1941-2 would have been worse with no Arctic Convoys due to ice.

[@stevewatson6839]

@@TheImperatorKnight But is that really so? My priors: 1)Tankies; Fellow Travellers; Korisne Budale; and Wehraboos will be over-represented 2) The Playable Characters will be asking far too many intelligent questions; the NPCs far too many naive ones. 3) There r no stupid questions; only stupid answers. 4) TIK will want to "Tidy up the battlefield" and b late breaking out of the beachhead. 5) TIK will then hive off to Brest for some random reason. This all adds up to: "There will be no 2nd Front this year or next." :-)

[@briankearney5994]

It looks like you don't count the Italian occupation zones to add up the manpower, yet Italy is added in to the overall population comparison. (If I missed you mentioning that, my apologies) I'm not saying this changes the overall conclusion, but wouldn't we need all that data to make an accurate comparison? Regardless, this whole concept is a bit of a mess, you can go on and on about commitments, but as you say, only a portion of available manpower can be deployed in active combat depending on logistics, industry, population demographics (as with French WW2 mobilization), etc.etc.

[@solomon2439]

What about the Soviet eastern garrison, guarding against the Japanese?

[@brucealbert4686]

Lots of divisions 20 at least

[@michaelmagnus9]

Only 40,000 troops in France in 1942? Forty thousand? 2 divisions? More troops in Denmark than France? That seems incredible. Is that truly the case or is this number a mistake? Not being a wiseguy, that's just hard to believe.

[@thelistener0]

Yes that 40 000 number is wrong. In 1942 OB West had 25 divisions. In november 1941 Germans had 395 000 men (28 divisions) in france. In May 1942, 249 000 (23 divisions)

[@benwalker8447]

Love your videos tik always a joy to see them. I hope you get better soon :)

[@sammypurple1326]

TIK you are being intellectually dishonest with this comparison. You take the Axis population and compare it to the unoccupied part of the Soviet Union. Yet the occupation forces you are considering are only German units. You don't count Italian units. You must either count the Italian units or leave out the Italian population in the Axis totals. Also if you include the Italians shouldn't you include the British Empire's population on the side of the Soviet Union I believe that the Italian army was mostly tied up with these guys remember operation compass

[@Dw24211]

Second

[@RedWinter21]

Good point. Who'd have thought you'd need more troops to "pacify" an occupied territory when it's increasingly obvious you may not win the overall war. It's almost as if you needed to convince the occupied countries of your "strength" to discourage rebellions when the Eastern campaign wasn't at the best.

[@eriver]

A million extra men working in factories could have made a difference though.

[@eze8970]

Yes, a fair point, but you still have to get the supplies to the front, which is where the Axis logistics broke down. Speer, with slave labour (that took over part of the German war production, so freed troops for the front), still managed to increase German production year on year, but as TIK showed in his logistics video, it got jammed in traffic delays, & later on, partisan & air attacks as well. You would also have to feed these men properly, whereas the slave labour was worked till it died. German troops were expected to supplement their rations from local sources, by stealing if necessary, so it helped reduce the burden back in Germany, which already had a food shortage.

[@nevermind824]

If Hitler didn't garrison Norway so heavily, then allied intelligence would find out and they would invade. Deterrence is cheaper than war

[@NJP9036]

Get well soon! God bless.

[@hardanheavy]

Funny that this video goes up today. Just yesterday I commented on one of the Stalingrad ones that I wonder how many men and resources the Germans tied up murdering millions of civilians at and behind that front.

[@jgelt]

Although it raises more questions than it answers "Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland." is a good place to get a feel for how many resources were being chewed up by this awful process. The one little window it opens hints at a massive use of resources.

[@thanos_6.0]

This is something I always wonderd myself. Thanks for making a video about that.

[@WandererRTF]

There are some claims (IIRC the German commanders of the forces facing Murmansk region) how Hitler did demand more troops to stay to defend the Norwegian coast than what was needed (their opinion of course). That is to say that the Army in Norway did not have freedom to deploy as many units to the front as they would have liked. Which is likely a valid complain as the German forces attacking in the North were not very numerous. Then again the logistical situation there was horrible as well - and it indeed is doubtful if any more could have been kept supplied there. It was explained that the British raids (both carrier and commando) to Norwegian coast played an important part here. So not exactly mad-man H. but instead more like H. having been fooled by the allies. It is also worth remembering that fair share of the Swedish iron ore (& Finnish ores) was not shipped via Narvik or Norwegian coast but instead via the ports in the Gulf of Bothnia (northern Baltic Sea that is). After all despite of the Soviet submarine and air efforts the Baltic Sea was fairly safe. Especially after early 1943 when the effective submarine barrier was enacted to the Gulf of Finland (net & mine barrier). That being said i have wondered if capturing Leningrad would have actually helped the Germans far more than attacking in the south - in logistical sense that is. It was after all a major logistical (road, railroad, inland waterway etc.) hub and could be reached with ocean going ships. Most of the year anyway. Which might have alleviated the German problems with the trains. Technically Murmansk could have done that too but i doubt the RN and the USN would have allowed Kriegsmarine to sail convoys there unmolested.

[@ЕленаИванькова-м5х]

An excerpt from the notes of the Chief of the General Staff of the Ground Forces, Colonel-General Franz Halder, on Hitler's plans regarding Moscow and Leningrad dated 7/8/1941. 12.30 report from the Fuhrer [...] 2. The Fuhrer made a firm decision - to raze Moscow and Leningrad to the ground, so that there would be no people left there that we would have to feed in winter. Cities must be destroyed from the air by aircraft. Tanks should not be used for this. "A national catastrophe, in which the centers of not only Bolshevism, but the whole of Muscovy will be destroyed." Source: Hans-Adolf Jacobsen (s.Text 25), Band 3 (22.6.1941-24.9.1942), Stuttgart 1964, S. 53. Quoted in Germany's War against the Soviet Union 1941-1945, p. 68 (catalog of documentary exposition).

[@annyeonghaseyothisfight5897]

Third

[@fatherelijahcal9620]

But TIK, wouldn't the freed up logistics in the West help make up the difference if those same troops were then sent to the East? How could having to supply to BOTH West and East be less of an issue than having to supply to ONLY the East?

[@GreatClickbait]

it does not matter if you dont have the supplies to supply with. Like TIK explained in a different video oil was the main reason Germany lost. There is no such thing as fighting a conventional modern war without oil and winning.

[@fatherelijahcal9620]

@@GreatClickbait Not my point. What I meant was the logistics system supply BOTH East and West fronts could have accomplished more if it was all focused on a single front. It may still have been woefully inadequate, but however inadequate it was at least it wouldn't be divided in all directions.

[@soviettankmen]

get well soon TIK. Remember your own productivity tips (btw my favorite productivity tips video in yt), get rest, don't overwork yourself (or something along that line)

[@rcmrcm3370]

Norway also provisioned (food and warmth) German troops that Germany wasn't capable of maintaining.

[@beefy1212]

So exactly what I said on your original video. Which was the western allies were disrupting german logistics while lavishing supplies on the Soviets Give those million men shovels and picks how many miles of new rail could they have laid? How many miles of road? The problem was logistics you said it yourself. Even those mere 4 divisions in Africa, that was supported by 1/3 of all German air transport.

[@shauntemplar.26]

get well bro..Hope it's not the C19. great video as always ..don't get yourself worked up over dickheads also... there just fuck wits ..rest easy and get well.. hope you see you back on screen soon

[@tabletopgeneralsde310]

The Germans also have to leave troops in the occupied USSR, but to bring it back to the logistics is the right way.