World War II: Crash Course European History #38

[@jonbolitho-jones7614]

My wife and I just cheered at the return of the Mongoltage. We've missed it dearly...

[@rudeboymon3177]

😆 its been a while huh

[@juliancecilholman2448]

+

[@DaDunge]

For a moment it felt like crash course again. I miss John snarking his younger self for believing common misconceptions about history.

[@rhubarbjin]

This new series is less jokey than CC World History. There are no running gags... unless you're the Mongols.

[@chris7263]

I am so happy to have something new in my feed that isn't coronavirus.

[@AnotherNerdyPerson]

Right???

[@tinvranjes4319]

I too like world war 2 much better

[@SamAronow]

That episode is coming.

[@lucasbudega]

Sadly this isn't very comforting as well.

[@Antenox]

Missed the Spanish Flu episode

[@MaxwellStarr]

"Unless.... you're the Mongols" never gets old.

[@JaJDoo]

yes... yes it does.

[@CommodoreFluffy]

I realize that you aren't a military history channel, but there were a few kind of outdated misinterpretations. There was no official use of the term Blitzkreig by the Germans, who were more accurately following the legacy of prussian Bewegungskrieg or "war of movement" ; a lot of the blaming of Hitler for military blunders comes from the memoirs of generals who were keen to avoid responsibility for their own military failures and atrocities (Of course Hitler made many mistakes, and committed the most extreme atrocities, it's just that those under him shouldn't be allowed to escape scrutiny); and Rommel has been a bit over lionized to justify early failures of the inexperienced American forces. I guess this is more of a minor point since you're mostly going for a general impression of the progress of the war.

[@Plankensen]

Everyone calls it blitzkrieg. Dont matter if the nazis called it that or not

[@CommodoreFluffy]

@@Plankensen it does matter that it wasn't a new innovation, but rather the application of new technologies to an existing tactic already highly associated with german military tradition. It's one of many cases of history unnecessarily glorifying the nazis.

[@spkennedy951]

It wasn't even uniquely German, all of WWI was spent trying break through the lines to allow maneuver warfare where fast moving cavalry would set up behind the enemy and create large encirclements.

[@atzuras]

@@Plankensen It matters since he said "they plan ..". And it was a tactical success and not some strategic thinking. Also he talks about tanks and mobile infantry as the key factor if not the one. That's the "Guderian version" of the war, as false as the Halder/Manstein version of the eastern front. Wehraboos everywhere..

[@willh7352]

thanks for sharing man

[@mattnaka6437]

5:32 it is actually generally agreed that Germany’s generals also wanted a wide area of attack and they only changed their opinion on this in hindsight in their memoirs to make themselves look smarter.

[@johnnywatkins]

Reference please

[@BlackStar2161]

Also, a narrow drive on Moscow would be a *terrible* idea. Leaving your flanks wide open and in logistics hell is not a clever strategy.

[@kaiserdb]

@@BlackStar2161 Worked pretty well in France.

[@spkennedy951]

@@kaiserdb France was also a weak government with a population that didn't want war. The USSR, meanwhile, had a strongman government that many genuinely supported and most importantly, they had to fight or else suffer the genocide that began almost immediately.

[@BlackStar2161]

@@kaiserdb Russia is a whole different animal. Much longer distances, poorer infrastructure, much larger armies. What worked against France (cutting off the army from the rest of the country and then going for the capital) won't work - there's always more territory to retreat to, and always more manpower to draw on.

[@mikeor-]

8:27 Don't invade Russia in the winter. Unless... wait for it... you're the Mongols! Me: I like the sound of that.

[@VonKrauzer]

Yeah, which is why Germans and before him Napoleon invaded in summer. They failed to sweep it up quick.

[@JeroenDoes]

@@VonKrauzer one could argue that if you want to take Russia you schould go straight for moskou but that is what napoleon did. To defeat Russia the country must both be unprepared and the leadership unwilling to retreat.

[@tendiesman4637]

@JetDoes They were pretty unprepared at the beginning of the war. The purges officers had still not been replaced. Stalin told his troops on the German border not to fire back at German aggression to keep Hitler from using it as an excuse. The soviets lost men, equipment and land due to this mindset.

[@mikeor-]

@Dwarov 1 They did. They took Moscow, but were stopped at Stalingrad.

[@rawrwoof3368]

@@mikeor- but they were stoped before Moscow, they didn't took it.

[@MungareMike]

FINALLY. THE MONGOLS MONTAGE IS BACK!

[@mattnaka6437]

5:08 it seems a bit misleading to say the British were standing alone in 1940 when they had a massive empire to help them from Canada to India to Australia. Also in 1940 there were many more polish resistance fighters helping the allies then french. This did not change until case anton and operation torch.

[@hunterhuntoon725]

Especially considering that anywhere from 10-20% of "British" troops came from the wider empire. Not to mention the thousands of French Nazi sympathizers who threw their lot in with the Nazis and Vichy France. And poor Poland often gets overlooked in their incredibly valiant and surprisingly costly fight against the Nazi invasion, even before the resistance even began!

[@thethirdjegs]

Those countries are dominions, almost or virtually independent. While India, India is too far and too non-british settled, it is virtually another quasi-independent country. And India had to look out for Japan too

[@hunterhuntoon725]

@@thethirdjegs .....Right, so that furthers the point that Britain did not stand alone....

[@thethirdjegs]

@@hunterhuntoon725 yep. Haha. This channel is pretty "biased" (occassionally john green would say something i disagree with). A way to agreement is to adopt some assumptions, for example "britain alone in europe" pertains to: its european community rather than the world at large or its empire counted as one (that empire must have as much economy as europe itself). But technically britain is not alone. Essentially it is with some but's.

[@ASLEFshrugged]

Agree with you on the "standing alone" bit, its a total myth perpetuated by "Little Englanders" but he's not talking about resistance fighters, in 1940 the Free French had 73k combatants serving under British commanders compared to 19k Polish, 4k Czechs, etc.

[@Shuuchi0676]

England: We fight to defend liberty! Colonies: ...

[@michaelodonnell824]

Well they fought World War I for "the freedom of small Nations". Then between 1919 and 1922, they fought an all out war to prevent Irish freedom!!!

[@osurpless]

Michael O'Donnell And don’t forgot Wilson’s 14 Points that helped to end the War; self-determination for everyone! Except Germany... And the colonies...

[@Torus2112]

As a Canadian, I see no problem with this.

[@EmileA266]

Ordinary Sessel how convenient that is when we don’t consider that colonization often involved the upheaval of local, stable governing structures and replaced them with subservient regimes of extraction. Is it any wonder that countries created out of arbitrarily drawn boarders with systems built to support exploitation didn’t thrive after colonizers not only pulled out, but used strong-man dictators to subvert attempts to democratize and self-determine during the Cold War?

[@mankytoes]

The colonies were absolutely essential to that fight.

[@patrick8776]

why do I feel like 2013 John is happier than 2019 John

[@bangscutter]

8:27 Return of the Mongol-tage!

[@rogerhinman5427]

As an overview this is okay. However, there are several errors, especially when you get into Operation Barbarossa. Winter did not halt the German offensives. At first they had issues with the cold but they did quickly devise strategies to overcome that. Hitler wanted to focus the offensive in the south to capture the Ukraine's agricultural lands and the Caucasus oil reserves, but Field Marshal Halder and the planning staff at OKW (similar to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff) decided to stick to the usual method of conducting war by defeating the enemy's forces in the field and capturing their capital. Which Napoleon had shown doesn't work with the Russians and Hitler knew that the Soviets would be no different. So the broad front offensive was used. Hitler had no notions of occupying all of the Soviet Union. What he wanted was the Ukraine and the Caucasus for their agricultural and oil resources. To that end he wanted to go no further east than the Volga River. The winter clothing issue is a yes-and-no thing. Yes, they decided the war would be over before cold weather equipment would be needed so didn't produce more than what was already on hand. However, no, what was on hand was pretty much sufficient for their needs but logistical issues limited what could be transported to the front. The German army of that period can be described as the most advanced horse-drawn army to exist. Despite what the German films of the period show, considering they were nearly all propaganda films, trucks were primarily confined to motorized units and some panzer units since half tracks were in short supply. Those half tracks were built on truck chassis, the same trucks needed to transport troops and supplies, so they didn't make anywhere near as many as they needed or we were led to believe they had. The infantry divisions were pretty much horse drawn and marching just like Napoleon's Grand Armee. And the Germans were critically short of food and petroleum products (it was a punishable offense to leave a vehicle's engine running while stopped), which is why they invaded the Soviet Union in the first place. That Lebensraum thing. Also, the Royal Navy did the lion's share of the evacuation from Dunkirk. Those little private vessels did save a percentage of soldiers, but their involvement was greatly enhanced by Churchill for propaganda purposes. And Great Britain was the recipient of huge amounts of food, resources, and war materials from the United States as well as their own colonies. It wasn't just them alone by any means. If it had been the U-boats could well have sunk enough shipping to force Britain into starvation and signing a peace treaty with Germany, which is what Hitler wanted anyways. And thanks for bringing back the Mongoltage! I missed that.

[@dimsodenso6839]

I refuse to believe that winter is yes-and-no factor to German loss in Barbarossa. I think it's just not as significant as what people think bcs that's just one of many reasons why German fail. But yeah, generalisation. Thanks for explaining

[@kaiserdb]

I think most of your Eastern Front beef is difference of opinion rather than outright error on the part of Crash Course, plus only us speakers of Worldwartwoish actually care about these little subtleties and details. Also I'd argue that Napoleonphobia is an underrated cause of German failure of Barbarossa. Hitler had a massive fear of repeating Napoleon's invasion results and I think it was an underrated factor in his decision making. What's rather ironic is that -- 1940's Soviet Union being such a radically different country than the 1812 Russian Empire -- claiming Moscow would have been infinitely more valuable for Hitler than it was for Bonaparte. Its population had increased 25-fold, and a combination of Industrial Revolution and Moscow's transformation from secondary city to St. Petersburg to the primary transportation and supply hub of the Soviet Union meant it would have been an *extremely* difficult loss to overcome. I think the loss of Moscow adds a year to the war and triples US casualties in the European theater. And I think General Mud and his superior, Marshall Winter had enough impact on the invasion that had Barbarossa launched 6 weeks earlier, it would have succeeded. The mud did at least as much to bog down the invasion as the winter and German lack of preparedness.

[@Augustus_Imperator]

Perfectly said, I agree with everything you wrote.

[@rogerhinman5427]

@@kaiserdb It's not so much opinion as the accumulation of new facts. Since 1992 the Russian Federation has been periodically opening up it's archives of captured German records and Soviet wartime documents to scholars who have been publishing what they have have learned. These are primary source documents and they paint a different picture from the memoirs and such that have been our only source of information from the German side. Additionally they are also not biased by Cold War politics or Nazis trying to save their head from a noose and place their guilt on Hitler, the SS, or whomever else they can blame. As to the importance of Moscow, it is an important city, being the center of government and a transportation hub. But the Russians don't think of it's loss as being the reason to stop fighting. They would just move what they could, destroy what they couldn't, and carry on with the war as best they could. Which is exactly what they were doing when the Germans were threatening the city. Yes it would have been a loss, but it could be overcome. In fact, using Moscow to bog the Germans down in an urban battle, like Stalingrad, would have done much direct damage to the German military and forced them to redirect troops and supplies away from the other fronts to Moscow which would hinder their operations around Leningrad and at the Don River bend. The Germans did not train to fight in cities. The whole idea of their strategy was to avoid getting caught up in static positional warfare. Given their logistical problems, encircling Moscow wasn't going to happen. Now the mud, yes that has always been a major problem for all armies. My time in the army I've seen trucks sink right down to the frame rails in mud. And that statement about Stalin disappearing for a few days is also not totally correct. He was actually in closed meetings with his marshals and advisers trying to figure out a way to halt the German advance. He was putting in 20+ hour days for a brief while and finally went to his quarters exhausted and didn't come back out for a day or two. So yeah, he did disappear from public view for around a week or so, but he wasn't in shock or denial as was previously believed.

[@chillsahoy2640]

I know it's an example from fiction but when I first heard this, it made me realize how hopeless WW II must've seemed to British civilians at the time. In an episode of Doctor Who they end up in London during the Blitz and one of the characters, seeing Billie Piper from the 21st century, assumes that the Germans win. When they tell her that actually the Allies win, this characters wonders how it is possible when the situation seems so dire and hopeless? Our hindsight has made the outcome seem inevitable but at some point, nobody actually knew for sure who would win the war, and understanding this can give us an idea of how terrifying that kind of uncertainty must be.

[@zackaryjackson4568]

My grandpa survived D-day. He was a paratrooper and had to eat rotten apples. Other than that, he didn’t talk much about the war. He died when I was four, and the stuff I hear about the war is what my mom tells me.

[@McGliga]

It is argued by some historians today that Hitler was actually in the right when it came to the invasion of the USSR. His generals wanted a concentrated attack on Moscow, incorrectly believing that after Moscow falls the Soviet leadership would just capitulate like they did in France, which they'd never do, so long as their industry is alive, while Hitler wanted an attack on the Caucasus to capture Soviet oil fields which were vital to keep the German war machine alive. Neither attack would have worked the way it was imagined, though, because the distances and the soviet resistance were widely underestimated, however Hitler's plan would have higher chance of success simply by the fact that, had the attack succeeded, his goal would have been accomplished (Germany would have had more oil and would have been able to push further into the USSR), while had the Germans captured Moscow, very little would have changed (aside from the obvious deaths of hundreds of thousands of Russians living in Moscow)

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

Targeting the oil fields is one thing, but splitting your focus between two widely divergent targets is quite another. And doing so so late into an already ongoing operation spells a death knell for your military strategy.

[@McGliga]

@@ArawnOfAnnwn Im not saying Hitler was a brilliant military strategist, im saying that his generals (who outlived him) whitewashed their military strategy pretending they were smart and that hitler was just dumb and/or and wouldnt listen to them, and if he had they'd have won. But they are also wrong, as they too were stupid and looked at the entire war as a whole incorrectly. The truth is, the moment the USSR was attacked, WW2 was lost for Germany, they could not compete with their manpower or production, nor with that of the British or the Americans, both of whom were fighting that war as well, whom would have bombed the Germans into submission eventually, as well as open up new fronts in order to relieve the pressure from the Soviets. They did about the best they could, and had either military strategy been fully appropriated, they'd have done slightly better, but they'd have inevitably lost either way

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@McGliga Fair enough.

[@armorsmith43]

McGliga keep in mind that the official US Army history of the Eastern front was written by the German generals.

[@lazurians9674]

Please make a Crash Course Art history! I love and appreciate what you are doing, you are making a difference in this world.

[@Corn-y3u]

I needed the Mongols clip. Been a rough few days

[@HistoryHustle]

Around half of the German military losses were suffered in these last 10 months (after the failed July Plot). A total of 5,3 million men of the 18,2 German military personel died over the course of the war. Till July 1944 2,7 million were killed. In the last 10 months an additional 2,6 million were killed of which 1,5 million at the eastern front. Imagine how many lives would've been saved if the plot was successful...

[@phoenixshadow6633]

"We don't want Western colonialist to rule Eastern people. We want Eastern colonialists to rule Eastern people" - Japan during WWII

[@kevinclass2010]

Is that real?

[@printvapour]

@array s Oh my, as a korean, dont even get me started on those japaneses... lol!

[@baririzqullah5782]

Finally! That Mongoltage is back!

[@katherinefuentes7428]

we need crash course to do algebra, trigonometry, and geometry. Anyone else agrees

[@grapeshot]

Grandpa served in the 452nd Anti Aircraft Artillery Battalion, US Army. Rest in Power ✊🏿✊🏿✊🏿🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

[@tendiesman4637]

3:08 so this is somewhat misleading. Germany didn’t really want to go through with operation sea lion (the invasion of Britain). What they really wanted was to show them they had no choice but to surrender. This was after the defeat of their biggest ally France and the fall of most of Europe. Sea lion was more of a backup plan in case Britain fought on and Germany had to invade. The plan was cancelled after it was accessed that their was no way to truly invade Britain without suffering massive causalities.

[@sirBrouwer]

Well they almost succeeded in a other way. The UK was almost broken do to the very successful U-boat missions on all the cargo going to the UK. It was more days then weeks. If that was succeeded Germany could just demand the UK what ever they want in order for the UK even just feed/fuel there people. In that way for the UK the fact that the USA joined the war was really a life saver in it self.

[@sirBrouwer]

@Dwarov 1 In the earlier stage it really did. out of the words of the UK it self it has been said that they really where buckling under the submarine warfare. the shortages for Germany was not yet a real issue. If Germany did not open there east front but had only concentrated on the west that could have made it a whole new story.

[@tesnacloud]

The story of the fight between the Soviets and Nazis presented here has some glaring inaccuracies. Not all German generals disagreed with Hitler's plan, and the alternative, while being pushed as superior, has massive flaws in it. Hitler wanted the wider front invasion to ease logistics and prevent flanking maneuvers from his enemy, and he focused on the south specifically to get at the oil Germany was so desperate for. We like to portray Hitler as a great fool, but the reality is that he made a mixture of foolish and good decisions, and his intellect is thus hard to quantify.

[@lightwishatnight]

Reminds me of an orange in the White House, about a mix of correct and incorrect decisions. History doesn't repeat, but often rhymes.

[@Nonnabella826]

We are a homeschool family with only ONE left to finish high school. This is an amazing site and I suspect that, after this awfulness, a LOT of families will want to home school over the long haul. The oldest in our family started home school at age 7 and is now 27. She was extremely well-socialized with the kind of socializing that WE wanted for her. She joined different clubs and studied music/singing/chant. She is a published songwriter, performed her original song for a Disney movie, and is a very accomplished young woman. I wish this was around 20 years ago. Now the youngest of 4 grandchildren will be able to enjoy and learn. Thank you!

[@sm1522]

really enjoying this series, great use of video anecdotal information, a vivid and fresh experience on a topic you'd think you've heard everything about.

[@stecky87]

Whenever someone says "War is hell," I think of this speech that Hawkeye gives in M*A*S*H. Basically, war isn't hell, it's war -it's worse than hell because there're no innocents in hell, but there's plenty of them in war.

[@DagarCoH]

Uhh, sadly so much wrong or superficial enough to come across wrong in this video. (No, I am not a Wehraboo or whatever corner you want to put me in) - Blitzkrieg (not a real thing, especially not early in the war) - Hitler vs Generals and the idea that capturing Moscow would have ended the War in the East (the Caucasus oil was the real goal after it became clear that Russia would not cave in like France had) - "Sudden" decision to invade USSR after failed attempt at GB - Stalin badly wanting allied landing in Western Europe (he favoured more Lend-Lease over an allied landing) - British decision for mediterranean campaign put forth as bad decision I am sure I missed some things. Still love you, Crash Course, DFTBA!

[@garyermann]

I'm curious what you mean by Blitzkrieg not being a real thing early in the war. All descriptions of the war I've ever seen described that tactic as something Germany employed in many of its early conquests. Considering most countries in Continental Europe surrendered within a few months of being invaded (at most) after the recent years-long slog of WW1, everything at the time must have felt incredibly sudden.

[@No__47]

"The value of a war changes if you're an arms manufacturer or if you're a school teacher murdered for being literate." War never changes.

[@lightwishatnight]

While I appreciate the fallout reference, war ALWAYS changes. You're confusing motive with execution. The motives for war are the same, for humanity has barely changed in 100,000 years. But human technology has changed, has progressed. WW2 was fought on tanks and planes. Before ww1 battles were not mechanized and Europeans had rules of engagement. You see now, friend: war always changes.

[@jessewhite2374]

Hitler wanted to conquer the south of USSR, because he, rightly, believed that was more important to take due to its economic power. In some German memoirs you can see that these generals mentioned that Hitler said the war in the east must be won in 4 months. This is due to the oil crisis in Germany. That's all the time they believed they had left before the collapse of the German economy. Moscow would have done little to defeat the USSR, as general Timoshenko (of the USSR) notes in a speech in Moscow. Their plan was to make Germany expend oil in massive offensives, something they knew Germany was low on due to their negotiations for trade in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The idea that "if only he listened to his generals" is often wrong, especially in the beginning of the war. For another example, his generals called for operation citadel, but he famously said "everytime I think about operation citadel, my stomach turns over" (Hitler). He definitely began to make awful decisions later in the war but the narrative about generals always being right is wrong. Moscow and Leningrad would have done nothing but add more people to feed, when food was also something Germany was low on. He needed the Ukraine's grain and the caucuses oil fields, that's all he wanted. His generals seemed to think that if they took Moscow, Stalin would surrender in the same vain as the French, no, he would fight to the death like Germany did in our reality. The same can be seen in the Napoleonic wars, Russia doesn't surrender that easily. My only point is Hitler wasn't a total idiot like the traditional narrative says, he was evil, but you don't control an entire nation by making no logical sense whatsoever. See the youtube channel Tik if youd like more information on my point of view.

[@jaojao1768]

Just a warning TIK has made a lot of inaccuracies in recent videos

[@jessewhite2374]

@@jaojao1768 perhaps but I think the core tenant of his point about Hitlers plan in the east is correct.

[@kaiserdb]

the ArkhamKnight 123 *tenet

[@ianpogorelov4151]

why does noone ever talk about the soviet invasion of manchuria? it arguably had as big of an impact on japan as the nuclear bombs

[@eggstraordinair]

I've dearly missed the mogoltage!

[@thelonelykloud7435]

Finally. Dude I have a test in like 3-4 weeks. Life saver John. Life saver.

[@spkennedy951]

Then you'll want a better source. This one is... not up to their usual.

[@williambilyeu9801]

I am glad you mentioned the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but the Soviet Union also invaded Poland with Germany. Then the Soviet Union invaded Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania before invading Finland. And Germany invaded Denmark and Norway. The British and French had guaranteed Polish borders, then surrendered them to Soviet Union at the end of the War.

[@RDR12344]

They invaded on separate dates.

[@Bunjamin27]

I miss John's older videos.. Much more engaging that Younger John asked some great questions!

[@danielmichielin4342]

“Wow that escalated quickly”

[@yangashi]

What the hell? Why did you skip Greece's contribution? They single-handedly took out Italy, forcing the Germans to sent troops that were originally destinated to go to Russia.

[@mattnaka6437]

8:30 they didn’t start the invasion in the winter and also a better exception would be the fins considering you didn’t even cover the winter war

[@marzo21]

Amen, dude. You're telling straight truth

[@hunterhuntoon725]

The winter war could and should have its own episode lol. Maybe Extra History will get to it

[@GamerFish99]

Its should be dont invade in winter.

[@armorsmith43]

Hunter Huntoon got to Indy Neidell

[@matthieuwohlgroth2297]

Well actually, Finland did not invade Russia. It mostly resisted, although brillliantly against forces 20 times more numerous, but each Finno-Russian war resulted in territorial loss for Finland.

[@elfarlaur]

I feel you should have at least mentioned the Winter War. It is important in understanding both the Soviet goals in the war and also the German justification for invading Russia.

[@СергейПлугатырёв]

There're lots of things he missed and the Winter war is surely one them

[@Luboman411]

At 7:34. Ummmm...most historians have come to a consensus number of 25 million Soviet citizens and soldiers dying in WWII. This number is the consensus number because it's what the historical record supports as the most likely number. Where are you getting this 47 million number from?

[@keshe2692]

I've seen 27 million, but agreed that 47 million is probably inaccurate.

[@adamlatosinski5475]

Just a guess, but the difference may come from whether you consider Soviet borders before or after the war. Many people that were not Soviet citizens when the war started came from the territories annexed by the Soviets during the war. I believe that Soviet sources liked to count them into their own losses, to blow up the size of their sacrifice.

[@eoghan.5003]

People like big death tolls for all things Soviet. Stalin killed a hundred bajillion squillion people so...

[@michaelodonnell824]

Many of the Soviet casualties of the Second World War were actually victims of Stalin's pre war purges. Others include the Jewish people, either murdered in the Death Camps or by the Einsatzgruppen. But the Einsatzgruppen also targeted Communist party officials and office holders.

[@plifal7799]

It's including the number of soldiers and civilians, some historians claim that roughly 26 million soldiers were killed with an additional 20 million civilians. The numbers fluctuate quite a lot, obviously, and this is largely dependent on how you're counting. FWIW, the official total by the USSR was somewhere around 24 million war dead overall.

[@fnando1281]

7:38 47 million Soviet citizens is way way past the agreed upon historical estimates.

[@Will-sl9ix]

Fnando 12 what are the agreed upon estimates?

[@fnando1281]

@@Will-sl9ix around 27 millon

[@wachtwoorden2]

@@rabbitwho LOL

[@planetarysolidarity55]

Regardless, just like nearly every other U.S. history of the Big One, omits the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. In his recorded speech to the Japanese Army, Showa Tenno made it clear that this invasion was why Tokyo was surrendering, he only mentioned the atomic bombings in passing.

[@RDR12344]

You're right 27 million is the estimate that has been used for decades by everybody.

[@oliverbyrne840]

What about the fact that according to almost every historian studying the Japanese surrender, the Soviet attack on Manchuria was more influential than the atomic bombs, despite common misconceptions.

[@jaojao1768]

Well there is a lot of debate amongst them, but most recognise both of them were important

[@oliverbyrne840]

@@jaojao1768I do not think there is as the atomic bomb did not change the situation for the Japanese, while the Soviet attack removed any option for a negotiated peace with the Allies.

[@jaojao1768]

@@oliverbyrne840 on the other hand the Emperor mentioned specifically the atomic bombs in his surrender speech

[@BartyTardy]

I swear, John Green is the best history teacher ever

[@awesomehpt8938]

The Nazis didn’t actually want to conquer all of the USSR as they realised it was too big for them to take it all. The goal of Barbarossa for them was to take everything west of the cities Arkhangelsk and Astrakhan roughly also known as the A-A line.

[@RDR12344]

They wanted all of it. They wanted that living space.

[@abubakeralkubati6013]

Crashcourse is the future of online education.

[@kaitphobic]

john i do not like u but u are coming in clutch the night before my history final

[@gregoryerickson3575]

I think it is important to note that the declaration of war by the USSR on Japan was also part of the reason they surrendered, which is why whether using the Atomic Bomb should be debated more than it is portrayed in the video.

[@Isabelle-xq3le]

shout out to him for making videos exactly when i need them for AP Euro

[@killeray2572]

jokes on you teacher i enjoy Crash Course history

[@skyswirl8531]

I just discovered this channel... please never stop posting omg this channel is such a precious gem I’m glad I found it

[@caderlocke8869]

THIS IS IT. THIS IS THE ONE WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR

[@ScareSans]

Not every joke in CrashCourse is long-term, some jokes die out between series, forgotten, or used to their limit. *Unless, of course, you're the Mongols.*

[@comradeofthebalance3147]

I have to say, this is a waaaayyyyyy massive simplification of WW2. You don’t give credit when it is due. Soviet Strategy, generals, soldiers, people and the fact that Hitler although made stupid little mistakes and big mistakes, his decision to not prioritise Moscow by the end of Winter and directing to cover the flanks (Kiev) was a good strategy.

[@IkomaTanomori]

I have waited so long for another "unless... you are the mongols," and I was not disappointed.

[@MaverickQbiak]

I know this is a crash course and there is no time to focus on details, but one of my favourite details of Battle of Britain was the involvement of Polish squadron 303 that was the most successful unit during the battle. One of the few times when Poles had a chance to fight back, as Poland was crushed at the very beginning of the war.

[@tokujinsicura9507]

That Mongols reference was absolutely glorious

[@devanis]

3:04, You're misleading and basically insulting to the people who were there 1- French didn't surrender until after every english was evacuated 2- French actually made the rear guard which allowed the evacuation to succeed and died in droves in the process with only lukewarm support from the english. it's actually this very lack of support/coordination (a lot of it the fault of the french high command) combined with the german speed of conquest and apparent invincibility that motivated the surrender. Please be more careful about these things

[@wachtwoorden2]

Still got their asses kicked though, but hey I'm Belgian we were even worse

[@OhManGa]

look at this frrench fella

[@devanis]

@@OhManGa yeah so?

[@ziadhaithemamin1431]

Hold up he just said the Germans won too quickly and the troops at dunkurk needed to be rescued He didn't mention that being due to the failure of anyone or the French being terrible at fighting He just said they were beaten too quickly as a result dunkurk happened

[@devanis]

@@ziadhaithemamin1431 except that's wrong, dunkirk happened before the french surrender and the french fought to defend them, that's the issue. Just check the dates if you don't believe me

[@lucasward9506]

I think the importance of Americas Industrial base in winning the war was a bit understated. The goods that America gave out (mainly to the Soviet Union) more than likely saved millions of lives. We gave the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom the logistical support they needed to feed they're people during the war.

[@desl3006]

As others have noted, Barbarossa’s portrayal is inaccurate. A shame because this is a otherwise a great channel.

[@marseillais2687]

De Gaulle in the thumbnail made my day, thank you

[@sxkchua]

I am back on this channel after years and this is the first video of Mr. Green that I have seen since the very early episodes of this series and I must say, I immediately noticed the slower speed of his speech!

[@vivaellipsis]

I was watching a time lapse map of WW2 and you’re so right, for a long time there it looked totally hopeless for the allied forces and I can only imagine what my great grandparents in Britain were thinking every day. They didn’t know there were going to win and it must have been terrifying for them

[@radioactiverat8751]

Just wanted to point something out with the whole "The Generals wanted to push to Moscow" and Hitler's Alternative being a bad idea. It really wasn't that simple. See, while many of Hitler's Generals wanted to push to Moscow, Hitler instead aimed the to push for the Oil fields in the Caucus mountains and beyond. If you take into consideration how little oil Germany had, it makes sense why Hitler didn't want to just drive for the Capital. Beating the USSR hinged on whether or not Germany had the resources to do so or not. Spoilers... they didn't. I highly reccomend going to Potential History's Channel and checking out his videos. But specifically to support my point, his videos on why Germany would not have ever won WW2. It's not to play into criticizing decisions made in a war with 70+ years of hindsight; instead its more to argue why things happened the way they did and why certain decisions were made. It had to do with the context of situations countries found themselves in. The invasion into the Soviet Union wasn't exactly something Germany could support for a very long time, emphacized by the logistics sector of the German Army. But Hitler put the invasion of the Soviets as such "You only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down." More or less this meant that Hitler viewed invading the Soviets as a cake walk, likely due to the fact Germany conquered many neighbors in less than a year that in the previous war they didn't get close to doing. So in a display of arrogance, Hitler looked on to his most hated enemy, and thought what could these "inferior" people do to stop our might? This is actually pretty insightful to the whole Russian winter bogging the war down and everyone claiming they invaded in the winter. I see it much more common for people to correct that statement, but its just as commonly and wrongly said that they did invade in the Winter. They didn't, they invaded in the spring and expected to be back home before Christmas, which sounds very familiar doesn't it? It wasn't the winter, or the rains the following spring, it was the lack of resources in every aspect. Metal for tanks and planes, oil to run said vehicles, and of course Men dying leaving Germany with fewer ample people left to fight. It didn't matter if they made a straight shot for Moscow, or aimed for a bigger pjcture objective beyond. It just became very convenient for Hitler's Generals to blame him for every foul-up after the war was over. Potential history goes more into that in his Germany wouldn't have won videos if you care to know more. So with all of that said Mr. Green, I agree regardless of whether or not D-Day would have happened, I doubt Germany would have won WW2. Its like old you from the past would say; I built up to a rising conclusion to say that its just really complicated.

[@abhiprakash74999]

I think the reason Japan surrendered was more cause they were terrified of a Soviet invasion of the islands , followed by an American invasion. The Soviets would have been ruthless and Japan would have ended up being divided . Many ppl say that's what caused the Japanese surrender

[@itsjustscoob990]

Anybody else watching this for a google classroom assignment

[@aliasmith0425]

ugh. Yes

[@grapeshot]

My great-uncle Peebles. Was a Montford Point Marine. He fought in the Battle of Peleliu and Okinawa. As well as serving in the Korean War. Rest in Power Uncle 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲✊🏿✊🏿✊🏿

[@DFloyd84]

He earned a seat at Odin's banquet table in Valhalla, where he feasts with his fallen brothers in arms.

[@BillMarion]

That moment you find out that you're the only person in the world that's never heard the term "frenemy." I am complete now.

[@agactual2]

To be fair, Germany invaded Russia in June, not the winter. Although still trying to push deeper into Russia after late September was catastrophic for them.

[@HighPrior]

Remember the Powerful words of Major Hawkeye Pierce Burns: Well, everybody knows, ‘war is Hell.’ Hawkeye: War isn’t Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse. Mulcahy: How do you figure that, Hawkeye? Hawkeye: Easy, Father. Tell me, who goes to Hell? Mulcahy: Um, sinners, I believe. Hawkeye: Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell, but war is chock full of them - little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for a few of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander.

[@ClothesCat]

I think I needed the Mongols, this particular series is hard.

[@Emanon...]

It's very difficult to talk about ww2 in only 15 minutes. You guys did a good job. A few clarifications: The Russian winter itself was not the deciding factor in the poor state of the eastern front after initial success. These were in summation: lack of oil, extended supply lines/low supplies, high armour losses and low manpower. Oil in the ME had just been discovered and had nowhere near the same levels of refineries and infrastructure required for the Axis to benefit in the short term. And had after that no possibility to safely transport it back to Europe. The overall strategy of German forces had one overall goal: Oil

[@wachtwoorden2]

8:28 They didn't invade in winter though

[@querium]

These videos can't come soon enough. Thank you!

[@Knihti1]

2:10 Funnylly people dont anymore say Polish made stupid cavalry charge againts germans tanks, but still show polish cavalry making mock charge when speaking about them.

[@tashaberezka7327]

1) The West came up with a legend about the main defender of Russia - frost. It seems that there was nothing to do with it, and there was no heroism, there was no courage, no self-sacrifice, no love for the Motherland, but just hit the frost and drove the enemy.The war lasted 4 years. And that means it's been 12 seasons with good weather (4 springs , 4 summers, 4 falls) to win. 2) America, England and France - allies - opened a second front and began fighting only when it became clear to them that the Soviet Union is smashing Germany on all fronts! And if they don't intervene immediately, the multinational Soviet army will liberate all of Europe to the ocean. Anglo-American troops did not enter Europe until June 1944 when the Normandy landings began, three years after the outbreak of the war. At that time, the advanced units of the Red Army were already fighting for Eastern European cities. Washington and London understood that further procrastination was fraught with "communist occupation" of most of the European continent.Since 1941, the USSR asked to open the Second Front, but the Allies were unprofitable to carry out a land invasion of Europe at a time when Germany was at the peak of military power and could give a worthy rebuff to the Anglo-Saxons. The United States and Great Britain focused on the fight against the Nazis in the seas and in North Africa, simultaneously convincing Moscow that this is the promised Second Front.This behavior was in the national interests of the Soviet allies. Washington and London guarded human and material resources, fought where the Germans were weaker, and misinformed the Soviet Union of their real intentions. In the spring of 1945, Britain and the United States responded to the Nazi leadership's call for negotiations on a separate peace. At the same time, the Allies were developing an operation codenamed "The Unthinkable", which envisaged a plan of action in case of war with the USSR. Washington and London planned to throw against the Red Army 10 German divisions and therefore were not interested in the complete defeat of the German military machine. The purpose of Operation Unthinkable was to prevent the infiltration of Soviet troops into Western Europe, as well as their forced displacement from Poland. The main hawk in the Anglo-American tandem was Winston Churchill. It was he who commissioned the "Unthinkable" preparation. On March 31, 1945, the British Prime Minister urged Eisenhower not to believe Stalin, regardless of his answer, and to launch an offensive on Berlin.

[@tardvandecluntproductions1278]

Even Russia itself had to learn not to attack during the winter, just before the German invasion. When they wanted to take over Finland.

[@abdias99]

Glad you still make videos, in my school we still watch some of your older videos

[@ramisamman5674]

.........At least you are the Mongols It never gets old

[@ArticGrizzly0526]

Biggest understatement of the century "And the United States was also a huge industrial power"

[@dinojgames1020]

He seems like someone who tries to hard to be funny but isn't but he is actually really funny

[@MikeMastropierro]

DinoJGames he’s a history teacher

[@Me-vn3gz]

He is actually funny especially on he and his brother’s podcast dear hank and john. And he’s not a history teacher. He’s a KZbinr since like 2007 and a well known author. Fault in our stars, paper towns, etc

[@dinojgames1020]

@@MikeMastropierro ok?

[@syncout9586]

Nice to see Operation Valkyrie get a mention in the thought bubble

[@filipfenix]

The more I know about John Green, the less educational I find his videos.

[@jaojao1768]

Really? Why so?

[@tomfrazier1103]

Poland had some good equipment just not in quantity.

[@aratosm]

Got my crash course fix today. Thank you. Now the wait for next episode begins.

[@Argacyan]

For americans the easiest way to understand the meaning of "Lebensraum" is to think of Manifest Destiny.

[@Argacyan]

I think the episode was handeled well, albeit one mistake I noticed is that from the "allied soldiers reaching Berlin" we should be talking about soviet soldiers.

[@jaojao1768]

@@Argacyan Soviets are often counted among the Allies

[@Argacyan]

@Sir Jaojao But the allies are not counted among soviets. That's the issue I have with saying allied soldiers reached Berlin. Because allied soldiers have reached Berlin and pretty much all of them were soviets - the rest were partisans diplomatically alligned among the soviets.

[@Marco_Onyxheart]

It has been argued and even agreed on by many historians, that Japan would have surrendered even if the bombs hadn't been dropped. With the fall of Nazi Germany, Russia was now free to focus on Japan. Japan couldn't have won two-front war against both Russia and the US. The Japanese knew this, and the US knew that Japan knew. The US had to drop the bombs soon, or they wouldn't have an excuse anymore.

[@Marco_Onyxheart]

@@AndrasMihalyi I haven't heard that one before, but it makes a lot of sense. I can easily see that.

[@varana]

And then there's the possibility that, well, there were _several_ reasons for why Japan surrendered. Why is it that so many people try to find the _one_ thing, ignoring all others? Or replacing another singular thing, instead of acknowledging that humans can do stuff for more than one reason? The imminent Soviet invasion probably played a role. As did the nuclear bombs. As did the conventional destruction of Japanese cities. As did the overall terrible state of the Japanese army. As did the catastrophic situation in the home islands. We don't have to find singular reasons. It's perfectly fine to have them all together.

[@fiddlerontheroof4099]

Wow! I literally just watched John Green's WWII video from 2013 less than a minute ago, and then out of nowhere I see this video on the same topic that was only made *today* ! What are the odds, right?! 🤩

[@alexfido2935]

Man, that image of Stalin as Ned Stark saying Winter Is Coming is T shirt material if I've ever seen it.

[@trossk]

You forgot to mention how France signed a treaty with Russia for a mutual aid before the ribbentrop-molotov agreement. And that Germany only moved into Norway because England was going to invade Norway putting another front from the north. And that france and england assured poland aid in case of an invasion over the German/Poland conflict over the Danzig corridor. Yet both did nothing against Germany or Russia.

[@JemLeavitt]

Important video.

[@michaelleone9931]

Will future videos be delayed or impacted by the Corona Virus? Thank you for releasing this one.

[@jadude119]

John Green sounds about as excited as the dudes on the history channel. Give this man a break! Best wishes John Green!

[@TacoPreacher]

Those who start wars and valiantly declare "we will fight to the end!", never fight or send their own children to face death and misery.

[@nolanf7023]

This is gonna help because my school is closed till April 20th and I still have to take the AP exam

[@armorsmith43]

nolan_hockey please please please look at the Timeghost history channel

[@jimbeaux89]

8:15 Seeing J Stalin in winterfell garb made me crack up lol that’s why I love this channel

[@sliedude]

Hi I liked the video, thanks for your efforts as always, I have one point of constructive criticism: Soviet civilian and miltary casualties are thought to have been 27 million. Still mind bogglingly large but not 47 million. Anyway thanks again John (and your team). Cheers

[@julienvalley28]

I too was confused when he stated the casualty figure, I think the crash course team may have added both the civilian and total casualty count to arrive at that figure

[@12412...]

The volume of the intro is killing me!!! Please, please, tune it down

[@dude4742]

nothing like quarantine n crash course :))

[@victorbruant389]

John Green better be worth it. He better go home and cure a disease, or invent a longer-lasting light bulb

[@fn_flashy9101]

Damn daddy Green looking extra fine today