What was the part where the Germans reached the beach and split the allies into two sides (to the North and South), and briefly it looked like the allies tried to cut through the German line and meet in the middle, only to be repelled?
It seemed pretty close like the plan almost worked but then the Germans cut North after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arras_(1940)
Battle of Arras (1940)
The Battle of Arras, part of the Battle of France, took place during the Second World War on 21 May 1940. It was an Allied counter-attack against the flank of the German Army, near the town of Arras, in north-eastern France. The German forces were pushing north under Rommel towards the channel coast, to trap the Allied forces that had advanced east into Belgium. The counter-attack at Arras was an Allied attempt to cut through the German armoured spearhead and frustrate the German advance.
^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27
Arras, /u/Arrys
You have to appreciate the simple ironies in life sometimes.
I read a thread from /r/AskHistorians a few months ago asking why the order to halt the offensive against Dunkirk was ordered, allowing the British to escape.
TL;DR, The battle of Arras scared the commanders who were afraid of being flanked and so they decided to wait for the infantry divisions to catch up. Up to that point it had been motorised armoured units that had been making the push.
This isn't mentioned in the comment, but I believe that the reason they wanted to wait for the infantry divisions to come in is that although cavalry and motorised divisions are good for taking ground quickly, they're very inefficient at holding ground since they're so heavily dependent on a flow of resources. You need infantry to be able to dig in and hold territory. That's what an infantry officer once told me.
[Archived by /r/PowerSuiteDelete]
There were approximately 100,000 French soldiers killed in 3 weeks during this battle.
But don't forget to make jokes for the next 75 years about how the only good thing the French can do is "surrender."
I posted this precisely in the hope that this thread wouldn't be polluted by those lousy jokes.
Considering the individual history of the French, the French military, and their relationship to the US respectively, it's really disgraceful to see those jokes. It's not taboo, it's not pissing anyone off, it's just ignorant and classless.
I have not heard those jokes from anything but American people.
Why are they such fairweather friends?
Probably because all we are taught is that they surrendered. I didnt even know this till I read the thread.
Seriously. I was homeschooled and bought all my own curriculum and I still had to learn about the actual war online and am still finding out things about it.
War is so removed from American minds, the only French they've ever had contact with are fries. I've had the privilege to travel all across the world (except Asia, you're next bitch) and it's legitimately mind boggling. We were in this park in St Petersburg and our tour guide showed us a black and white photo of a mass grave and tanks and rubble and it took a few seconds to click but those bodies were literally stacked where my feet were standing. That's just not a feeling you get in the United States. Every foot of ground I walked in st Petersburg had been fought for over a 3 year period. Thousands and thousands of people died. I went to Paris and the same applied. And people just acted like it was normal.
Its biased thats why, its sorta like that saying goes. The ones that win the war write history(correct me if im wrong). Traveling helps get rid of that ignorance, its just like that marco polo documentary where 2 americans traveled the world learning different cultures.
I think it's just geographic induced cognitive dissonance as well. A bunch of 19 year old come back to their home after a war and tell all their kids how they saved the world, and their kids told their kids and so on. And 99% of Americans will never leave America (except maybe Mexico or Canada) and never really see a country that has been engulfed in war.
And you also have to consider that not only is American education all about fact regurgitation and test scores, but the nitty gritty of European wars aren't explored because it's not really regarded as 'our' history, and is somewhat not relevant for people that will never leave the country to influence Europeans meaningfully. I'd wager Europeans have never heard of Davy Crockett and his defense against Mexico, or the Louisiana Purchase, or anything about the civil war other than slavery and statues, or maybe even Paul Revere (and not just the 'British are coming!). Countries tend to teach their own history, and Americans had fairly little to do with ww2 which was really EW2.
With so much of all that in so many movies, we do know at least something about most periods of US history, though.
Most of the movies are about as representative and informing about American history as GoT is for European history.
Most people know a meager amount of European history though, they know about Mesopotamia, the Renaissance and the clonional expansions into the new world. But the little stuff like 'wtf is a Portugal' and 'the Spanish inquisition' were covered in a week or less and then forgotten.
Yes but in this case the USA were not the only winners at all, yet you don't hear near as much about the others.
American education is distressingly provincial, especially if you're lower than middle class (e.g: family that makes $100k/yr or more)
I see what you mean for a lot of the US, but growing up on the east coast in a area that was heavily involved in the Civil War gave me a different perspective. I can't walk for 10 minutes without seeing a placque commemorating a battle, or a spot where a general fell, or massive unmarked soldier graveyards. It's still very real for many Americans. I'm sorry you couldn't get the same persepctive where you grew up.
This really makes me wonder about U.S. perceptions on Diem Bien Phu and how that influenced contemporary perceptions.
More like Diem Bien Who. American public education are more focused on fact regurgitation in return for high test scores, not actually learning who these people were and how it influenced the world we live in.
Diem Bien Phu is a battle.
My point exactly
Point well made.
Never heard of it/him
Source: American
Major French loss in Vietnam that correlated into U.S. involvement in the region.
That's not even vaguely mentioned in our history education. IF our classes make it past the Korean War. American history classes for Americans are a fucking joke.
You dramatically overestimate US world awareness
I can tell you I learned about it and it's ramifications in one of my high school history classes in America. I was in an advanced class in an area that is known for having good education though, so it probably isn't taught for most to most of the country.
Us Brits like to joke about the French surrendering too, but that's only because we kept beating them between the 1100s and 1815 or so.
But we do it in a nice way - we're good friends now and it's a British trait to take the mickey out of people we like.
Shit education in the US and geography, basically.
There is a frightening amount of indirect propaganda feeding the misconception that the US is the greatest and we "saved your ass" during WWII. Couple that with the fact that most US citizens will never set foot on foreign soil and you create an abstracted meme of "the French" in their minds that forms the basis of their understanding instead of well... The French.
Yes, you would think the USA single-handedly saved the world, yet nothing could be further from the truth.
Yes, you would think the USA single-handedly saved the world, yet nothing could be further from the truth.
so the USA doomed the world? that is just as wrong, methinks.
Who said that?
literally, you:
yet nothing could be further from the truth
No. You know, the opposite of single-handedly saving the world is not dooming it. It's not single-handedly saving it.
that isn't at all apparent from your statement. I get what you are trying to say, but the way you phrased it is odd. i'm pretty sure i'm not the only one.
"you"? I'm on your side here bud.
It's a general "you", as in "when you listen to this propaganda, you would think that..." Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Has to do from 2003 when the French were like "yeah we're not coming into Iraq without better proof" and then some american conservatives felt betrayed and kept riffing on the french ever since.
It's not entirely that, but it played a role.
France threatened to turn to communism after WW2 if we didn't allow them to retake their colonial empire. Thus leading to Vietnam. We helped the French plenty, they are the fair weather friends.
Sorry that’s bullshit. Go over to r/Murrica and you’ll see nothing but genuine admiration of our oldest ally.
We don’t forget. Most people I know respect the shit out of the french and their fighting ability.
It is because of how utterly disorganized the larger French Army and Navy were in the beggining of the war. By all accounts the French had the numbers on their side yet still managed to get pushed hard as the illustration shows.
There is truth in the jokes if not taste.
Groundskeeper Willie
It's not supposed to be taboo or piss anyone off.
As a Frenchman that can sometimes be slightly triggered by the fact that people only remember the last war where we didn't have much choice but to surrender after losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers, I thank you.
The French government surrendered the French people never did and formed the French Resistance.
100,000
Yeah, kind of hard to give a fuck about the french when 20m Russians died.
If thats the way you want it what about the 20 million Chinese who also died
I wasn't aware it was a competition.
when one lacks empathy its hard to care about other people. i mean its only 100000 dead people with their own story, lives, experiences, family, personal successes and tragedies. why should a random internet shitbag care?
All the French can do is lose and surrender! There is fixed it.
(Also they're good at infiltrating academia with socialism, Marxism and other poisonous ideologies)
And to compare that: The British lost 60.000 in a SINGLE DAY in World War 1. The second World War was terrible because of all the massacres, the people dying of starvation or the harsh winter or overworking in prisoner camps. But purely combat related, the first World War was even worse.
The statistic is: ten dead soldiers for one dead civilian in WW1, one for one in WW2, ten dead civilians for one dead soldier in modern wars.
The statistic is: most statistics are made up on the spot with no credible sources.
Of course it's a rough estimate and not precise. It just shows a trend. But if you have the numbers that disprove it, I'll be glad to see them. With source of course.
So you get to make an unsourced comment, but if someone challenges you, they need to have a source? Can't you find a source for what you said, at least?
Yes I "get to make" whatever comment I like, provided it respects the rules. You don't like it, that's what downvotes are for. And I come here for the pleasure of discussion, not for "challenges" of whatever petty argument. So I will end it here.
Wew.
See that's called talking out of your ass. It's the basic rule that if you make a claim (and such a bold one at that) you need to support it, not the person asking for sources. I don't need sources because I didn't make a claim, I just sarcastically sated that you have no proof. I didn't say less civilians per soldiers die, just that you have a bs statistic, so I don't have nor need any proof.
And people continue to say that war gets more surgical and precise
Well less people die in wars now than ever have in the history of civilization (civilian and military). So we’re moving in the right direction.
That is mainly due to having less wars. And the wars we do have aren't between equal nations. Of course a onesided war like the Iraq War won't have the same losses as a war between France and Germany and will be much shorter.
But in terms of civilian deaths we are doing a lot wrong and have not developed at all. Going into wars without thinking of an "After"-plan. Doing stuff like firing a whole army of a foreign nation. Using tactics like drone strikes, which may safe soldiers lives, but won't end insurgency and terror anytime soon.
I think the tendency for wars to be imbalanced is part of the reason for high civilian casualties. When fighting a much stronger opponent, you'll use unconventional tactics: bombs, landmines, terror tactics, ambushes, etc. Those are both directly, vs. walking onto a battlefield and firing directly at enemy soldiers, and also indirectly dangerous, because they mean that your opponent can't necessarily distinguish combatant from civilian.
But those tactics already were in full effect in WW2, even on the winning side. I mean the allied bombed whole cities into the ground while already winning the war. Landmines were extensively used, as well as sea mines which could also hit civilian ships. Terror tactics and ambushes weren't anything new either, especially in the pacific and the eastern front. So those aren't really unusual in warfare, even if your side is winning.
They weren't primary tactics, though. Through WW2, set piece battles occurred all the time, so military casualties were high. Since then, most wars have been heavily imbalanced (compared to Russia vs. Germany or the USA vs Japan), and set battles have been very rare exceptions. In the absence of battles between major powers, low-level sectarian civil wars in Asia and Africa became a much larger share of total worldwide casualties, and those tend to be civilian-heavy. When major powers engage in wars, they're fighting guerrillas hiding amidst the civilian populations, so civilian casualties dominate again.
I don't disagree with any of that, you have a good point.
So we’re moving in the right direction.
Yeah. Don't shoot the guys with guns, they might shoot back!
It does, but this statistic is not because of the precision of war, it's the way it is, because the wars themselves have changed.
It's not nation against nation anymore. It's just Guerilla-warfare (small groups of terrorists vs. nations), so the war in itself is more taxing in civilians, because we don't have fronts anymore. The front is everywhere.
We had Guerilla Warfare in WW2 as well. A lot actually, some done by civilians, some done by professional soldiers. The difference is, that the allies already had a plan before the war ended, how they will treat the occupied territory and how they will smash down on facism. And it worked perfectly. They did not during the Iraq or Afghanistan Wars.
The only thing the Axis did in occupied territories to suppress insurgency was killing and punishing. And that didn't lead to much success. Quite the opposite was the case. You can kill the perpetrators as much as you want. There will be new ones. The only thing you can do to change it is to give the occupied territory stability, to not treat the people as losers of the war (Only do so against the government by putting a limit on the army for example) and especially: To give people a perspective for a future. Thats exactly what America did to Germany in WW2 and it worked perfect. A nation full of people who wouldn't stop fighting the Americans until every bit of Germany was occupied, even starting suicide missions, became an ally within a few years.
60,000 casualties of which 20,000 were killed.
You are right, I sometimes forget that casualties doesn't equal dead soldiers. Of those 20.000 ~8000 died in the first half hour of the battle.
Germany collapsed from the embargo, people were starving in world war 1, it's why the hunger plan was so focused upon in ww2. It was devised by peoplr who starved in the last war.
Oh I do not deny that the civilians had it bad in WW1 as well. But I think if I had to choose, I'd rather be one in WW1 than in WW2. The amount of big bombing raids, death squads, massacres and forced labor were a lot higher in WW2. In WW1 mainly the frontline was affected by destruction and the western one didn't move that much, while in WW2 no place was safe.
Cool, and there’s Dunkirk.
Watched the movie a couple of weeks ago and Churchill’s, “We Shall Fight on the Beaches” scene put a tear in my eye. War is truly absurd and incredible.
Pretty neat seeing what led to Dunkirk like this.
I once visited the House of Commons, during Margaret Thatcher's funeral. I put my fingers in the dents made by Winston Churchill's ring in the table. It's incredible.
Wow! That must have been insane!
It was just incredible. An assistant to an MP gave my family the full tour - we were able to go places most British citizens aren't even allowed to be. We went into the voting rooms!!
Winston Churchill is a genocidal mass murderer FYI
EDIT: what's with the downvotes? Is it not important because it where mostly non whites?
We know that. However, he also was the hero that the world needed to step up against Adolf Hitler. Nobody else could rally the nation against such overwhelming odds, nobody was as consistent in his opposition to the Nazis, and nobody could wage war like Churchill.
All our heroes are flawed. Washington was a slave holder, Roald Dahl was an antisemite, John Lennon hit his wife, I could go on.
You're right to call Churchill those things, he deserves no better. But we as a species have always revered Great Men, and Churchill is indisputably a Great Man (not to be confused with good person).
The problem is that when we consistently ignore these issues surrounding our heros we never learn to cope. We need to confront ourselves with both sides of our history or we are doomed to repeat it indefinitely (which we are doing by the way). By saying that the good shit he did outweighs the bad you say that European lives are more valuable.
You can still commend a person on the heroic deeds he did while criticizing the horrible shit he did. The word hero is flawed because it implies a person is inherently good and heroic.
He is a legend. Not a hero.
How are we ever going to unite globally if we keep revering people that mass murdered our fellow humans on the other side of the planet? What do you think those people think about us when we brush that shit off so easily?
Washington is a British hero?
[deleted]
What in the world are you talking about?
This is a good summary.
https://crimesofbritain.com/2016/09/13/the-trial-of-winston-churchill/
Afghanistan and Iraq are very interesting and still effects us today (well the entire list does actually)
[deleted]
Bengal famine of 1943
The Bengal famine of 1943-44 (Bengali: Pañcāśēra manwantara) was a major famine in the Bengal province in British India during World War II. An estimated 2.1 million people died in the famine, the deaths occurring first from starvation and then from diseases, which included cholera, malaria, smallpox, dysentery, and kala-azar. Other factors, such as malnutrition, population displacement, unsanitary conditions, and lack of health care, further increased disease fatalities. Millions were impoverished as the crisis overwhelmed large segments of the economy and social fabric, accelerating a trend toward economic inequality.
Bengal's economy was predominantly agrarian.
^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27
People like to ignore things like that...
Allons, bonne nuit. Dormez bien. Rassemblez vos forces pour l'aube, car l'aube viendra. Elle se levera brillante pour les braves, douce pour les fideles qui auront souffert, et glorieux sur les tombeaux des heros. Vive la France ! Et vive aussi le soulevement des braves gens de tous les pays qui cherchent leur patrimoine perdu et marchent vers les temps meilleurs.
c bo
baisouai
There was actually a guy who turned up at Dunkirk in a 2 person canoe, having paddled the 26-odd miles. His reasoning was he could take off one more guy...
... but in reality his wife had sent him off to buy tampons, and him, knowing that his weekend was shot went off in search for fairer waters
The next sequence in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IITqmIVK2yU&t=46m34s
I love this. Is there anything more like this from other wars or other fronts? It really makes fronts and tactics click for me
Yea I'd love to see more of these too. The Russian campaign, D-Day forward, WWI
EmperorTigerstar's youtube channels has a couple of great ones, like WW2 in Europe, American Civil War, Russian Civil War and Swiss Civil War
Looks like Russia did most of the work in that WW2 in Europe clip
You've got to commend the Germans for not only breaking through the line, but also resisting multiple attempts by the French to cut them off from both sides.
"Rommel....you magnificent bastard.....I READ YOUR BOOK"
I fucking love Patton. It was my first R movie.
You can really tell the Germans learned from ww1 and the French mostly didn't.
Unfortunately it's more complex than that.
Germany had a very limited army size thanks to the Treaty of Versailles, and they made loads of money by seizing Jewish assets and inflating the economy through re-arming the country. This meant they had loads of cash to spend on re-arming and a good officer corps to train the new recruits quickly.
The French, meanwhile, had just lost millions of young men to war, and a load more people to the Flu epidemic of 1918/19. Parts of their country were in ruins and they had thousands of miles of trenches to clear up.
They were scared, effectively, of another war like that one, and they needed money to rebuild their economy after massive debts had been incurred during the war. That meant they had very little money to spend on their military.
The French elected to spend what little they had on the defensive works along their borders, mainly on the Maginot Line. This was supposed to link in the north with a similar wall the Belgians were going to build, but the Belgians pulled out when they found they didn't have enough money for even that.
Thus the French adopted a completely static defensive posture, relying on fortifications and defensive works - they in fact learned the lesson that it's extremely hard to dislodge people from trenches, don't forget they'd just spent the best part of 4 years trying without getting anywhere.
The Germans, however, focused on rapid movement of troops using an idea they'd pioneered in WW1 - that of sturmtruppen, or stormtroops (troops that attack quickly in force on a small front and take ground, pushing as deep as possible into enemy territory). They scaled this up to Army level for WW2, as seen in the GIF.
The Belgians, BTW, built some forts which weren't linked to each other and which were quickly overwhelmed in the war, in one notable case by the Germans dropping paratroop engineers on the roof of one and blowing it up - they'd trained on a 1:1 scale model built in Germany.
they in fact learned the lesson that it's extremely hard to dislodge people from trenches
Except late WW1 showed that tanks and mobility overcome trenches. The Germans learned this lesson, and the French did not. The Germans also learned from the success and failures of the Schleiffen plan, where the French did not. The Germans overcame forts easily in early WW1 as well, France didn't learn from that. The French were helped out massively by Germeny being forced to fight the Russians at the same time, and failed to secure a similar alliance to safegaurd any aggression.
Except this is also wrong. The Maginot line served its purpose, which was to force the Germans to attack through Belgium. Forts were mainly there to slow an attack and thus allow the defenders to mobilize. The critical error was underestimating an attack through the Ardennes, which was thought impossible at the time.
The Maginot line served its purpose, which was to force the Germans to attack through Belgium.
This was already Germany's opening move in WW1 though. Allies even tried the same strategy that enabled the Miracle of the Marne, except the Germans learned from WW1 and handled their flanks.
Yes true, the French were hoping for a replay of the Marne. Will definitely not argue they did everything right, far from it. Although I try to speak against the narrative that everything the French did was dumb/incompetent which i think is pretty unfair. Preparing for a war at the time was an incredibly difficult task, and they partly fell for the usual trap of "over-preparing for the previous war" that everyone does to some degree.
I mean, I never said the French were dumb/incompetent per se. I simply mean they didn't learn from WW1 like the Germans did. I definitely meant it more to mean they were prepared for WW1 to happen again, as you say.
Yes, sorry, didn't mean to imply that you did! Just those kids of arguments in general. You are correct about that, of course. I've even heard it speculated that since the Germans were to large extent on the receiving end of the tank in WW1, and had almost zero tanks themselves, that they saw the potential of the tank to a much greater degree than the allies.
Yet at the outbreak of war the German tanks were largely inferior to the bulk of the Allied tanks. The problem was the use of said tanks - the Germans went for the blitzkrieg attack with massed tanks, whereas the allies still saw tanks as Infantry support weapons which had to be distributed amongst the Infantry forces.
Yes, very commendable attacking neutral countries.
You can appreciate tactical strength/strategy while simultaneously condemning the motive. I don't think anyone's defending the Germans here, just saying how impressively they fought.
[deleted]
My gut reaction to your comment is that there's probably a bit more context that's missing here.
Attacking neutral countries is not strength or tactics, their underhandedness caused their country to be completely shattered and occupied for 50 years.
Underhandedness is central to war (Read Sun Tzu's The Art of War, where the term used is deception). Underhandedness is used by all parties, even those with just motives (Yes, the Allies used it, too).
Attacking neutral countries can objectively leave you in a strong tactical position, even if it makes you a monster. Winning a war isn't about elegance or chivalry. It's about forcing the ebemy to surrender or be destroyed. It turns everyone into monsters.
It is important to study war, objectively, so that your children don't have to.
Deception is not underhandedness lmao. I'm not talking about the morality involved. I'm talking about the long term consequences of invading neutral countries, such as isolating oneself and giving resoluteness to your enemies.
Here's three different sources to clearly prove underhandedness is a synonym of deceitful (since you so confidently wrote "lmao"):
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/underhanded
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/underhanded
https://www.powerthesaurus.org/underhanded
For the sake of dicussion, let's work under the context you stated though, in which attacking a neutral country risks putting you in an isolated (and thus weaker) position:
The fact that you remain isolated is pointless if you win the war. Hitler was betting on a fast, isolated conflict. It didn't happen in hindsight, but it had worked so far, prior to the Invasion of Poland and the Battle of France (an example of strength, strategy and tactics).
You also have to take into account that many neutral countries provide concession to one side of the belligerents, so many decide to cut them off, and in that way weaken their direct enemy (another example of strength, strategy and tactics).
Last but not least, those attacks on neutral countries in WW2, as underhanded ad they were, didn't isolate Nazi Germany in the least. It didn't unite the world against Hitler, and it took several years, and a direct attack by the Japanese for the U.S. to finally join the war directly (until then, they were neutral but providing aid to the Soviets and the British, through the lend lease and convoys).
What it did do for the Germans, is amplify their hold of Europe, complicate the war enormously on Britain, and solidify them as a global threat. Simply put, it worked.
It would be many factors into the future which would play into the downfall of Nazi Germany, but attacking neutral countries certainly wasn't one of the biggest (if one at all).
Have you ever wondered why the "Allies" list is so much larger than the "Axis" list? They had one ally, who was laughably incompetent, Italy. Finland fought as co-belligerents.
This is the second time in twenty-five years that Germany has committed a criminal aggression against a neutral and loyal Belgium. What has happened is perhaps even more odious than the aggression of 1914. No ultimatum, no note, no protest of any kind has ever been placed before the Belgian Government. It is through the attack itself that Belgium has learned that Germany has violated the undertakings given by her... The German Reich will be held responsible by history. Belgium is resolved to defend herself.
Violating neutrality terms, the sovereignty of many nations, did indeed isolate Germany, whose allies were puppet governments and laughable incompetents.
The number of allies is irrelevant, especially in WW2, when in reality the vast majority of them couldn't contribute in direct ways (even economically). It was political support, more than anything. To put into perspective, the Battle of Dunkirk inolved 5 different countries against Germany, and they all lost, decisively, within a month.
Your reply implies that Germany's attack of neutral countries, including Belgium, was instrumental to its downfall, and yet other neutral countries didn't suddenly change allegiances. The U.S. didn't change allegiances. Sthe USSR continued to honor their non aggression pact. Sure, the Prime Minister of Belgium wrote a very strong worded letter, but that didn't matter, they were soon in exile in France, which would fall, too. That letter had no real consequences, and while Belgium fought very bravely for 18 days, they fell nevertheless. Nobody came to the rescue.
From your very own letter, part of their anger was directed at the fact that there was no ultimatum: of course there wasn't. The diea was to infiltrate France. The Germans were very methodical about Fall Gelb. They didn't just attack neutral countries for the sake of attacking them, otherwise the Vatican and Switzerland might have followed suit. There was a strategic reason for deceiving Belgium into a guarantee of neutrality, and then crossing them (by the way, Britain was furious at Belgium for signing that guarantee).
Germany was isolated even before they invaded Poland (the agreed upon historical moment in which WW2 began). They requested other countries to aid them (such as Hungary and Lithuania) but they refused. Germany was already somewhat isolated, not because of they attacked a neutral country, but because WW1 had happened (in fact, Germany was able to secure so much ground because of the diplomatic uncertainty between so many countries in Europe).
Is attacking neutral countries a good idea? No, it isn't. Can a country extract an advantage from attacking a neutral country? Yes they can. It is very possible that Germany would have never been able to penetrate the Maginot Line had they not used the Ardennes to go around it first, and although Germany would ultimately lose the war, it is also very possible that the outcome might have ended differently if other factors had played differently (Germany acquiring better oil deposits in the Caucuses, not attacking the Soviet Union, Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor, etc.).
But it did. Before the invasions of neutral Belgium, the UK still offered peace if Germany withdrew from Poland. After this, they stopped.
And that is garbage. Hungary and other countries refused because Germany had attacked a different neutral country much more recently, the full occupation of the Czech lands, after already agreeing to take only the Sudetenland.
But it did. Before the invasions of neutral Belgium, the UK still offered peace if Germany withdrew from Poland.
Yeah, that has nothing to do with Belgium, and everything to do with the fact Germany invaded Poland. Before the invasion of Poland, Germany wasn't at war with Britain or France, so it makes sense they'd offer the conditions through which they'd sign a peace treaty, if they gave up the occupation of Poland (that was +never+ going to happen, since they also had commitments with the USSR).
Czechoslovakia was not "neutral country" because there was no world war. There was no war between Germany and Czechoslovakia. Nobody intervened, either, because Hitler had used political justifications (in the case of Czechoslovakia, to protect the German population. A powerful propaganda campaign happened before the annexation).
Also, Hungary didn't refuse because of Czechoslovakia. they refused because they feared war with Britain and France. Not the Allies, but Britain and France specifically (the Major powers). Hungary actually benefited partially from the annexation of Czechoslovakia, and the reason why the Germans requested military access through Hungary, was because they assumed Hungary would accept, sinc ethey, too, might want claim to parts of Poland which were reassigned after WW1.
It really is pointless discussing this with you, though. You seem to think Germany lost the war mostly because they attacked Belgium and the Netherlands, when in reality, the vas majority of Allied powers formally becoming part of the Allies (including the Soviet Union and the U.S.) entering after 1941.
You seem to think Germany lost the war mostly because they attacked Belgium and the Netherlands,
I literally never said that.
Also, you seem to forget that Czechoslovakia was destroyed in two parts, first the Sudetenland in 1938 and then the whole was occupied in March of 1939. These two event were what led to first the end of appeasing Hitler, and then the invasion of two neutral countries caused unending resistance in the allies, knowing full well that Hitler could not keep promises and that he had no real loyalty to anyone.
You didn't expressly said it, but you even quoted the Primer Minister of Belgium in attempt to make a point of how crucial Germany's actions against neutral countries had been to solidify Germany's downfall.
Yes, attacking neutral countries had bad repercussions, but not nearly as bad as you try to make them look: Stalin didn't even believe Hitler would invade the USSR. The U.S. didn't move towards getting involved until after Roosevelt pushed hard, and Japan attacked. It would take until 1942 for many countries to even side or overtly support the Allies. Norway for example, joined the Allies until after they were invaded.
Belgium and the Netherlands didn't cause the shock they should have.
WHAT
Jesus. Stalin absolutely knew a showdown with Nazism was inevitable and the US was supplying Britain and Russia with the lend lease program???
How does that contradict what I said? A showdown was inevitable, and his officers warned Stalin, but he specifically tefused to believe it would happen so soon.
Germany caught the Soviet Union by such a surprise, that at one point, Franz Halder even gloated that the campaign against Russia would be won within 2 weeks (later asserting it would be won within 8 days).
Show me a respectable historical source that states Stalin was expecting Operation Barbarossa.
Stalin didn't even believe Hitler would invade the USSR.
I'll just quote what you said.
A showdown was inevitable, and his officers warned Stalin, but he specifically tefused to believe it would happen so soon.
I am leaving reddit. Please consider doing the same - rampant social media overconsumption has harmed too many lives. Goodbye.
“It would happen so soon” implies he knew it would happen. You have a truly tenuous grasp on the English language, it’s not even my first language.
I am leaving reddit. Please consider doing the same - rampant social media overconsumption has harmed too many lives. Goodbye.
It's very itneresting that, when confronted with evidence and reaosnable arguments, you always try to deflect the argument by distracting (you've done so at least 3 times in our discussion here).
First off, Stalin was most likely, by most accounts, well informed of an impedning attack. Most agree that one way or another, he refused to act. You haven't been able to do a rebuttal on that. So answer directly with a good source.
Secondly, let's provide you with something, stronger, something from people more knowledgeable:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol50no1/9_BK_What_Stalin_Knew.htm
That's a paper by David E. Muprhy (CIA station Chief in Berlin 1959-1961, expert in Soviet Russia) , reviewed by Donald P. Steury (A CIA historian, who has done work in several fronts, including the historical side of declassification). A simple google would get you there (but you aren't googling, because you are basing your arguments off your preconceived notions of how WW2 went).
Anyways, at this point, I frankly don't know if you are reading the arguments, and instead just deflect so I'll pull the relevant quotes:
Stalin’s corresponding blindness to all this is more problematic. Hitler’s foreign policy aims were well known, and it is difficult to comprehend how any national leader could do so little to anticipate the onslaught that everyone knew must come. Stalin’s thinking in this regard has been the subject of a longstanding historical debate, not yet resolved—and perhaps not capable of resolution, for the fundamental issue is not what Stalin did or said, but what he believed. [Emphasis mine]
Muprhy, the author, uses only Soviet sources for this analysis, by the way, so as to be more objective on the perspective Stalin might have had. Let's move on:
Although one source claimed the mobilization of troops was done in an act of defense against the German advance, it merely served to send resources to be captured and/or destroyed by the Germans. We have this:
Historian Gabriel Gorodetsky has advanced the Russian interpretation that the “State Frontiers Defense Plan 1941,” which put Soviet troops on the borders, was intended as “a demonstration of force” rather than an attempt to “safeguard security.”
So there goes that argument. Let's move on:
In describing how intelligence was collected and reported to Moscow, Murphy chillingly documents what it meant to be an intelligence officer under Stalin by following the careers of three men. NKVD foreign intelligence chief, Pavel Fitin, whose agents reported on German plans for BARBAROSSA right up to the attack, served throughout the war, but was in disgrace afterward. Ivan Proskurov, an air force officer and head of military intelligence during 1939–40, insisted on telling the truth to Stalin. He was shot in October 1941. Proskurov’s successor, Filipp I. Golikov, suppressed or altered intelligence reporting that did not meet the Soviet dictator’s preconceptions. He prospered under Stalin.
Look at this. So apparently, Stalin didn't like his intelligence officers giving him bad news, to the point where he shot them, and his officers would start giving him false intel. Proof he refused to believe his officers in the face of evidence.
Murphy massively documents the in-pouring of intelligence from all over Europe and even Japan, warning of the German military buildup for invasion. Insofar as this intelligence was used at all, it was to avoid any action that might be seen as a provocation. German aircraft were allowed to fly reconnaissance missions deep into Soviet territory; German troops were allowed to violate Soviet borders in search of intelligence. All this was intended to remind the Germans of the depth of Soviet resolve, while demonstrating that the Soviet Union was not about to attack. Moreover, Stalin was absolutely convinced that Hitler would attempt nothing until he had resolved his conflict with Great Britain.[Emphasis mine]
That's pretty telling, right there. But there's more if you keep reading the review:
He was encouraged in this preconception by a well-orchestrated German deception operation—including the two letters to Stalin—that was, at least in part, personally directed by Hitler. Thus it was that Stalin was able to ignore the massive military buildup on his borders and to dismiss every warning of a German attack as disinformation or provocation, right up until the morning of 22 June.[Emphasis mine]
Another emphasis on refusal to believe the warnings.
You might attempt to deflect all of this once more, perhaps by discrediting the author and reviewer and the source (judging by your profile history, you disregard everything "Yank" as dumb or backwards). If you read the footnoes, Barton Whaley and John Bowyer Bell arrived to similar conclusions (they both contributed to each other works).
At this point, you've failed to provide any evidence of Belgium and The Netherland's invasion as central to the formation of the Allied forces (and refused to believe they attacked them for a greater strategic reasons, such as Fall Gelb), you have failed to use proper language (you thought underhandedness didn't even mean deception, but that's a pass, English might not be your first language), you tried to make it seem as though Stalin and Hitler were always ready for a showdown at any moment (whch while partly true, Stalin always believed it would happen after the war in western europe was done, not right there and then).
So basically, you've been shut down at every corner of this discussion, because you fail to provide any proof, other than angry half-retorts. If you can't provide educated discussion, I suggest you stay in your lane, and read a little more, be skeptical, be inquisitive.
Oh, and by the way: Yes, like u/gtrogers said, one can admire the great strategic feats the Germans achieved throughout the campaigns. There were great students of war on all sides of the conflict, not just the winning side. The Germans devised brilliant combined arms tactics with armored units (since you hate it when they call it Blitzkrieg), advances in cryptology, rocketry, weapons engineering and great feats in combat, both at a strategic and tactical level, and yes, like all other sides int he conflcit, they also made some legendary mistakes. Monsters and heroes on both sides.
Have a great one.
You are literally contradicting yourself and shifting words.
No there actions were villainous but the german strategy was admirable. I admired their military but hate the state of the country and their actions in ww2. Shame that the germans were the ones with the good tactics and not the French. That would’ve ended the war earlier hopefully
Attacking neutral countries is not "superior tactics" lmao. Fucking wehrbs
Yes it is? Winning is an objective is the goal, its war not a nerf fight. If i needed to burn your house down to make a better position for myself and you cant defend yourself, well it my house now.
Politically isolating yourself and then everyone forcing an unconditional surrender is not superior tactics. We get it though, you play video games and think it boils down to battles only.
Considering the English Channel was the only thing that stopped Germany from controlling all of Europe within a few months of beginning the war, I think it's safe to say that whatever tactics they were using were pretty superior.
TIL Russia isn't part of Europe. TIL Spain isn't part of Europe. TIL Sweden, Finland, Yugoslavia, Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania are not a part of Europe.
And no, thinking they were superior is the thought of a stupid wehraboo.
Is it now wrong to admire historical events from a neutral lens without having to side with one or the other?
I mean a lot of the American High Command says that the Blitzkrieg was an amazing tactic and we even emulated it during the Invasion of Iraq. Are they wehraboos for recognizing a very useful and effective tactic and implementing it in future wars?
edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Historical_applications
Blitzkrieg isn't even a real thing rofl. Those yank high schools really need to sharpen up.
Read up, dipshit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg
Blitzkrieg
Blitzkrieg (German, "lightning war" listen ) is a method of warfare whereby an attacking force, spearheaded by a dense concentration of armoured and motorised or mechanised infantry formations with close air support, breaks through the opponent's line of defence by short, fast, powerful attacks and then dislocates the defenders, using speed and surprise to encircle them. Through the employment of combined arms in manoeuvre warfare, blitzkrieg attempts to unbalance the enemy by making it difficult for it to respond to the continuously changing front, then defeat it in a decisive Vernichtungsschlacht (battle of annihilation).
During the interwar period, aircraft and tank technologies matured and were combined with systematic application of the traditional German tactic of Bewegungskrieg (maneuver warfare), deep penetrations and the bypassing of enemy strong points to encircle and destroy enemy forces in a Kesselschlacht (cauldron battle). During the Invasion of Poland, Western journalists adopted the term blitzkrieg to describe this form of armoured warfare.
^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27
Despite being common in German and English-language journalism during World War II, the word Blitzkrieg was never used by the Wehrmacht as an official military term, except for propaganda
You tried, dipshit.
I wasn't proving the existence of the word, but the existence of the tactic. And its used in Propaganda so the word was a thing just not officially.
You tried, Dipshit.
But it wasn't a tactic rofl. I literally just quoted it.
The majority of the German army ran on horses haha.
Are you legitimately this dumb? Like are you for real?
Just because you shitty yank education boiled down the german army to "blitzkrieg" doesn't mean it was an actual thing.
Just because your dumb yank education and History Channel documentaries said so doesn't make it so :)
I am leaving reddit. Please consider doing the same - rampant social media overconsumption has harmed too many lives. Goodbye.
This was already happening at the end of WW1 and during the Spanish Civil War.
I am leaving reddit. Please consider doing the same - rampant social media overconsumption has harmed too many lives. Goodbye.
First, that was what the germans want, their end goal was total control. Second they damn near did it but got greedy, if they hunkered down and didnt provoke the us the could have held it indefinitely. Third i spent alot of time in iraq playing video games, so i know nothing. And before you even go on a tirade about how iraq is a different war, no shit Sherlock but it doesnt stop you from understanding what the germans wanted and almost accomplished.
The Germans would have lost even without intervention from the U.S. The Russians were spanking them all the way back to Germany by the time the U.S. arrived.
The Russians also received a Ludacris amount of supplies from the US after the US was drawn into the war. Who's to say they could have been nearly as effective without the food or Vehicles or weapons? Its almost as if a war of this unprecedented scale can't be boiled down to one to such a simple answer ;)
I shoot videos and get knobs slobbed in trailers
How nice
The US had far less of an impact than the Soviet Union did. And yes, serving your war criminal masters Bush and Obama probably does the opposite for backing up your opinion, i.e makes it worth less.
The Germans never had the capacity to occupy and destroy the Soviet Union, which was their actual goal. The Germans after facing an actual enemy started crumbling within a few months.
[deleted]
The fall of France rested on the fact that Germany attacked neutral countries..?
The French and British declared war on Germany following the Wehrmacht's invasion of neutral Poland. They then fought the sitzkrieg/phony war over the winter of 39/40, over the course of which both sides had ample time to prepare.
They did have time to prepare, and they did, and then Germany invaded two neutral countries, politically isolating itself, and threw out any chance of a favorable peace deal. That's not forward thinking or even intelligent in any way.
Germany was never going to get a favorable peace deal except from a position of strength. They had already violated essentially every agreement they'd been a part of, just to get to the point where they could start the war in the first place, and they knew that without large resource gains they would be unable to prosecute the war within a few years, making the entire war an all-or-nothing gamble from the start.
It's also worth noting that even with the early aggression from the Germans and Japanese, the Western Allies don't publicly talk about an unconditional surrender until 1943, when it was clear that they would be able to win.
There was a famous quote from Anthony Eden though, from 1940 or so:
We are not in any circumstances prepared to negotiate with [Hitler] at any time on any subject.
And Churchill said:
And I am convinced that every one of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground
The Germans did throw away any chance they had for a negotiated peace with Britian. I just think they did it later, with the London Blitz rather than the invasion of Belgium. The Western Allies had considered the Soviets to be an equivalent, if not greater threat to Europe up through 1939 which was part of the reason for their early leniency to toward German rearmament. A more sane German government might have been able to play off of this sentiment effectively in early 1940, freeing France with minor territorial concessions and using it to justify their continued occupation of Poland.
Obviously a limited war wasn't what they were interested in though, so speculating beyond that is probably a bit pointless.
Personally I don't think that's likely - we'd gone to war over Poland in the first place, and I don't think we'd have given up that easily, even if France had been freed after defeat.
Again, Britain and France declared war on Germany. They weren't neutral at the time of the invasion. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and to a certain extent Austria were all neutral. But Britain and France declared war on Germany two days after the invasion of Poland. They weren't neutral.
The two neutral countries are the Netherlands and Belgium...
Fair enough, though I don't buy your argument about that being the cause of the Axis' inability to get any sort of peace, favourable or no. So long as Churchill was in political power in the UK, there would never be peace. In his own memoirs he mentions his deep dislike of the Germans.
found the beta.
A gamer calling someone a "beta"
Truly hilarious.
look how upset he is, ROFL!
soft spot for being called a beta i see? LOL.
Did you just unironically call someone a beta?
There's something about moving pictures from the previous era that almost make them easier to watch than contemporary computer simulations and motion graphics.
Simplification. We make graphics messy in an attempt to beautify them. This is simple, straight forward, and minimal while relaying all information.
Probably because somebody drew it by hand. I think you're right.
That's exactly why. When things were difficult you only did what HAD to be done. Zero wasted effort or space.
Now, people put in the same amount of time working, but that means a lot of wasted time on embellishments or stylization.
The old videos seem to be focused more on providing useful information while newer videos and simulations seem to be more concerned about being fancy, high tech, and pretty with a little bit of information thrown in.
This was brilliant. Thanks OP.
I want to see how it ends!
We won!
Huzzah!!
But I'm German...
[deleted]
They went for the diplomatic victory this time.
r/unexpectedciv
US already won cultural so its nbd.
You lost but everything worked okay I suppose!
And we’re not so it’s all good still
So everyone here is from an Ally nation? Interesting
Mostly US timezone right now. Noon on the east coast
I've got some bad news for you
https://youtu.be/Zf557RtIuro
Just play it in reverse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IITqmIVK2yU&t=46m34s
Divide And Conquer (1943) [56:29]
Shows the German invasion of Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium and France, including the evacuation of the British forces at Dunkirk. From the "Why We Fight" series.
^Nuclear ^Vault ^in ^Education
^155,613 ^views ^since ^Aug ^2009
That Blitzkrieg that just bursts through halfway in, holy shit.
Man that's just Hearts of Iron 4
Those dank encirclements
No it clearly isn't, the AI made good decisions and the game didn't crash multiple times.
That closing in on Dunkirk though... insane.
Can't watch this without humming the 'Dad's Army' theme tune.
If you like this check out the History Channel Documentary WW2 From Space. It's amazing. I've watched it all the way through maybe 5 times.
It's good - but it's nothing like the gif.
That only shows after the US entered WW2.
TIL Germany pioneered the Dive META
Nah this was definitely run it down mid cause we are stronger than you and we know we are stronger than you.
[deleted]
... and this is how the sperm gets to the egg.
Its so sad to think of those colors disappearing represent people dying.
is there çanakkale version of this?
This is so interesting! I am curious about the Allied counteroffensive that tried to outflank and cut off the Germans once they reached Fabreville (unsuccessfully) and the Germans that surrounded the Allies near Antwerp, and of course the Allies escape at Dunkirk (which was a fantastic movie).
There were a number of attempts at cutting off the German lines, including one by French and British tanks, which got rather far before being overwhelmed and destroyed.
The problem is (explained by a later bit of the program from the GIF iirc) that the Germans lined the sides of their advance line with motorised infantry which were in a good position to resist any counter attacks.
[deleted]
/r/WarCollege
Interesting to see one or two instances of small German pockets being cut off and engorged
You have it backwards - the Germans are in black and the pockets being absorbed (engorged means made larger or swollen up) are Allied forces attempting to attack.
Holy shit that is fascinating
meth'll do that...
Dunkirk...
Its a living Go game.
I know that I'm a little late to the party, but thought it was an interesting tidbit that Walt Disney was responsible for the animations for this film.
I was wondering this myself. The motion of the boxes is extremely well done with speed easing and all.
IRL this didn't take nearly as long.
Seems like that demonstration ends where the Dunkirk movie begins. Neat.
(You can see the Allies getting boxed in at Dunkirk in the top left of the vid)
R/hoi4 would love this
Okay I've been visiting this again and again all day.
What is the source and where do I find more?
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Why_We_Fight
It's crazy to think that there are some Americans who would see this forward progress by the Nazis as a good thing.
Goddam Mimics
Awesome, amazingly educational. I don’t feel like I need any narration, I understand more each time I watch it.
Flashbacks to r/place and the void.
Those groups breaking through the line then being swallowed make me feel things. Is it weird I can imagine a war movie in my head seeing white dots be swallowed by black?
Vive la France!
Maps. Being a history major made me really love maps.
Impressive
[deleted]
Not long at all - it took 6 weeks from the German invasion of Belgium, The Netherlands and France to the French surrender, this was from the 10th of May to the 22nd of June.
That was to perform the pincer shown in the gif, and to cross most of France and force them to surrender.
The evacuation of French and British troops (both groups were evacuated by the Royal Navy and civilians) started on the 26th of May, only 16 days into the German campaign. It finished from Dunkirk on the 4th of June.
What happened to those German divisions captured down by Paris? Were they relocated to Britain when France fell or traded for Allied POWs?
Most likely they were held by the French, and were released when France fell and were probably sent to the Russian Front.
This beautiful animation represents thousands of deaths, as well as controlled land.
The battle of the bulge?
how did they make these animations back then?
Do you know that Walt Disney did these?
I was convinced that Alfred Hitchcock was about to come in at that last frame
Does this remind anyone else of white blood cells going after bacteria??
Here are the 7 propaganda films if anyone is interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight
Why We Fight
Why We Fight is a series of seven propaganda films commissioned by the United States government during World War II to justify to U.S. soldiers their country's involvement in the war. Later on, they were also shown to the U.S. public to persuade them to support U.S. involvement in the war.
Most of the films were directed by Frank Capra, who was daunted yet impressed and challenged by Leni Riefenstahl's propaganda film Triumph of the Will and worked in direct response to it. The series faced a tough challenge: convincing a recently non-interventionist nation of the need to become involved in the war and ally with the Soviets, among other things.
^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27
I love this...I use it every year in my Global History class
It looks so biological like an immune system attacking bacteria
Can someone please explain what technology they were using to illustrate this?
Reminds me of blood cells
OwO
Is this an infection growth?
One of the best military history books I've ever read - Alistair Horne's To Lose a Battle - is about this battle. It's riveting, for all of its 500-ish pages, in that "Will it turn out differently this time?" way every time I read it
I'd recommend it to everyone here
Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk behind-the-scene
It honestly looks like a white blood cell losing a fight. The weird way that the membrane moves and when a fragment comes off, it's engulfed . . so weird
Sedan?
Just look at Dunkirk, it looks like Agario.
Wow
FAST AS THE WIND, THE INVASION HAS BEGUN!
You can see how Dunkirk back me a problem for the British and French troops.
Looks like bacteria
I have a dirty mind.
Now,
If only Paradox Interactive could get their heads out of their asses and release a "proper" Hearts of Iron game that was built on the greatness that was HOI2 and HOI3 then we could have a great real time strategy game on our hands. Maybe they should watch more animations such as this one and be inspired.
Don't mention HOI4...we don't mention HOI4. (I believe it is that bad)
When was the last time you played it? They've been rolling out great updates with more on the way, just a fyi. I don't want you to miss out, especially if you like the previous 2
Paradox Interactive
Paradox Interactive is a Swedish video game publisher based in Stockholm. The company is best known for releasing historical strategy computer games. Paradox Interactive publishes its own games, both developed by their division, Paradox Development Studio, and those of other developers. It was formerly a division of Paradox Entertainment, rights holders of properties such as the Robert E. Howard character Conan.
^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27
This looks aggressive ... but the thing is ... first Britain, then France declared war upon Germany ... not the other way around.
If you zoom in further, you can see the little white flags.
Germany was winning ww1 until the Armistice was signed. Dunno why the German people were sold out like that
Man for a country that was winning it was impressive that they were somehow losing every battle
Also you need to fix your dogwhistle because it sounds a bit like a siren atm
It was a stalemate for awhile, if the US hadn't entered a truce would've probably come sooner.
Ok believe what you want no hair off my ass.
I've never seen war looking so organic. There's something fascinating about seeing it less as machinery and more as a living growth.
I want to see more conflicts animated like this.
Try a youtube Channel called Baz Battles
Great channel, but that's still just standard battle visualisation, which while good at giving an idea of what happened, doesn't represent the fluid nature of battle like this animation does.
Exactly, subscribed to the channel awhile back, it's neat info but was wanting something more like the gif.
The poor Nazis have been dealing with ANTIFA for so long.
Yes, defend nazis, you racist fucks.
Baz Battles (Youtube Channel)
I costumed and loved enjoyed the Channel. Any other ones?
pornhub has some pretty good ones
any source for gif you posted ?
It's a gif I made for my class (School Teacher). I pulled it from a 1943 US Propaganda film called "Why We Fight".
Good teacher! 🍎
[removed]
Aw shit :( Now you also can block videos in youtube by countries... Internet is not for everyone...
Edit: I found another source. I can see it, thanks people of internet.
Holy shit - it's blocked for you? What country doesn't allow this historical video?
The owner of a YouTube video can restrict the countries the video is available
It's blocked for Colombia in that source. I guess the blocking country is USA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Rc66gRjb0
Subscribed!
While this is awesome it looks like there are only ancient wars, would be cool if there were modern wars they did this for.
The Art Of Battle have a number of excellent ones.
The Art of War by Sun Tsu (Kindle edition) is usually free on Amazon. Oh wow, here’s the pdf edition!
Thanks, I hadn't seen this before
Thanks!
Good find
I've been trying to find out more about Baz Battles. He hasn't provided any biographical information about himself. I just want to confirm that he's a South African! Love that channel!
Looks like those old Mickey Mouse animations
Disney made its money during WWII making animations like these. It's highly likely that they did this one as well.
It was. This was directed by Frank Capra but Disney did the animations. It's honestly beautiful
Can confirm was made by Walt Disney. Learned about this in Film & History of WWII in college. This was one of the films we watched.
/r/battlegifs
here's my favorite Battle of bunker hill http://i.imgur.com/HXJQcVa.gif
Here's a sneak peek of /r/battlegifs using the top posts of the year!
#1: Siege of Rome by the Etruscans under Lars Porsena including the defense of the bridge by Horatius | 4 comments
#2: The Battle of the Golden Spurs 1302 AD | 3 comments
#3: Battle of Tours | 1 comment
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^Contact ^^me ^^| ^^Info ^^| ^^Opt-out
How many battles of bunker hill were there?
Play civ.
Or HOI4
Try hearts of Iron from paradox
This video has some parts that can be described as organic.
Now if we could just skip the conflict and go straight to the animation, that would be truly great.
[removed]
Patterns at microscopic levels tend to repeat and express themselves at larger levels. Also zootopia on acid
you had me at zootopia on acid
So they didn't have you until the last possible moment
yeah its a good thing they said that part
we should hang out
you into froyo?
Nah, icecream and cigarettes. You?
works for me
Lol what?
Human migrations follow the same rules as bacterial on the surface of a petri dish or fungus spreading across a rotting log.
It does not make us any less sentient. They are doing it organically in both the literal and figurative sense And humans, individuals and groups are making decisions based on the job market, the cost of living the availability of resources and things like that.
This is evidence for determinism.
Yes and no. When a human individual or group decides to colonize a new area for reasons that are not logically obvious or are counterintuitive are they merely defective or are they somehow rising above, superseding that determinism?
[deleted]
Yes of course. Obviously you're correct, that is a third possibility.
I think the reason it looks so similar is that the demonstration was designed to present the data in an easy to understand format. Humans are great at recognizing patterns, even when there truly isn't any connection. Our minds instinctively compare data to better understand what we are looking at, but that doesn't mean we are right.
i think there's a huge intrinsic connection between white blood cells battling foreign bodies as well as strategy and tactics on every level. If you zoom out far enough, it's all the same thing and the most efficient way to beat another mass is always gonna be the same on a geometric level.
And if you look close enough, white blood cells are really just little dudes trying to do their job
I don't see a connection, but I will admit over a long enough time period, it does look similar. But humans attacking humans is not the same as white blood cells attacking foreign bodies. White blood cells are not conscious enough to be compared to humans. They don't consciously decide what to attack and what not to attack. The idea that we are just like a single cell organism is thought provoking, but we are not single cell organisms. Similar, but not the same.
I can compare the patterns of electricity running through wood with the migration patterns of early humans, and show how similar we are at finding the path of least resistance, but that doesn't mean we are connected with electricity on some unknown unobserved level. Similar, but not the same.
Our pattern recognition biases that influence our perspective are hard to acknowledge and then dismiss to fully understand what we are looking at. Take a forest for example and how humans can find patterns within them, but the forest didn't grow in an organized manner. It only appears that way after the fact, and will look like it was meant to be. But any number of variables could have influenced the forest growth either way. Hindsight always seems like 20/20 vision but alot of stuff is excluded that is simply not known. We can compare, but we should be skeptical and not claim we are like any one thing. We are human, and while we will share similar characteristics with other living organisms, that doesn't mean we operate entirely like them.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3YtmdelhcCMPS/giphy.gif
[removed]
It was the first thing I though of too lol. That and the scene from The Thing showing the alien cells absorbing human cells on the computer simulation.
The 1982 Thing? Or do you mean the 2011 one?
82
/r/totallynotrobots
It's probably because whatever methods the white blood cells use are the most efficient. So when we try to be as efficient as possible, it would tend to look like things that developed their efficiency through trial and error over millions of years.
Wut
[deleted]
I don't think we're quite at the level of a true superorganism. Hive bees, ants, and other eusocial animals are closer.
We're still at an evolutionary competition stage. The pressure for each "proto-superorganism" to defeat the others will lead to more dynamic (a word here used to describe an environment where the individual is suppressed for the efficiency of the group) governments, eliminating lag and reducing response time for individual components.
I mean, it sounds efficient and cool but I wouldnt want to be a cog in that machine, ya know?
[deleted]
Being single-minded to the point of self sacrifice and suicide isn't always a benefit, assuming it's even possible to make a human drone-like without destroying the intellectual capability and self awareness.
Kimmy Jimmy Ill finally gets his state of perfectly worshipful drones, and begins his plans for world domination. These drones need something to follow.
If it's like ants, then there's no centralised structure. People do whatever their neighbour says needs doing and vice versa. This makes them slow to respond and adapt to new problems compared to a society with a definite command structure (though the response is amazing when it finally happens)
If it's a sci-fi-esque hivemind/central cabal, and the drones follow without hesitation, you've got a nice big juicy target for the enemy and a cabal member becoming Ill physically or mentally will be disastrous. Cut off communications between the drones and cabal and you're dead in the water too. If you mitigate that by saying that drones can form ad hoc independant groups, you've just created the problem you were trying to avoid in the first place: controlling and motivating independent groups.
You assume purpose though, and microorganisms tend to just go for food.
We're past the food point now, and we're more on the level of refining ideas and concepts -- all which must come from individualistic thinking otherwise we cannot progress
It almost looks like an immune response.
It looked to me more like a diagram of an amoeba eating from a biology textbook
To me it looked like a beagle trying to get that darned frisbee
Looks like an amoeba
You should check out a time lapse of a Paradox game like Hearts if Iron of you think that looked cool.
How do you suppose they did the animation?
I'd like to hear the audio of this.
Oh god I hate people like you
Why?
War is actually a biological response. Ya, we have more advanced reasons. However, nothing will replace a fight over resources, a fight over sentiments, things ants do, bees do, apes do, we do. Up till now its been advantageous to nature because it develops better organisms and if an animal fought too much, they killed themselves out.
Now we are just too good at fighting. We have to fight ourselves in new ways in order to stop ourselves from dying out.
thats why video games are nice. you can do all the war stuff with no one actually getting hurt