Military History Visualized I think you will appreciate this video with additional sources on the topic that are not in your video. As a longtime subscriber and a military officer i appreciate the video thank you.
@@sillyk6688 Not quite. In 1941, they nearly made it into Moscow. Then they decided to go after Kiev. Had they stayed committed to their original plan..
@Marek Tužák Paris was not taken. If you don't know how it really happened, you probably don't know much at all. Your comment is a vibrant testament to the pride of ignorance and I'll leave it at that.
The French were well known for hundreds of years as having this mighty military. The French being defeated as quickly as they did was a major blow to the moral of any country that stood in Germany’s way
The French are arrogant but the Russian ( government ) are the most evil of leaders in history in my opinion . Do you really not think Hitler and Stalin did not have constant communication ?! They used their militaries to invade Poland and divide the land . It's sad that only two individuals can have control that lead to the millions of deaths that came about . Hitler has the superior military but Stalin had the over whelming number of people that he was willing to sacrifice besides having the aide from American and England which he manipulated ...... Cold war .
German generals not understanding the difference betweel local war in a harsh terrain and total war in open territory of thousands of kilometers with total mobilization look like complete incompetent idiots.
Alexander Seven when a tiny, under equipped army can trounce the Soviets, it really does suggest that the larger, better equipped German one ought to do excellently. And for the most part, they were right.
No it doesn't suggest and the germans only had the succes they did in 41 because the Red army was completely un prepared.The soviets where going through a massive expansion and reorganization.The experienced officers where killed in the purges, but the worst part was the introduction of commisars, because of it.Now any soviet officer was always second guessed by a party guy that had little to no military training.Thus most officers where under constant stress and didn't had the freedom they needed to work efectively.You know what happened when the comisar part eneded ? The Red army encircled the 6th at Stalingrad.As soon as the Red army was past the initial shock, put their war production in gear and started learning the hard way to fight a modern war, the Germans stop doing so "excellently" and started getting handed defeat after defeat on all fronts.
The thing was that the length of the campaign refined the Red Army’s command. Weak and incompetent leaders were weeded out. Basically competent Generals like Zukhov came through. And they were all that was needed considering their vast reserves of manpower.
David Glantz is a great military historian who specializes on the Soviet Union during WWII. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Glantz If you get the chance, I'd highly recommend his book "Armageddon in Stalingrad". If you're studying the Soviet Union in WWII in the English language, it's tough NOT to read a book that he had a hand in writing.
Excellent presentation. Just a couple of points....Napoleon DID "conquer" Spain. Where he failed was NOT invading Portugal as well. This allowed the British a base of operations that allowed Wellington to repeatedly campaign into Spain, always retreating when superior French forces would gather; and defeat his Spanish and Portugese allied elements. Eventually he prevailed AFTER the Russian disaster. The French withdrew and Wellington pursued into France. Yet for all the years of the "Peninsular Campaign"; the French occupied the vast majority of the country. Secondly re: Germany vs Russia in WW1; by late 1916 the Russian Army was comparably equipped in comparison to it's German opponents and superior to Germany's Austro-Hungarian Allies. The Brusilov Offensive of 1916 pretty much finished off the Austrian Armies on the Eastern Front and forced Germany to refocus it's attention there. It then took Germany not quite two years to knock Russia out of the war. The Germans achieved this not by grand sweeping strtegic offensives; but with sharp overwhelming attacks against targets the Russians would fight to regain. The Germans then defensively slaughtered the Russian counter-attacking armies. Once the counter attacks were exhausted, the Germans would move forward again. Essentially the Russians kept feeding themselves into a German woodchipper. That coupled with the huge casualties from early in the war caused the Russian morale; civilian and military, to collapse. It should be noted that the French Army came within a hair's breadth of the same fate during the mutinies following Nivelle's catastophic "offensive" in early 1917. So how does all this tie into 1941?? Hitler and the vast majority of his generals were primarily veterans of the Western Front in WW1. The area they fought in was not only small relative to the enormity of Russia; it was also before the war one of the most densely developed areas of Western Europe. Other than industrial England or the North Eastern seaboard of America, it had the most concentrated rail net in the world. The Ruhr was less than two hundred miles from the front. Shells made one day could and were fired the next. The German quartermaster ( I wanna say Warlimont??) repeatedly warned to no avail that the Smolensk-Vyazma AO was as far as Germaan forces could be supported in a single season. That no-one at OKW/OKH seemed to understand or care that Russia has SIX seasons not four: Summer, MUD, frost, Winter, frost, MUD, Summer led them to believe they had more time to accomplish Barbarossa than they did in fact. While Hitler wanted a short single campaign for political reasons...Militarily it was just not possible barring a regime collapse by Stalin and co. Obviously we'll never know what the result would have been with a more rational war plan. One that would have had the Wehrmacht aiming for a "Winter Stop Line" and a two/two and a half year campaign. A Wehrmacht that in 1942 unwrecked by the disasterous post Raputista lunge toward Moscow and one that wintered over in prepared positions... Would have faced a Red Army in 1942 still ill equipped to resist a renewed German onslaught. Hitler repeatedly asserted "One good kick would bring it all crashing down"... And absent that morale collapse??? That road leads to Stalingrad and annihilation.
It was Massena not Soult who invaded Portugal in 1810. Wellington's pre-constructed defensive works along the high ground near the village Torres Vedras, giving the lines their name, frustrated his attempt and the ensuing hunger and disease damn near destoyed his army. This enabled Wellinton to enter Spain for good in 1811 as French re-inforcements were unavailable. To return to Barbarossa... Recently revisionist historians, like Glantz and Stahel (both of whom I've read extensively), have posited specific points at which the campaign failed. Citino, in a videoed lecture, who has written more broadly on the Wehrmacht in WW2 jokingly said "At it's conception"... Citino for whatever other flaws some find in his works, I believe, has the right of it in this case. Hitler thought the very act of invasion would cause the Soviet regime to disintegrate along with it's frontline armies deployed so conveniently in the jaws of what became an enormous German opening pincer. What Hitler and the OKW/OKH failed to appreciate was the sheer numbers of Russian reservists. Whereas the Wehrmacht due to Versaille restrictions had few if any classes to call up... the Soviet Union had over 15 years worth. Granted the equipment would hardly be what the Wehrmacht considered modern... yet again and again whole armies appeared just when it seemed the way at last was clear. As Stalin once famously remarked; "Quanitity has quality of it's own". They slowed the Wehrmacht long enough for weather to wreak havoc on the German's fragile logistics; and then Hitler completed the disaster by insisting on the fatal last lunge forward. It is a myth the German's lacked winter clothing; it was there... in warehouses stacked to the ceilings, 300 miles to the rear.. They simply made a choice to ship ammunition and supplies for that last fateful "kick", rather than the winter equipment the troops would need so desperately when the frost became a blizzard. Much has also been made of Hitler's "Stand Fast" order during the Russian onslaught that first winter, many claiming it "saved" the Wehrmacht. Hitler went so far as to remark it was just as cold 50 miles to the rear. This is laughable. In 1941 the Soviet Army, like it's German counterpart was tied to the railheads for logistic support. It would not be until late 43, early 44 that tens of thousands of American Lend Lease 21/2 ton all terrain trucks would give them the mobility for an operational pursuit. Had the Wehrmacht broken contact, difficult to be sure, at the onset of the Soviet counter-offensives in front of Moscow....All the ludicrously convoluted salients that wasted enormous manpower could/would have been avoided. Not only that, but a withdrawal of 100 miles would have put them close to the point the German reconstuction of the rail lines had progressed. I've seen all kinds of estimates for "non-combat" casualties suffered by the Wehrmacht in that first winter; ranging as high as 500,000 total.That I believe is excessive. Yet the fact is; the vast majority comprised combat arms veterans that were literally irreplacable, particularly the infantry and their NCO's and Jr. Officers. The author of this video has another concerning German readiness at the start of 1942 and divisions available for "Fall Blau". In it he estimates only 25% of all German infantry formations were available for sustained offensive operations. Again I believe that number is low, but not by that much. For the rest of the war German operations would be plagued by lack of infantry. Which led to, by neccessity, an over-reliance on poorly trained and equipped "allied" armies; Rumanian, Italian and Hungarian, with fatal results.
hitler once said, "we have only to kick in the door the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.” they kicked in the door, walked in, and the structure crashed down on them and killed them 😂😁😁😁😂😂😂
"in response to the Russian response to the German surprise attack" meaning the German Werhmacht had predicted the Red Army would go over to the offensive despite a specific German Campaign strategy designed specifically and pretty much only for said contingency as "The Plan." Once the Soviet Stavka executed select Generals for cowardice in the face of the enemy the Red Army indeed went over on to the offensive and indeed right into a multitude of German Wehrmacht traps ("couldron Battle"). Was this a mistake too? No one argues Nazi Germany would not attack Russia in 1941. No one.
Excellent video. They are all good, but this one is the clearly the best so far. It is a shame that you can not receive academic credit for it somehow. It is probably of better quality in research and presentation than most Masters' theses.
This video and channel is so refreshing in the sense that it dives deep into the nuts and bolts of the eastern front amongst various other incidents when what you typically see is just a collage of black and white videos and a narrator. Well done!
“Under no circumstances go to war with Russia” Last warning words of Otto von Bismarck on his deathbed. “This will not end well” Fd. Marshall Gerd von Rundstedt at the beginning of BARBAROSSA
Bismark died 15 years before WW1, during that war as this video states the eastern front was not Germany's biggest problem by far. All the considerations that Bismark could have done about balances of power, technology, industrialization etc were completely different by WW2 so his reasoning should not be applied so far in the future.
@@dr.lyleevans6915 that was my point too. He said that however during ww1 Germany proved that Russia could be defeated, it's unfair to apply his warning only when they work, so far later and in so different settings
Well it sure did not end well to the Germans, they beat Russia but lose the war since Russia also played a role as a distraction and Russia did well against Austria. If Russia were neutral at that time, Germany and Austria could just steamrolled France
@@leclec6169 There is a good bit of difference between "under no circumstances go to war on two fronts at the same time" and "under no circumstances go to war with Russia". As the numbers in the video shows, a WW1 with only central powers vs Russia, even without Turkey, would have been a much quicker affair at least if capitulation and not occupation was the purpose.
Really good overview of this, and for the most part I agree with everything you put down. If we continue to leave execution aside, I think the trouble people have when looking at this at a glance is that the core idea of invading the USSR in 1941 wasn't stupid, but there were too many warning factors which were stupidly ignored. Germany knew the USSR was huge and had huge manpower, which if leveraged could be terrifying in power if not exactly efficient (e.g. WW1's Brusilov Offensive). Of course, if the Red Army was horribly undisciplined and disintegrating this might not matter, but military planners should have been aware that if anything will get an army to fight hard and industry to mobilize it will be defence against invasion. While Stalin's purges certainly left the Red Army with a lack of expertise, it should have been clear if the USSR survived long enough this expertise would start to return through experience. As for Napoleon, I don't think a 1:1 comparison is important so much as the Grand Army's plight should have been an example to make sure you get things like logistics and planning for the climate right if trying to invade anywhere as large and harsh as the USSR. In short, while the idea of invading the USSR in 1941 was not inherently stupid, not thinking through what would happen if the USSR didn't collapse in the first year was at very least short sighted and probably stupid. Perhaps stupid is the wrong word here, and maybe 'arrogant' is the best fit.
By the time invasion of Soviet Union started, Germany had already accumulated baggage of wrong decisions on multiple levels and their success was contingent upon enormous blunder by Stalin - discarding British warnings. Had USSR avoided first strike, withdrew in order and focused on limited, buth overwhelming preemptive strike near Baltic coast (to avoid) German's spectacular success would already be blunted.
@@piotrd.4850After the attack there is a rumour that Stalin wouldn't believe it and went into his chamber for a few days. When he came out Germany invaded hundreds of miles. Stalin thought that Germany wasn't that dumb to invade. On the other side a German victory was not that far away. In Leningrad literally no Russian forces were left. Moscow was close to being invaded and Stalingrad was was too much a focus for Hitler. Together with some other mistakes made earlier it's not impossible Germany would have won this war.
There’s a lot misplaced to history and atleast the people who wrote it; and Germany/ Hitler believed that at some point in the near future Russia would invade Germany and with all of the soldiers, equipment, amassed on the western border that was formerly Poland maybe he was correct.. but going into the war with tanks that where under gunned and not being strategically clear with his generals and field Marshall’s about the reich’s necessities for victories while also helping Italy in Africa and in Italy the army that occupied Norway it was just a lot to try and manage.
10:28 mentioning anti-communism and racism in the same way like it was done here implies that anti-communism is bad. No, it is not only not only it is necessary. Communism killed more people than Hitler, The Spanish Flu and Napoleon combined
14:00 but war never changes. By the way the claims of lay people in the subject can easiliy be identified by their common structure of short and absolute statements such as: X is stupid. And do not deserve such a researched response. However i am glad you did it anyway for the betters among the audiance.
I would disagree. I think that simply turning one's nose up at people who are ignorant is a waste, and simply ensures that such ideas continue to propagate. And I think the best way to deal with people who are ill-educated or misinformed about a subject is to educate them properly, with contextualized discussion on the matter at hand. Showing the reality of the situation, why things were the way they were, and reminding people of what was known then compared to what is known now, has a much better chance at convincing people to understand and see things from your point of view.
Excellent analysis, MHV! Since I've just gone to the trouble of addressing the 'Lebensraum' theory in reply to someone's comment, I'll post my reply here as a stand alone comment: Given the existing strategic situation, the idea that Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 in order to satisfy an ideological imperative framed in his writings of 1923 is simply fantastic. This assertion has long been a standby for the low-information/'Hitler was just crazy' set. The truth is that Hitler's decision to attack the Soviet Union was very much based on the pressing strategic realities of the time. Germany did not possess the air and naval resources necessary to knock the British out of the war, although the desired peace arrangement with Britain hovered seemingly within reach at various junctures. As the conflict against Britain dragged on, the potential for an opportunistic Soviet action against Germany loomed uncomfortably large. When the Soviet Union seized two provinces in northern Romania (Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, arguably 'reclaimed' by the Soviets, having formerly been part of the Russian Empire) Hitler deemed the writing to be on the wall; this Soviet move highlighted the vulnerability of the Romanian oilfields that were essential to the long term survival of the German Reich. On the latter point, Hitler actually said as much in a candid recorded conversation (possibly recorded accidentally) with Finland's Marshal Mannerheim. The mere fact of the size of Soviet armoured forces, which in 1940/41 outnumbered in tanks the combined tank forces of ALL the world's armies, would have been impossible to overlook for ANY German government, Hitler or no. For a behind the scenes look at the shaping of German foreign policy during the 1930s and WW2 see Rudolf von Ribbentrop's ‘My Father, Joachim von Ribbentrop: Hitler's Foreign Minister, Experiences and Memories'. This important book, only recently available in English, has been largely ignored, for reasons that become obvious with the turn of each page. The 'lebensraum' theory of why Hitler invaded the Soviet Union is fairly convincingly debunked by the author, in his own words and those of his father. Interestingly, A.J.P. Taylor, in his absorbing work 'The Origins of the Second World War', describes the Soviet strategic threat to Germany quite succinctly (pages 256-257), framed by the last minute negotiations between Voroshilov and the French and British military missions that arrived in Moscow late in August, 1939. The inability of the French and British to assure the Soviets of free passage via northern Poland in order to get at Germany in the event of war was a sticking point. The Soviets instead bought time by concluding an arrangement with Germany, as is well known. From page 257: 'It was their intention, in case of war, to fling armoured columns into Germany, regardless of German attacks elsewhere. This remained their intention even in 1941; and they were prevented from putting it into operation only by the fact that Hitler attacked them before they were ready'. One must bear in mind that the latter was written by a former Communist and life-long Russophile, a man whose anti-German views were so virulent that the British public took exception to his on-the-air fulminations AT THE HEIGHT OF THE WAR, leading to his being sacked by the BBC!
Ribbentrop was a fool。Nothing that champagne salesman had to say is of any significance whatever：＂Hitler did all the talking，so he never noticed Ribbentrop＇s babbling。＂
I think you misunderstand the lebensraum principle by taking its literal translation. It was about enslavement and theft of production in order to repay the industrialists who’d backed Hitler’s bond issues. This was seen in the conquered nations in the west by the simple installation of puppet governments and fixed exchange rates. It was nothing to do with “more space for the German people.”
I read your comment and would point out the rather obvious that it was quite standard for post war popular historians to ride the anti-communist bandwagon by suggesting the war was to be blamed on the Soviets. Secondly you seem to have missed one point in your selective quote mining. The phrase you chose to overlook was “in case of war” which in most people’s minds would simply mean when Germany attacked (as it did, as it always planned and as was inevitable) the Soviet response would be to strike with their own forces into Germany - a plan which palpably failed to materialise. The fact is the war was an ideological war secondly and an economic war firstly. Germany had issued bonds which were eagerly bought, not just inside Germany but around the world, despite the buyers knowing they were financing Hitler’s rearmament program. A program with no prospect of enabling those bonds to be honoured save by conquest providing cheap labour and plundered materials - as was proved to be the case. You may notice your theory of the origins of the war are somewhat speculative and based on a quote or two whereas mine is based on the facts of what actually happened as a result of Germany’s conquests. Lest you still choose to ignore the facts you could perhaps check out the legal threats still rumbling over Dawes Bonds and Young bonds which were the US issues.
That was how the Nazi ideology became so successful. When Hitler gained power, most people didn't trust him (he only had 30% of the votes, which were for the party, not for him personally). Then he started delivering on his promises (using all means necessary, even if they weren't feasible in the long run ), then he delivered quick and decisive victories. By that point even Hitler started to believe his own bullshit.
8:59 That's because the purge's effect was rather limited when compared to the fact that the Soviet army went from 0.5 million in 1935 to 3 million in 1939, which meant having an overstreched officer corps. In fact most problems of the USSR during the early WW2 can be atributed to an overstreched officer corps, as the Soviet conscription system puts most of the stress on its officers and NCOs for controlling the units.
You mean more stress on its officers. All militaries rely on their officers, it's just that some militaries rely on their officers more than others. The Russian system, at least in its later post WW II form, relied almost exlusively on its officers since it lacked a true NCO corps like those found in Western miliaties. Most NCOs in the Soviet military were conscripts chosen early on in training and sent to special Sgts. schools to become instant NCOs and, more often than not, had no more experience than many of those of lower rank than them.
Varis, Podemos they were also rotated out regularly. There were large numbers of men trained to NCO levels who weren't 'in the army' to maintain compliance with the limitations on their military size. There's a MHV video for that ;)
"The very poor performance of the Red Army convinced Hitler that an attack on the Soviet Union would be successful. In June 1941, Hitler declared, 'we have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down".
Germany was using so much fuel in only 6 weeks of fighting in Europe, it was not possible for Hitler to continue his campaign anywhere for that matter and plan on winning. In the beginning of WWII Romania was Hitler's primary source of petrol but even with them giving every last drop to the German forces it was nowhere near enough. The German war machine was bleeding to death from the start.
@@sebclot9478 Yes it is. If you look about how they focus on railways and wagons, and how many offensive lines along the time 41/3-42/2-43/1-44/0 you see they was lacking of mobilty (or oil).
@@TheKarofaar and lif3andthings, no it isn't. They launched the largest invasion in history that covered half a year and an area as large as Europe. They also spent the next two years launching major offensive operations while fighting on THREE fronts. Yet despite all of this, its your position that they wouldn't have been able to overrun the British in North Africa? Rommel almost did it with the measly table scraps he was given and probably would have succeeded without American intervention. A small fraction of Barbarossa's resources would have allowed Rommel to drive to Suey EASILY and then into the middle east, where German friendly regimes and oil was waiting for them. Clearing out Malta and Gibraltar would have made the Mediterranean a German lake. Now the British are in REAL trouble without the Russian Army to help them. This strategy also opens up resources for the U-boat war, which was still VERY effective in 1941. From there, the Germans have several options. Bring the Soviets into the Axis, focus on the U-boat war, perhaps force a peace with the British. Hell, they could even invade the Soviet Union from a position of greater strength. Now they could attack through the Caucuses and put the major Soviet oil field out of action right away.
@@sebclot9478 Cuple of things: The only save port to suez was tripoli. So the supply line consumes 100% more fuel only reposting the oil trucks. More personal in africa means another 100% cost. And i say more, more boats are more losses in the maritime line. And all of that for taking some oil to move them to germany to convert...that will cost a los of transport and time to make pipelines to ports, so a strong effort to maby in 1year inimum eggining to restore the oil inversion in transport. Nice. In other hand, tunis was a fkn stronghold and they fail defending. With much more troops and withowt moving. So is more about time, that about if hitler was wheels would be a lamborghini. In third hand, you didn't say anything about the reality about the germans km in eastern europe was reduced drastically year after year. So even in the magical assault in 42 in africa, you will beggin to recieve some oil in late 43 in orther to recover what you lost sending shit to the desert. And only in 44 they will have some profit in case that US didn't kick them with his mighty army and navy... just in time to defend bagration and maby not losing one million men in the east, but losing them defending the oil line. What a strategy man. I don't know why 80million germans didn't think about that plan in those days.
absolutely amazing video. i found the first one so informative so this is great to see. one thing that i wonder abound is how everyone saw all this failure, and forgot to translate it into experience. that the red army fought as well as it did with its head cut off says something about the mid rank and lower officers.
The army managing to fight well with only middle and lower ranking officers fits in with the idea that an orchestra does not really need a conductor: something that has been tried in Russia. Not something that management theorists are keen on!
The Soviet soldiers were slaughtered as P.OW. it became not just a war to save the Motherland, but a fight for the very survival of the Russian people.
I'm a new subscriber and I have to say that your videos, especially this one, open my eyes to things I never have thought even after extensive reading about the Second World War. Thank you for what you do.
22 minutes of learning about WWII from a guy with a badass accent. What’s not to love? Edit: Just noticed that we should disregard Womble because he’s an anomaly.
My Grandpa was seventeen when the war begun in 1941. He told me that nobody had a doubt that we will take over a German's attack in few months, no more. Seems like everybody had own point of view.
So you grandfather was a russian soldier and he wasnt told that they would be immediately annihilated by the enemy? I wonder why. Seems like it would be incredibly motivating to tell your soldiers, "Well sonny boy, you are fucked! We are gonna get destroyed immediately. So go out there and give your life". A single soldiers perspective and what their commanders told them means absolutely nothing
@@JosephStalin-io5fp He survived the first winter of the siege in Leningrad, surrounded by Finns and Germans, and then was evacuated, lay in the hospital with exhaustion, and than fought to victory. His mother did not survive the blockade.
@@anatoly_trifonov In fact im not. You are obviously just completely blinded by your own country's and old soviet propaganda. Its always funny to me when someone who is completely historically illiterate has the audacity to call out someone else. Read a book and then come back to me.
Just a few comments on a well researched and presented video. Montgomery, Eisenhower, and MacArthur stated during the war that an invasion of the Asian mainland should never be made because of the logistical difficulties presented by central Asia regards the offensive operations of a large modern army. I agree that the 1812 and the 1941 invasions were inherently different but the logistical difficulties faced by each invasion force were quite similiar. If the Polish and Winter wars, the Russian civil war, the Revolution, and WWI demonstrated anything it was the near infinite capacity of the Russian army and people to survive in adversity, their unwillingness to give up, and their willingness to inflict pain on themselves rather than give in. Once the German intent in the east became evident; that is, once German troops began to systematically kill Sov citizens, civilians turned on the Germans. Having spent several months in the former USSR working in the early 1990s, I came to believe that the Sovs were capable of sustaining near-infinite personal discomforts and struggles while still managing to survive. These people were simply used to living in at a level of personal discomfort that would be impossible for a western European or North American to sustain for more than a few weeks. Once, it became clear that the Germans weren't liberators but murderers, the Sov people were never ever going to surrender. Facing near impossible levels of partisan sabotage and extremely difficult weather and terrain, the fears of the three Allied commanders became manifest. We must bear in mind that after 1941, the Germans weren't just fighting the Sov army; they were fighting the entire population of the USSR west of the Urals and the difficult environmental, geographical, and topographical realities present in the vastness of the European east. All of these issues were obviously understood by Montgomery, Eisenhower, and MacArthur during the war.
Military History Visualized. Something I shall never ever forget. I was working in a city of 300,000. Public water was not potable, water was available 3 days a week, hot water was available for 3 hours Saturday afternoon. This was in 1994 in what was arguably a first world nation, with a world class military. Huh? I pointedly asked a bunch of my friends why they tolerated such incompetence. There response was to shrug their shoulders and say what can we do? If we complain, we might end up in a nameless Siberian city--if we're lucky. It's better to just persevere and hope things will improve. Any nation that goes to war with a people possessing that point of view is in serious trouble.
That was a few hundred years before, the situation in Europe had drastically changed, Russia was a backwards, outdated and weak country at the start of the 20th century, and the Soviets were just coming out of ww1 and a civil war
@@peterkropotkin4129 from where did you get your data about "outdated and weak russia" when Ludendorf himself said to kaiser that if he wants a war he needs to start it now in 1914, coz at 1917 russia will outproduce germany in everything. Russia was vast and therefore badly organized but she was not outdated at all. Only less developed than germany
@@mikolajtrzeciecki7979 but they kicked everyone’s ass, even forcing Poland Lithuania or Denmark out of the war, but with their wins they got greedy and attacked Russia, during one of the coldest ever winters.
I enjoyed the video, very informative, adding great perspective. Also, love the umlauts on the word "Shörtcomings," (time 21:47) somehow, it just looks right. I think it adds dignity and majesty to an otherwise overlooked word. :)
Very interesting video! I kinda disagree, though, regarding the ideological component in western powers' vision of the USSR: just as it happens today with any closed, diplomatic pariah country, the information that arrived to western countries was mostly reports and critiques from people fleeing the country or political opposition. That strongly contributed to the idea that surgical attacks against the main industrial and political spots in the country could make it collapse easily: a rough 90-95% of the sources anybody could and WANTED to read in the west was based on the idea that Soviet people were prisoners of a brutal regime and would gladly open their gates to whoever "freed" them. Ironically enough, that was an important part of French defeat: by 1939 the III Republic was on the verge of political collapse (parlamentary debates on weaponary and rearming policies of the 1936-1939 period defy any rational analysis), and that strongly contributed to the country surrendering after Paris fell, and after the "national hero who will save us" decided that it was better to fight socialists than Germans. This is an oversimplification, of course, but I guess you can get the point. This is also the reason why, when appointed 1st minister, Churchill invested a lot of time and effort in propaganda campaigns, cinema, negotiations with labour unions etc., since it was clear to him that lack of social cohesion had, in the end, costed the French the war. And, retaking my point before, many thought this would also be the case with the USSR. Now we know they were wrong. Based on the info you could get in London in 1940, unless you went to soviet propaganda, it was almost impossible to know the truth. It can be considered one of these cases where your propaganda ends up convincing yourself, instead of convincing your enemy.
Maybe you could do a video of Charles XII invasion of Russia , to find the similarties and differences of the wars in russian soil. Sorry for my bad English
I don't know much about the Napoleonic wars, but in WW2, people in the Soviet Union were fighting for their country's survival and their own. That has a huge effect on motivation, not only of the soldiers, but also of the workers in the (munition) factories. There is nothing that unites people more than a common threat. Edit: but I know that views on mass psychology were different at the time.
Exactly. Germans were amazed by the stubbornness of the Russians. Germans had a great moral but the Russians were on the same level. Hitler made the people follow him because he gave them what they wanted, mostly. But following Stalin is something else. This was pure surviving.
Good discussion (as always). Love the humor as well. The other major consideration that you have touched on elsewhere is the need for oil. There was nowhere for Germany to go than the Caucuses. And the time was urgent. Sometimes you have to play the cards you are dealt (granted the Nazi regime built their hand and the German aristocracy/big business enabled them). Great points on the western powers view of pre-war Russia. And as usual, the western powers just did not take into consideration that Russia would not nor could not adapt. Planning on static situations is disastrous.
Wasn't the USSR providing oil to Germany since they were a semi-Axis member prior to Barbarossa? I think this is where this logic fails. Secure the easier target for oil (Middle East) from the British and then go after Russia once all of that is done.
Best idea I've heard about this discussion is by Vizzini in "The Princess Bride": "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." Me: "It always ends badly!".
There are two important overlooked factors regarding this question: 1.the stability of the soviet society 2.the size of the american land lease program
It's an enjoyable state of affairs when historians with shared interest audit each others' channels. In the best cases this leads to some very entertaining collaborations, such as those between MHV and The Great War, Bismarck, et al (TGW is rife with worthy segments using MHV, C&Rsenal, and others, to observe certain points with more powerful lenses). We fans are like that, too. We eagerly seek out useful historical presentations and analyses in order to improve our focus on these fascinating matters. It is a beautiful new age for this endeavor, now that most of the well distributed accounts are readily available online. Reading as many of these as possible puts us all on a more or less level playing field, philosophically speaking. That, in turn, makes the resulting discussions all the more interesting and entertaining and that, I feel, is the ultimate purpose here.
In 1941 Germany had 3,500 Tanks and the USSR had 27,000 Tanks for a Ratio of 1 to 8. A strategy of "Let's wait & see" by Germany would have been fatal. In 1942 the USSR produced an additional 14,300 Tanks to Germany's 4,000. A Soviet Armored thrust into Romania in 1941 by 27,000 Soviet Tanks would have taken Germany's ONLY supply of Oil, thus knocking both Germany and Italy out of the War by early 1942. France would have been beaten too and the Iron Curtain would gone up in the summer of 1942.
1. The USSR produced more tanks than Germany. But at the same time it produced fewer trucks, heavy shells, armored personnel carriers, submarines, industrial machines, etc. No country uses 100% of its tanks in a military operation. 2. The percentage of Romanian oil in Germany's fuel balance (in 1940) was 21%.
It is a very compelling argument. The soviet union was extremely incompetent at the start of the war and it was only after years that they regained their strength. Something like the 5 biggest encirclements of all time were performed at the very start of operation barbarossa. Sometimes even up to 600k soviet soldiers in one go. No wonder the germans thought the soviets were incompetent, because they definetely were
@@user-jq2iz9zn4p There is no denying that the Soviet Union was incompetent at the very least before the war and most likely for the first couple of months (even years) of the invasion. Granted they did turn it around completely by the end of the war, but that was with huge losses in manpower and production plus an ungodly amount of help from the west.
A fight between Germany and the Soviet Union was inevitable, even without a German invasion. The Soviet Union would have waited for the Normandy invasion, "liberated" Poland and then straight into Germany. The post war map would be almost identical, perhaps with more (or all) of Germany under Soviet control.
You dismiss the Mediterranean strategy too fast. That was a viable option, air assets were good and there was no need for such a large Navy as against the UK.
@@jhomariquit7444 that was a viable plan with Lufftflotte 4 based on Crete and Malta taken early ... especially with oil discovered in Libya that would have covered all German+Italian oil needs. Suddenly Romania is less important and Stalin can get more stuff in Eastern Europe and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is not broken but the Soviets start to gravitate towards the Axis especially after the Allies bomb Baku. If that happens, Soviet oil makes it to Japan in 1940 and there is no need for Japan to strike at the US. Pearl never happens, Britain is isolated and its dominion is carved up between the Japanese, Russians and Italian/Germans it is ejected from the Med and the West Coast of Africa is gradually occupied. The Azores becomes a sub base and Britain is blockaded far more efficiently ... the US ramps up the land-lease but grabs British islands and territories as it sees Britain inevitably falling to pieces. The US remains out of the war because it cannot project power across two contested oceans at the same time ... German air power eventually outclasses Britain and Britain sues for peace losing most of its colonies. A new cold war starts where Eurasia is the leading power in the world.
13:00 Where the parallel really falls down is that Hitler wanted conquest. Napoleon was simply trying to get Russia's promise to stick to the boycotts of Britain that Napoleon wanted. Before and during the invasion Napoleon was constantly contacting the Czar, crying that he hated warring against his friend, couldn't Russia PLEASE just stick to the boycott and let's be friends again. But given the war, Napoleon's real problem was just being 4-5 days late in establishing a winter camp. Had the weather held out less than a week longer things would have been different. 2) He was really excellent at logistics and command, but made the mistake of going in with too many men to command personally, and 2-3x more than he could really supply. He'd have been better off with half the soldiers. People don't realize, though that the Russian losses were fairly comperable to Napoleon's. As soon as Napoleon realized the Russians had burnt down Moscow to deny it to him as a winter base, he should have turned around and marched out.
My older brother was a Cobra/Apache pilot stationed in West Germany in the late 80s. Watching your TH-cam videos, I can see why he wanted to live in Western Germany. His spoiled American wife made him return to the United States.
Such Clarity. I take it a lot of academics knew this already, but you have done a great service to make it digestible and clear for the plebs. I always knew there was something fishy about the conventional portrayal, but this explanation is hard to fault. Looks like the Russian's threw two sixes to pull it off.
Soviet performance even more so impressive if you take into account that manufacturing capacity of France, Germany, Austria, Czechia, Poland, and all other countries captured by Germany, they all were working toward war effort against USSR. Bulgarian, Italian and Romanian soldiers fought alongside Germans in Russia. All those US/UK estimates were largely base on misinformation from Germany that people in USSR hate the government and will upraise as soon as some invasion starts. But that was as far away from the truth as it can get. 16 year old kids were fixing their papers to get signed up for army. People volunteered to give their valuables to build a tank or a cannon. Old men joined volunteer battalions to defend their cities. Partisans lived in ground holes in forests to constantly disturb supplies. Read about Kovpak
@kiril marinov does this count? - However, despite the lack of official declarations of war by both sides, the Bulgarian Navy was involved in a number of skirmishes with the Soviet Black Sea Fleet, which attacked Bulgarian shipping.
Rasputitsa. It bogged down the Mongols. It bogged down Napoleon. It bogged down the Nazis. Weather is by far the biggest defensive advantage Russia has ever had in traditional warfare. Winter is often mentioned but few ever mention the far less dramatic mud. The vastness of Russia is of course another massive time killer. Thank you for making videos!
The Germans thought that Soviet roads would be paved, and that they'd capture more Soviet trains and thus be better able to make use of the Soviet railroads. On top of that the Germans thought that the Russians would collapse like in February and March 1918, so that the intense logistical demands of combat would go away and the logistical system would only need to support the lighter demands of occupation duty.
I’ve studied this for a while, and it is my opinion that had the executed it different, they really may have taken over the Soviet union. They came so close.
Really so close?? Napoleon took Moscow.. and after that realized that the victory was as far as it was when he just crossed the border - nowhere in sight.. A lot of German commanders write that all/most captured soviet soldiers told them that the people will keep fighting even if Germans get to the Ural Mountains 🤷♂️ A lot of German soldiers realized that they lost even during the summer month of 1941, when they witnessed things like 3 soldiers attacking mechanized division on the march and fighting till the end..
I wonder if there had been too much objectives to take at the same time. We know that there were three army groups that were tasked to take Leningrad, Moscow and the Caucasus. If Army Group North abandoned Leningrad and strengthen Stalingrad, would Fall Blau had a chance to succeed? of course this is just hypothetical but I wonder how the soviet will react?
I often wonder if the plan should’ve been Leningrad & Stalingrad. That’s where they got land-lease imports. Army Group Center could’ve, should’ve been more a decoy to occupy numbers.
@@cedricbeard894 Leningrad didn't recieve anything. At least I haven't heard anything about transports, sailing through waters where the Kriegsmarine holds superiority delivering supplies to a city under siege.
@@projectpitchfork860 I could’ve sworn the siege of Leningrad failed because the USSR was still supplying the city ... Similar to Stalingrad, in which, the USSR was still supplying the via Volga River.,
Really enjoyed this thoughtful video. BUT,...The real question is this: If Germany & Russia meet in the 2018 World Cup, AND if Germany wins, AND if they play in Volgograd, does that mean the Germany finally conquered "Stalingrad?"
Lmao exactly, the Russians were tuff but they are no match for artillery rounds😂 and Germans had no good clothes for winter and were getting frostbite then Stalin called in troops from the Siberian front especially trained for fighting in the cold and that’s when Germany started getting their asses kicked bad
Hitler invaded the Soviet Union for the OIL and food. His generals didn't follow his orders and thus much time was wasted. Hitler's emphasis was the Ukraine and the OIL FIELDS not Moscow. Hitler knew before Barbarossa that he needed to capture the oil fields if he was to have any chance of winning the war. Much of Hitler's logistics were HORSE DRAWN and he had a LOT of infantry. Thus those two could not keep up with the mechanized units. Hitler was told by his chief of logistics prior to Barbarossa that the logistics system could support the attack for about 500 kilometers. It was NOT the Russian winter that stopped the Panzers it was the fall and then spring thaws that did that when the roads turned to deep mud. The Russians learned from the early attacks. It was German tactics not equipment that allowed them to get so far into Soviet territory so quickly. Combined Forces operations such as the Germans used were something the Soviets, the Allies and the U.S.A. all had to learn during WW2.
As soon as you begin to underestimate your enemy and overestimate yourself - you've already lost. Hitler's racial theory was one of the main reasons for his defeat. Obviously we are not inferior, our people were no worse than the German people in all aspects, you know that there were great Russian inventors, great Russian generals and commanders, great Russian physicists and mathematicians, great Russian artists and composers, great Russian writers and poets, great Russian chess players were the best in the world etc. You know about the rich Russian culture and language, which is more complex than German. For historical and geographic reasons Russia was a poorer and less developed country with a less educated population in general than in Germany, and Hitler had already started talking about racial inferiority? How ignorant can a leader of a nation be?
It’s not just the one leader, racial discrimination is a potent addiction it seems for many in all corners of the world Also I enjoy the shoutout to Russian chess players
The Germans were hardly the only ones who thought like that just about everyone believed in Eugenics and that was the main reason for a lot of that kind of thinking.
All so well told! To this day the West looks at Russia as some Asiatic backwarded country and are always surprised when a Russian wins a gold at the Olympics or beats the USA in hockey, etc. etc.
What was "just stupid" for the National Socialists was invading Poland and having Great Britain declare war, AND then embargo all oil going to Europe. There was the mistake that cost Germany the war. By 1941, Germany seemed to be unaffected by the embargo, but the Wehrmacht's supply chief said they only had oil until October 1941 once Barbarossa began, and lo and behold, Germany ran out of gas in October before the walls of Moscow.
Funny thing about the lottery is even if you have a time machine and have those winning numbers because of the random nature of the lottery the winning numbers would be different.
Y'know, rewatching this video tonight something occurs to me. A few years back I was thinking of visiting Europe. My parents who lived in Germany for awhile told me that something I'd likely be really surprised by was how small and close everything was compared to the US, and that basically the European countries were basically the size of US states. I wonder if that's a big part of what happened with Operation Barbarossa in reverse. Yes, most people know that geography really helped the USSR in WWII, but what if it's more than that? Did German leadership bring Euro-centric ideas and assumptions of warfare, distance, and logistics to a theater of war where they wouldn't work? Was Germany preparing to fight a European war rather than an Asian land war? You can see all the maps and make all the plans you want, but it's something else entirely to experience it firsthand for the first time. Ultimately I guess this question is one for a military historian but it'd be a very interesting sub-point in the failure of Barbarossa as to exactly how much of a part underestimating distances and logistical challenges may have played versus other factors
@Hugo Pointillart Nobody in the US underestimates Russia. Hell, half the country thinks Russia controls the elections!!! They've been living in fear of Russia since 1945.
While I agree that the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was a bad decision for the Germans, it is only one of several things that I could see that would need to have happened for WWII to have turned out considerably differently. 1. Knock out Britain first. Following the Battle of France, Hitler may have believed that the Continent was clear. However, by failing to annihilate the military threat from Britain, he left a dagger pointed at Germany's back, both in allowing for continuous bombing raids on Germany industry and by giving the Americans an easy European jumping off point. Without Britain, any American war effort would have to make a transatlantic amphibious invasion, a prospect that would have been almost impossible. However, as noted in a previous video and briefly touched on in this one, carrying out Operation Sealion, the amphibious invasion of England, was largely beyond Germany's capabilities early in the war. This factor could perhaps have been mitigate by... 2. Do not waste your surface warships. One thing that has always vexed me when considering Germany's movements in the early stages of the war was their naval policies, chiefly that of using their heavy cruisers and battleships not as strategic assets against the Royal Navy, but as commerce raiders, a job for which they were wholly unsuited. A much smarter strategy would have been to consolidate their surface fleet in and around the North Sea, making use of both German home ports and Norwegian fjords among other safe-ish anchorages, keeping all capital ships in the same general area but separated enough that the whole fleet could not be wiped out by bombers or commando raids. This would mean such things as not sending the Deutschland-class pocket battleships into the South Atlantic, still carrying out the breakout from Brest but with a clearer idea of what to do with those battleships once they returned home, and perhaps most importantly cancelling Exercise Rhine and not losing the Bismarck as well as waiting until the Tirpitz was complete. Even if all of Germany's pre-war naval strength hypothetically survived, and even better if they were able to successfully capture the remnants of the French Navy, it likely wouldn't have been enough to take on the British and/or Americans. But if used in support of an amphibious landing, both for shore bombardment, anti-aircraft protection, and fending off the Royal Navy, essentially a reverse D-Day, Operation Sealion may have stood a much greater chance of success in 1942 once suitable landing, transport, and glider fleets had been developed and constructed. Meanwhile, the Battle of the Atlantic would have been carried out much more effectively had Germany relied more heavily on their U-boats and their auxiliary cruisers and armed merchant ships, a replay of the strategy that garnered moderate success during the First World War. If nothing else, it would have resulted in Germany's surface warships being put to actual strategic use rather than a vital war asset being squandered in the opening stages on tasks for which they were useless. 3. Make allies with the Soviets, not enemies, at least for now. This I realize was likely not diplomatically feasible without the aid of hindsight, but the fact is that Germany needed the Soviet Union and more specifically its oil. Even with the capture of the Romanian oilfields early on, Germany's demand for oil was vastly more than it could ever supply. That is the biggest reason I think their invasion of Russia was a stupid move as it antagonized if not an ally then at least a vital trade partner. Without Soviet oil, Germany was doomed, it's as simple as that. A far better strategy would have been to invade and defeat Britain, secure Spanish territory, render US efforts at European intervention impotent, and then, and only then, even consider turning against the Soviets. To do so any earlier, to cut off Soviet trade while Britain is still a threat and the Americans can still use Britain as a staging ground, and while Germany industry is still being crippled by British and American bombing raids, was to me one of the leading strategic factors in the ultimate outcome of the European front of the war.
sirrliv I agree on your Opinion about the Usage of the surface fleet but you have to add that the Kriegsmarinr should have its own airwings under its command to activly cover the ships not being deployed after they are bombed like what happened to Tirpitz
Perhaps, but that runs the risk of spreading air power too thin, and taking aircraft away from the Battle of Britain, which absolutely had to neutralize British air power, at least in the southeast, for any amphibious invasion to be possible. The advantage of spreading the main capital ships between multiple ports is that even if the British managed to make a successful bombing run, no easy task as also exemplified by the Tirpitz, which survived several bombing attempts and was only finally put down by a hail mary play of a high-altitude grand slam bomb release, something nobody thought would actually work, only one or a few capital ships would be destroyed or damaged. For most circumstances, I believe that bulked up anti-air batteries and the ships' own anti-air defense, aided by early warning from picket ships beyond the harbor mouth, would be sufficient to deal with most direct bombing threats. Fighters should only be stations to guard the surface fleet where it is logistically viable for them to do so; knocking out the RAF is the primary priority, using aircraft to defend the battleships should be secondary.
sirrliv several Air wings where already assigned to Fleet air cover but the problem of slow response due to being under different branches leads to friendly fire and lack of communication would delay the Intel collected by recon planes scouting for enemy large ships escorting convoys as an example . And in my opinion if Germany managed to build 5 Light Cruisers(Nurnberg Class) 14 Destroyers(Zerostorer1934) 3 Battleships(Scharnhorst Class) and 6 Heavy cruisers(Hipper Class) and converted their two old pre-WW1 Battleships into two Carriers instead of U-boats they could keep the RN fleets on Search and Destroy missions luring them close to norway where they would be in Air strike range would cripple the british ships and the German task force I mentioned before would come and finish them and Also to maintain this operation they need as you said to secure the oil trade with the USSR, By doing this with a force of 3 heavy cruisers raiding Convoys the UK will not be able to deploy all its ships as it might suffer Fuel shortages
It's certainly an interesting hypothesis, but I would be inclined to question if Germany would have the resources to launch such a large scale naval construction program even if Hitler could be convinced to do so. The invasion of Norway and France would help, but Germany's native steel production was terrible throughout the war, and warships need a crap-ton of steel. They also take a long time to build, up to years in peacetime and I shudder to think how much slower in wartime. Also, I could be wrong, but if memory serves Germany effectively didn't have any pre-WWI battleships to convert since they surrendered their entire high seas fleet to the British as part of the 1918 Armistice; they may have kept a few, since one, ex-SMS Schleswig-Holstein, kicked off the whole war when it steamed into Danzig and started shelling everything, but they would be a rare resource, and not one well suited to carrier conversion given their low freeboard and generally small size (by large warship standards); the Schleswig-Holstein for example was only half the length of the one carrier Germany did try to build, the Graf Zeppelin. A better idea if you wanted carriers would have been to convert an ocean liner, which are already long enough and have a high enough freeboard. But given the geography of the European front I think having a carrier at all would be unnecessary as German aircraft would be near enough to friendly airfields practically anywhere they were stationed. I do agree that putting fighter wings under the direct command of the Kriegsmarine would have been a better idea for more rapid defense; cut out the middle man of communicating between military branches that often had poor relations. Lastly however, alarm bells are raised for me in proposing doing anything that would take away from U-boat construction. As I said in my original post, surface capital ships are virtually useless as convoy raiders as they are too large, too easily spotted, and too valuable to lose to destroyer or air attack. The best weapon against the convoys would be U-boat wolfpacks, long-range aircraft, and *maybe* merchant ships converted to auxiliary cruisers. Surface warships should be saved and hoarded for when they are really needed; fending off the RN during a German amphibious invasion; not even defeating the RN, which they had very little chance of doing anyway, but keeping them busy long enough to get the troops ashore and on their way to London.
sirrliv German 1. steel production was indeed in a bad shape but even with that problem they could have built them lets say those ships are laid down in 1938, the Scharn.. class(two were built) is more affordable and practical than the Bismarck class(two were built) so building 3 of them would spare 10,000 tons of Steel which is enough for an extra Hipper Class Cruiser(they built 5) Light Cruisers can be multiroled so can replace destroyers , for the Carriers seydlitz was nearly finished from being converted to a carrier and there was Europa the largest passenger ship of that time that they started but abandoned the conversion, the naval variants of planes were already ready for testing (Bf109T,Ju87,He100)by 1942 they would be ready keep in mind that there is no barbarossa in this scenario but the german command was confused they did a bit of everything instead of concentrating on a single Doctrine they were between Fleet in being doctrine and trade interdiction doctrine and same goes for their Air doctrine FYI german battleships were well suited to convoy raiding as they are as fast as a cruiser nearly 32 knots withain battery range of 23km they could get out of visual and radar range easily provided with air cover (im talking about the Gneisegnau and scharnhorst) the Bismarck and Tirpitz should have been deployed alongside screening ships to support the surface raiders when detected from norway. 2.ASW developed faster than the Uboats I consider them a waste of resources and manpower runing on a battery for 2 hours at a speed of 9 knots submerged which means that any radio messages from sunk merchant ship would give the enemy a small search area as you can't get too far before they arrive.
I know this is 2 years old, but this is a top shelf video. Excellent info basing it on German perspective of operations, rather than analyzing specific battles without proper context. Well done. I am not sure if you've covered the fuel situation. An improved, mechanized army on a scale untested in large scale combat meant calculations for fuel, maintenance, and mechanical issues was underestimated based on the performances in the western campaign. German fuel and oil problems were the biggest driving force pushing them, gambling on a quick German win in the East restoring rapidly depleting oil, food, and fuel on all fronts. Operation Barbarossa was not stupid, it was the only strategic option. Germany could not continue the war with the resources available to them on the scale they were already committed to and could not turn back underestimating the distance and huge problems getting fuel to the eastern front. They completely underestimated and gambled. Hail Mary - Either they go east for resources, or definitely lose the war by attrition in a matter of months. Same outcome. Wehrmacht army command was aware of this .....
The aspect of this video essay that I take objection to is the degree to which it assigns rationality primacy to the process of Nazi decision-making, and it reminds me of TIK (2/19/18) doing much the same by grafting an economic determinist model (over oil) to why the Nazis invaded the USSR. It's not so much that this sort of analysis is wrong as far as it goes; instead, it puts the cart ahead of the horse. What's left is a hollow thought exercise by what it doesn't give voice to. First and foremost, the Nazi state was an ideological racist/colonial actor that afforded rationality an ancillary role as a means to achieve an end. What's more, rationality was the first casualty when it became inconvenient to Nazi irrational subjectivities. In broad strokes, the Nazi invasion of the USSR was a foregone conclusion in Hitler's mind going back to the 1920s and subsequently developed-articulated all through the 1930s. In this broader context, rational considerations only served to establish within the Nazi military-state apparatus a firm window for an invasion launch date. Great Britain's surrender or not, low oil reserves or not, a "house of cards" economy or not, Stalin purges or not, quick Soviet success in Finland or not, Nazi German was ALWAYS going to invade the USSR. While I subscribe more to a "how the Allies won WW2" narrative than the commonplace TH-cam Naziphile "how the Nazis lost the war" one, it's naive to look at things through a binary lens. The primary reason that the USSR won the Nazi-Soviet war was that Stalin did not lose power in 1941; hence, the superiority of his totalitarian state military-industrial complex versus his opponent soon became manifest. On the other hand, if I had to identify the greatest "failure" of the Nazi state, it was the racist strategic war aims of ANNIHILATION. "Annihilation warfare" requires TOTAL DEFEAT to bring about the intended enslavement, ethnic cleansing, or eradication of "sub-human" life. While the discussion of Soviet peace feelers in 1941 is problematic, Nazi war aims (and the vile character of the guy they ELECTIVELY went to war with) only afforded the outcomes of total victory or total defeat: A "rational settlement" was never a possibility, no matter how unlikely that Stalin would bite at an offer. That speaks to a larger truth that was the core impulse that drove this catastrophically disappointing generation of Germans off a cliff and into the maw that became the unstoppable Soviet war machine. The choice for the invasion was always one of madness, never rationality.
I thought that for many years: Why not hit fast and take them first and foremost? However: Since the Soviets wrecked the facilities during the time of Fall Blau, it's reasonable to assume they would have done the same at the time of Barbarossa. Besides, as one historian pointed out -I don't remember who, maybe Beevor or Keegan - the Germans actually had no viable means of transporting any meaningful quantity of oil to Germany or other well-secured Axis territories; even if the oil fields had been captured intact. Remember, they didn't even have enough trucks or tractors to haul their artillery pieces, let alone tens of millions of litres of oil. And a rail or pipeline was not feasible due to massive numbers of partisans.
That makes alot of sense however the Germans were really desperate, even though it was a long shot, it was the best chance the Germans had to get more oil as Middle-Eastern oil wasn't as developed yet.
The great problem, is that the Soviet Union was just waiting for the right moment to invade Germany. Hitler caught them with his pants down, and could have arrived in the Caucasus in time had it not been for the Italians in Greece...
@@paulvonhindenburg4727 It was a bunch of squabbling east slavic principalities... ... who united against the Mongol threat and still lost. Though the Mongols were used to life in cold deserts and tundra so the usual strategy of burning shit before they got there didn't work. Also armies in the middle ages aren't as large and didn't require as much logistical support as they did even in the 19th century. The Mongol horde was huge, but it was spread out and they were very self reliant.
![[Barbarossa] The Major Errors and Blunders - Or why Barbarossa Failed](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A_3R-Rkn_98/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Barbarossa] The Major Errors and Blunders - Or why Barbarossa Failed](/img/tr.png)
Want to support the channel? There is patreon.com/mhv and more books means better sourced videos and less time wasted with libraries.
Military History Visualized Happy June 22nd :)
Now. Question. Could Napoleon have invaded Britain?
about Napoleon invading Britain: I answered that already on my second Channel quite a while ago :D th-cam.com/video/NYuCPTkO-B4/w-d-xo.html
Damned if they did, damned if they didn't.
Military History Visualized I think you will appreciate this video with additional sources on the topic that are not in your video.
As a longtime subscriber and a military officer i appreciate the video thank you.
"With hindsight, even winning the lottery is easy"
This should be the introduction of every history debate and article.
Yes!! Well said.
@@sillyk6688 Not quite. In 1941, they nearly made it into Moscow. Then they decided to go after Kiev. Had they stayed committed to their original plan..
@Marek Tužák Paris was not taken. If you don't know how it really happened, you probably don't know much at all. Your comment is a vibrant testament to the pride of ignorance and I'll leave it at that.
@Marek Tužák Yeah right, too late for that. Just go fuck yourself.
@Marek Tužák relax, is just a wehraboo
"I hate war. One never knows how it will turn out." - Otto von Bismarck
Otto and Sun Tzu were related.
@@jimmiller5600 no shit. We all are.
@@theemperor-wh40k18 No, we all are not
@@jimmiller5600 They are NOT related. One is a western germanic and the other is an asian
@@catholicracialist776 they're still both humans,meaning they ARE related,idiot,just like how we're all related
"Russia is never so strong or so weak as do you think" Von Clausewitz
alejandro casalegno the only people that can defeat the Russians are the Russians
@@ronsee6458 Russia is a history of self-destruction and reborn.
@@ronsee6458 have you never heard of the mongols?
lmac7633 Russia didn’t exactly exist as the concept of ‘Russia’ at that point.
@@linkluver_izn nice excuse, still the same people
"Everybody has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth. "
Mike Tyson
Dale Martin even tho it is from a boxer from a certain point of view it works very well when talking about the war with the Soviet’s.
One sentence: Lack of oil
- TIK history
@@arsenal-slr9552 Call the carebear police
@@arsenal-slr9552 Bill Clinton hasn't been President for years you silly.
@@arsenal-slr9552 Not to mention an ignorant, not too bright, bigot and overall asshole.
A revisit to one of your best videos. Excellent job!
Griff
Hi bro
How you doin
@@Farquad76.547 off
Who knew that you watch Military History Visualized. You and MHV are two of my favorite history channels!
Germans and Russians are best friends as long as they don't have common border.
easy deism ahahaha
gosh darn pewdiecancer.
Poland - the peace keeper? Sounds right!
@easy deism shut up
Why poland and Ukraine exists. Along with three little kingdoms.
I love how the French underestimated the USSR while they got beaten up in a matter of weeks
The French were well known for hundreds of years as having this mighty military. The French being defeated as quickly as they did was a major blow to the moral of any country that stood in Germany’s way
@@rsears78 the French would have been a better ally than ltaly
If the USSR was the size of France they wouldve capitulated even earlier
The French are arrogant but the Russian ( government ) are the most evil of leaders in history in my opinion . Do you really not think Hitler and Stalin did not have constant communication ?! They used their militaries to invade Poland and divide the land . It's sad that only two individuals can have control that lead to the millions of deaths that came about . Hitler has the superior military but Stalin had the over whelming number of people that he was willing to sacrifice besides having the aide from American and England which he manipulated ...... Cold war .
Mike McGomer anyone would cry that when they are about to die
“The first casualty of any battle is the plan of attack.”
― Cory Doctorow, For the Win
After the Winter War, I don't blame the Germans for being optimistic!
German generals not understanding the difference betweel local war in a harsh terrain and total war in open territory of thousands of kilometers with total mobilization look like complete incompetent idiots.
Alexander Seven when a tiny, under equipped army can trounce the Soviets, it really does suggest that the larger, better equipped German one ought to do excellently. And for the most part, they were right.
No it doesn't suggest and the germans only had the succes they did in 41 because the Red army was completely un prepared.The soviets where going through a massive expansion and reorganization.The experienced officers where killed in the purges, but the worst part was the introduction of commisars, because of it.Now any soviet officer was always second guessed by a party guy that had little to no military training.Thus most officers where under constant stress and didn't had the freedom they needed to work efectively.You know what happened when the comisar part eneded ? The Red army encircled the 6th at Stalingrad.As soon as the Red army was past the initial shock, put their war production in gear and started learning the hard way to fight a modern war, the Germans stop doing so "excellently" and started getting handed defeat after defeat on all fronts.
The thing was that the length of the campaign refined the Red Army’s command. Weak and incompetent leaders were weeded out. Basically competent Generals like Zukhov came through. And they were all that was needed considering their vast reserves of manpower.
You are wrong to think only manpower wins the day.
"A short Glantz at Soviet performance" I see what you did there.
I don't, would you please explain?
David Glantz is a great military historian who specializes on the Soviet Union during WWII.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Glantz
If you get the chance, I'd highly recommend his book "Armageddon in Stalingrad". If you're studying the Soviet Union in WWII in the English language, it's tough NOT to read a book that he had a hand in writing.
Oh, okay. Thank you for the quick answer!
Man I'm glad I saw your comment lol. It seemed like such a glaring mistake considering he pretty much never misspells words.
I cracked up when I saw that; knowing who Glantz is, I recognized a great pun!
Excellent presentation. Just a couple of points....Napoleon DID "conquer" Spain. Where he failed was NOT invading Portugal as well. This allowed the British a base of operations that allowed Wellington to repeatedly campaign into Spain, always retreating when superior French forces would gather; and defeat his Spanish and Portugese allied elements. Eventually he prevailed AFTER the Russian disaster. The French withdrew and Wellington pursued into France. Yet for all the years of the "Peninsular Campaign"; the French occupied the vast majority of the country. Secondly re: Germany vs Russia in WW1; by late 1916 the Russian Army was comparably equipped in comparison to it's German opponents and superior to Germany's Austro-Hungarian Allies. The Brusilov Offensive of 1916 pretty much finished off the Austrian Armies on the Eastern Front and forced Germany to refocus it's attention there. It then took Germany not quite two years to knock Russia out of the war. The Germans achieved this not by grand sweeping strtegic offensives; but with sharp overwhelming attacks against targets the Russians would fight to regain. The Germans then defensively slaughtered the Russian counter-attacking armies. Once the counter attacks were exhausted, the Germans would move forward again. Essentially the Russians kept feeding themselves into a German woodchipper. That coupled with the huge casualties from early in the war caused the Russian morale; civilian and military, to collapse. It should be noted that the French Army came within a hair's breadth of the same fate during the mutinies following Nivelle's catastophic "offensive" in early 1917.
So how does all this tie into 1941?? Hitler and the vast majority of his generals were primarily veterans of the Western Front in WW1. The area they fought in was not only small relative to the enormity of Russia; it was also before the war one of the most densely developed areas of Western Europe. Other than industrial England or the North Eastern seaboard of America, it had the most concentrated rail net in the world. The Ruhr was less than two hundred miles from the front. Shells made one day could and were fired the next. The German quartermaster ( I wanna say Warlimont??) repeatedly warned to no avail that the Smolensk-Vyazma AO was as far as Germaan forces could be supported in a single season. That no-one at OKW/OKH seemed to understand or care that Russia has SIX seasons not four: Summer, MUD, frost, Winter, frost, MUD, Summer led them to believe they had more time to accomplish Barbarossa than they did in fact. While Hitler wanted a short single campaign for political reasons...Militarily it was just not possible barring a regime collapse by Stalin and co. Obviously we'll never know what the result would have been with a more rational war plan. One that would have had the Wehrmacht aiming for a "Winter Stop Line" and a two/two and a half year campaign. A Wehrmacht that in 1942 unwrecked by the disasterous post Raputista lunge toward Moscow and one that wintered over in prepared positions... Would have faced a Red Army in 1942 still ill equipped to resist a renewed German onslaught. Hitler repeatedly asserted "One good kick would bring it all crashing down"... And absent that morale collapse??? That road leads to Stalingrad and annihilation.
Napoleon did invade Portugal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Portugal_(1807)
As his general (Soult??) utterly failed; I believe the correct phrase is "attempted to invade"...
Then failing to invade Portugal was not an error. Failing to succeed was. It gets all the great generals in the end.
It was Massena not Soult who invaded Portugal in 1810. Wellington's pre-constructed defensive works along the high ground near the village Torres Vedras, giving the lines their name, frustrated his attempt and the ensuing hunger and disease damn near destoyed his army. This enabled Wellinton to enter Spain for good in 1811 as French re-inforcements were unavailable.
To return to Barbarossa... Recently revisionist historians, like Glantz and Stahel (both of whom I've read extensively), have posited specific points at which the campaign failed. Citino, in a videoed lecture, who has written more broadly on the Wehrmacht in WW2 jokingly said "At it's conception"... Citino for whatever other flaws some find in his works, I believe, has the right of it in this case. Hitler thought the very act of invasion would cause the Soviet regime to disintegrate along with it's frontline armies deployed so conveniently in the jaws of what became an enormous German opening pincer. What Hitler and the OKW/OKH failed to appreciate was the sheer numbers of Russian reservists. Whereas the Wehrmacht due to Versaille restrictions had few if any classes to call up... the Soviet Union had over 15 years worth. Granted the equipment would hardly be what the Wehrmacht considered modern... yet again and again whole armies appeared just when it seemed the way at last was clear. As Stalin once famously remarked; "Quanitity has quality of it's own". They slowed the Wehrmacht long enough for weather to wreak havoc on the German's fragile logistics; and then Hitler completed the disaster by insisting on the fatal last lunge forward. It is a myth the German's lacked winter clothing; it was there... in warehouses stacked to the ceilings, 300 miles to the rear.. They simply made a choice to ship ammunition and supplies for that last fateful "kick", rather than the winter equipment the troops would need so desperately when the frost became a blizzard.
Much has also been made of Hitler's "Stand Fast" order during the Russian onslaught that first winter, many claiming it "saved" the Wehrmacht. Hitler went so far as to remark it was just as cold 50 miles to the rear. This is laughable. In 1941 the Soviet Army, like it's German counterpart was tied to the railheads for logistic support. It would not be until late 43, early 44 that tens of thousands of American Lend Lease 21/2 ton all terrain trucks would give them the mobility for an operational pursuit. Had the Wehrmacht broken contact, difficult to be sure, at the onset of the Soviet counter-offensives in front of Moscow....All the ludicrously convoluted salients that wasted enormous manpower could/would have been avoided. Not only that, but a withdrawal of 100 miles would have put them close to the point the German reconstuction of the rail lines had progressed. I've seen all kinds of estimates for "non-combat" casualties suffered by the Wehrmacht in that first winter; ranging as high as 500,000 total.That I believe is excessive. Yet the fact is; the vast majority comprised combat arms veterans that were literally irreplacable, particularly the infantry and their NCO's and Jr. Officers. The author of this video has another concerning German readiness at the start of 1942 and divisions available for "Fall Blau". In it he estimates only 25% of all German infantry formations were available for sustained offensive operations. Again I believe that number is low, but not by that much. For the rest of the war German operations would be plagued by lack of infantry. Which led to, by neccessity, an over-reliance on poorly trained and equipped "allied" armies; Rumanian, Italian and Hungarian, with fatal results.
Tru dat...LOL
hitler once said, "we have only to kick in the door the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.”
they kicked in the door, walked in, and the structure crashed down on them and killed them 😂😁😁😁😂😂😂
"in response to the Russian response to the German surprise attack" meaning the German Werhmacht had predicted the Red Army would go over to the offensive despite a specific German Campaign strategy designed specifically and pretty much only for said contingency as "The Plan." Once the Soviet Stavka executed select Generals for cowardice in the face of the enemy the Red Army indeed went over on to the offensive and indeed right into a multitude of German Wehrmacht traps ("couldron Battle").
Was this a mistake too? No one argues Nazi Germany would not attack Russia in 1941.
No one.
well it did eventually, 50 years later, just not by Germany, and not in 1941.
@vjal go away and learn history.
@vjal th-cam.com/video/sbim2kGwhpc/w-d-xo.html
@magicblanket People forget the Germans beat the Russian in WW 1
Excellent video. They are all good, but this one is the clearly the best so far. It is a shame that you can not receive academic credit for it somehow. It is probably of better quality in research and presentation than most Masters' theses.
thx, well, I have already two Masters ;) in one of them in History.
Military History Visualized show off
And the second one would be communication? :) Just sayin- you are good at it!
cybermbebe I believe its computer science.
Nunya Bznz Yeah, fuck the history channel.
This video and channel is so refreshing in the sense that it dives deep into the nuts and bolts of the eastern front amongst various other incidents when what you typically see is just a collage of black and white videos and a narrator. Well done!
“Under no circumstances go to war with Russia” Last warning words of Otto von Bismarck on his deathbed.
“This will not end well”
Fd. Marshall Gerd von Rundstedt at the beginning of BARBAROSSA
Bismark died 15 years before WW1, during that war as this video states the eastern front was not Germany's biggest problem by far.
All the considerations that Bismark could have done about balances of power, technology, industrialization etc were completely different by WW2 so his reasoning should not be applied so far in the future.
Theophrastus Bombastus To be fair, also, Germany beat Russia in the very next war after Bismarck said this
@@dr.lyleevans6915 that was my point too. He said that however during ww1 Germany proved that Russia could be defeated, it's unfair to apply his warning only when they work, so far later and in so different settings
Well it sure did not end well to the Germans, they beat Russia but lose the war since Russia also played a role as a distraction and Russia did well against Austria. If Russia were neutral at that time, Germany and Austria could just steamrolled France
@@leclec6169 There is a good bit of difference between "under no circumstances go to war on two fronts at the same time" and "under no circumstances go to war with Russia". As the numbers in the video shows, a WW1 with only central powers vs Russia, even without Turkey, would have been a much quicker affair at least if capitulation and not occupation was the purpose.
Really good overview of this, and for the most part I agree with everything you put down. If we continue to leave execution aside, I think the trouble people have when looking at this at a glance is that the core idea of invading the USSR in 1941 wasn't stupid, but there were too many warning factors which were stupidly ignored.
Germany knew the USSR was huge and had huge manpower, which if leveraged could be terrifying in power if not exactly efficient (e.g. WW1's Brusilov Offensive). Of course, if the Red Army was horribly undisciplined and disintegrating this might not matter, but military planners should have been aware that if anything will get an army to fight hard and industry to mobilize it will be defence against invasion. While Stalin's purges certainly left the Red Army with a lack of expertise, it should have been clear if the USSR survived long enough this expertise would start to return through experience. As for Napoleon, I don't think a 1:1 comparison is important so much as the Grand Army's plight should have been an example to make sure you get things like logistics and planning for the climate right if trying to invade anywhere as large and harsh as the USSR.
In short, while the idea of invading the USSR in 1941 was not inherently stupid, not thinking through what would happen if the USSR didn't collapse in the first year was at very least short sighted and probably stupid. Perhaps stupid is the wrong word here, and maybe 'arrogant' is the best fit.
By the time invasion of Soviet Union started, Germany had already accumulated baggage of wrong decisions on multiple levels and their success was contingent upon enormous blunder by Stalin - discarding British warnings. Had USSR avoided first strike, withdrew in order and focused on limited, buth overwhelming preemptive strike near Baltic coast (to avoid) German's spectacular success would already be blunted.
@@piotrd.4850After the attack there is a rumour that Stalin wouldn't believe it and went into his chamber for a few days. When he came out Germany invaded hundreds of miles.
Stalin thought that Germany wasn't that dumb to invade.
On the other side a German victory was not that far away.
In Leningrad literally no Russian forces were left. Moscow was close to being invaded and Stalingrad was was too much a focus for Hitler.
Together with some other mistakes made earlier it's not impossible Germany would have won this war.
There’s a lot misplaced to history and atleast the people who wrote it; and Germany/ Hitler believed that at some point in the near future Russia would invade Germany and with all of the soldiers, equipment, amassed on the western border that was formerly Poland maybe he was correct.. but going into the war with tanks that where under gunned and not being strategically clear with his generals and field Marshall’s about the reich’s necessities for victories while also helping Italy in Africa and in Italy the army that occupied Norway it was just a lot to try and manage.
10:28 mentioning anti-communism and racism in the same way like it was done here implies that anti-communism is bad. No, it is not only not only it is necessary. Communism killed more people than Hitler, The Spanish Flu and Napoleon combined
14:00 but war never changes.
By the way the claims of lay people in the subject can easiliy be identified by their common structure of short and absolute statements such as: X is stupid. And do not deserve such a researched response. However i am glad you did it anyway for the betters among the audiance.
I would disagree. I think that simply turning one's nose up at people who are ignorant is a waste, and simply ensures that such ideas continue to propagate. And I think the best way to deal with people who are ill-educated or misinformed about a subject is to educate them properly, with contextualized discussion on the matter at hand. Showing the reality of the situation, why things were the way they were, and reminding people of what was known then compared to what is known now, has a much better chance at convincing people to understand and see things from your point of view.
Excellent analysis, MHV! Since I've just gone to the trouble of addressing the 'Lebensraum' theory in reply to someone's comment, I'll post my reply here as a stand alone comment:
Given the existing strategic situation, the idea that Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 in order to satisfy an ideological imperative framed in his writings of 1923 is simply fantastic. This assertion has long been a standby for the low-information/'Hitler was just crazy' set. The truth is that Hitler's decision to attack the Soviet Union was very much based on the pressing strategic realities of the time. Germany did not possess the air and naval resources necessary to knock the British out of the war, although the desired peace arrangement with Britain hovered seemingly within reach at various junctures. As the conflict against Britain dragged on, the potential for an opportunistic Soviet action against Germany loomed uncomfortably large. When the Soviet Union seized two provinces in northern Romania (Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, arguably 'reclaimed' by the Soviets, having formerly been part of the Russian Empire) Hitler deemed the writing to be on the wall; this Soviet move highlighted the vulnerability of the Romanian oilfields that were essential to the long term survival of the German Reich. On the latter point, Hitler actually said as much in a candid recorded conversation (possibly recorded accidentally) with Finland's Marshal Mannerheim. The mere fact of the size of Soviet armoured forces, which in 1940/41 outnumbered in tanks the combined tank forces of ALL the world's armies, would have been impossible to overlook for ANY German government, Hitler or no.
For a behind the scenes look at the shaping of German foreign policy during the 1930s and WW2 see Rudolf von Ribbentrop's ‘My Father, Joachim von Ribbentrop: Hitler's Foreign Minister, Experiences and Memories'. This important book, only recently available in English, has been largely ignored, for reasons that become obvious with the turn of each page. The 'lebensraum' theory of why Hitler invaded the Soviet Union is fairly convincingly debunked by the author, in his own words and those of his father. Interestingly, A.J.P. Taylor, in his absorbing work 'The Origins of the Second World War', describes the Soviet strategic threat to Germany quite succinctly (pages 256-257), framed by the last minute negotiations between Voroshilov and the French and British military missions that arrived in Moscow late in August, 1939. The inability of the French and British to assure the Soviets of free passage via northern Poland in order to get at Germany in the event of war was a sticking point. The Soviets instead bought time by concluding an arrangement with Germany, as is well known. From page 257: 'It was their intention, in case of war, to fling armoured columns into Germany, regardless of German attacks elsewhere. This remained their intention even in 1941; and they were prevented from putting it into operation only by the fact that Hitler attacked them before they were ready'. One must bear in mind that the latter was written by a former Communist and life-long Russophile, a man whose anti-German views were so virulent that the British public took exception to his on-the-air fulminations AT THE HEIGHT OF THE WAR, leading to his being sacked by the BBC!
Ribbentrop was a fool。Nothing that champagne salesman had to say is of any significance whatever：＂Hitler did all the talking，so he never noticed Ribbentrop＇s babbling。＂
Excellent commentary couldn't have said it better myself
I think you misunderstand the lebensraum principle by taking its literal translation. It was about enslavement and theft of production in order to repay the industrialists who’d backed Hitler’s bond issues. This was seen in the conquered nations in the west by the simple installation of puppet governments and fixed exchange rates. It was nothing to do with “more space for the German people.”
@@annoyingbstard9407 I haven't 'misunderstood' anything. I invite you to re-read my comment.
I read your comment and would point out the rather obvious that it was quite standard for post war popular historians to ride the anti-communist bandwagon by suggesting the war was to be blamed on the Soviets. Secondly you seem to have missed one point in your selective quote mining. The phrase you chose to overlook was “in case of war” which in most people’s minds would simply mean when Germany attacked (as it did, as it always planned and as was inevitable) the Soviet response would be to strike with their own forces into Germany - a plan which palpably failed to materialise.
The fact is the war was an ideological war secondly and an economic war firstly. Germany had issued bonds which were eagerly bought, not just inside Germany but around the world, despite the buyers knowing they were financing Hitler’s rearmament program. A program with no prospect of enabling those bonds to be honoured save by conquest providing cheap labour and plundered materials - as was proved to be the case.
You may notice your theory of the origins of the war are somewhat speculative and based on a quote or two whereas mine is based on the facts of what actually happened as a result of Germany’s conquests.
Lest you still choose to ignore the facts you could perhaps check out the legal threats still rumbling over Dawes Bonds and Young bonds which were the US issues.
3:15: "The Germans were a bit over-optimistic in starting to believe their own bullshit"! 🤣
That was how the Nazi ideology became so successful. When Hitler gained power, most people didn't trust him (he only had 30% of the votes, which were for the party, not for him personally). Then he started delivering on his promises (using all means necessary, even if they weren't feasible in the long run ), then he delivered quick and decisive victories. By that point even Hitler started to believe his own bullshit.
@@scratchy996 Sounds like Bush and the Neocons in the early 2000s.
Also, see Suvarov "icebreaker", and McKeekin "Stalins War"
Sorry Germany... Russia is "Too big to fail". За здоровье!
@@notabene7381 It is so fun.
I love this channel, how well you guys analyse sources and how reasonable your own opinions are on top of it
Great video! Love how taking hindsight out and inserting at the time knowledge. Changes the whole look of this decision.
8:59 That's because the purge's effect was rather limited when compared to the fact that the Soviet army went from 0.5 million in 1935 to 3 million in 1939, which meant having an overstreched officer corps. In fact most problems of the USSR during the early WW2 can be atributed to an overstreched officer corps, as the Soviet conscription system puts most of the stress on its officers and NCOs for controlling the units.
You mean more stress on its officers. All militaries rely on their officers, it's just that some militaries rely on their officers more than others. The Russian system, at least in its later post WW II form, relied almost exlusively on its officers since it lacked a true NCO corps like those found in Western miliaties. Most NCOs in the Soviet military were conscripts chosen early on in training and sent to special Sgts. schools to become instant NCOs and, more often than not, had no more experience than many of those of lower rank than them.
Basically that.
Yeah, but the Wehrmacht increased 50 fold from 0.1 in 1933 to 5 million in 1939.. No big problems..
Those 0.1 were overtrained, they were basically all officers.
Varis, Podemos they were also rotated out regularly. There were large numbers of men trained to NCO levels who weren't 'in the army' to maintain compliance with the limitations on their military size. There's a MHV video for that ;)
"The very poor performance of the Red Army convinced Hitler that an attack on the Soviet Union would be successful. In June 1941, Hitler declared, 'we have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down".
"This will be quicker than French Campaign" LOLOLOLOLO
..as long as US does NOT enter the war🧐
Germany was using so much fuel in only 6 weeks of fighting in Europe, it was not possible for Hitler to continue his campaign anywhere for that matter and plan on winning. In the beginning of WWII Romania was Hitler's primary source of petrol but even with them giving every last drop to the German forces it was nowhere near enough. The German war machine was bleeding to death from the start.
This is not accurate.
@@sebclot9478 Yes it is
@@sebclot9478 Yes it is. If you look about how they focus on railways and wagons, and how many offensive lines along the time 41/3-42/2-43/1-44/0 you see they was lacking of mobilty (or oil).
@@TheKarofaar and lif3andthings, no it isn't. They launched the largest invasion in history that covered half a year and an area as large as Europe. They also spent the next two years launching major offensive operations while fighting on THREE fronts. Yet despite all of this, its your position that they wouldn't have been able to overrun the British in North Africa? Rommel almost did it with the measly table scraps he was given and probably would have succeeded without American intervention. A small fraction of Barbarossa's resources would have allowed Rommel to drive to Suey EASILY and then into the middle east, where German friendly regimes and oil was waiting for them. Clearing out Malta and Gibraltar would have made the Mediterranean a German lake. Now the British are in REAL trouble without the Russian Army to help them. This strategy also opens up resources for the U-boat war, which was still VERY effective in 1941.
From there, the Germans have several options. Bring the Soviets into the Axis, focus on the U-boat war, perhaps force a peace with the British. Hell, they could even invade the Soviet Union from a position of greater strength. Now they could attack through the Caucuses and put the major Soviet oil field out of action right away.
@@sebclot9478 Cuple of things: The only save port to suez was tripoli. So the supply line consumes 100% more fuel only reposting the oil trucks. More personal in africa means another 100% cost. And i say more, more boats are more losses in the maritime line. And all of that for taking some oil to move them to germany to convert...that will cost a los of transport and time to make pipelines to ports, so a strong effort to maby in 1year inimum eggining to restore the oil inversion in transport. Nice.
In other hand, tunis was a fkn stronghold and they fail defending. With much more troops and withowt moving. So is more about time, that about if hitler was wheels would be a lamborghini.
In third hand, you didn't say anything about the reality about the germans km in eastern europe was reduced drastically year after year. So even in the magical assault in 42 in africa, you will beggin to recieve some oil in late 43 in orther to recover what you lost sending shit to the desert. And only in 44 they will have some profit in case that US didn't kick them with his mighty army and navy... just in time to defend bagration and maby not losing one million men in the east, but losing them defending the oil line.
What a strategy man. I don't know why 80million germans didn't think about that plan in those days.
Have now been following you for some time and must say how great of a job you do! My ww2 club now watches your vids as a part of our meetings lol.
WW2 Club? Where are you!!!
Short glance or Glantz? I see what you did there.
absolutely amazing video. i found the first one so informative so this is great to see. one thing that i wonder abound is how everyone saw all this failure, and forgot to translate it into experience. that the red army fought as well as it did with its head cut off says something about the mid rank and lower officers.
The army managing to fight well with only middle and lower ranking officers fits in with the idea that an orchestra does not really need a conductor: something that has been tried in Russia. Not something that management theorists are keen on!
The Soviet soldiers were slaughtered as P.OW. it became not just a war to save the Motherland, but a fight for the very survival of the Russian people.
They just got the same treatment they gave out to the Poles, etc. They were still just as bad as the Nazis.
how very Dostoevsky. once morals go out the window, everyone regresses into the basic rules of kill or be killed.
this was a brutal war, everybody commited war crimes
@@ItsLunaRegina Who are you arguing against?
@@mammi7699 nice false equivalences you got there
Soviet "Disregarded Anomaly" Womble returns I see.
SaltySeabiscuit Womble watches MHV. You can check it out in his channel's subscriptions
I'm a new subscriber and I have to say that your videos, especially this one, open my eyes to things I never have thought even after extensive reading about the Second World War. Thank you for what you do.
Whut so u get into the content but cant think out of the box? .-.
whydoievenbothertoputthisher troll gonna troll
22 minutes of learning about WWII from a guy with a badass accent. What’s not to love?
Edit: Just noticed that we should disregard Womble because he’s an anomaly.
My Grandpa was seventeen when the war begun in 1941. He told me that nobody had a doubt that we will take over a German's attack in few months, no more. Seems like everybody had own point of view.
Did ur grand father stayed in one of german occupied territories?
So you grandfather was a russian soldier and he wasnt told that they would be immediately annihilated by the enemy? I wonder why. Seems like it would be incredibly motivating to tell your soldiers, "Well sonny boy, you are fucked! We are gonna get destroyed immediately. So go out there and give your life". A single soldiers perspective and what their commanders told them means absolutely nothing
@@JosephStalin-io5fp He survived the first winter of the siege in Leningrad, surrounded by Finns and Germans, and then was evacuated, lay in the hospital with exhaustion, and than fought to victory. His mother did not survive the blockade.
@@weslerembler1 You're talking nonsense. You don't seem to have the slightest idea about that time or that country.
@@anatoly_trifonov In fact im not. You are obviously just completely blinded by your own country's and old soviet propaganda. Its always funny to me when someone who is completely historically illiterate has the audacity to call out someone else.
Read a book and then come back to me.
Just a few comments on a well researched and presented video. Montgomery, Eisenhower, and MacArthur stated during the war that an invasion of the Asian mainland should never be made because of the logistical difficulties presented by central Asia regards the offensive operations of a large modern army. I agree that the 1812 and the 1941 invasions were inherently different but the logistical difficulties faced by each invasion force were quite similiar. If the Polish and Winter wars, the Russian civil war, the Revolution, and WWI demonstrated anything it was the near infinite capacity of the Russian army and people to survive in adversity, their unwillingness to give up, and their willingness to inflict pain on themselves rather than give in. Once the German intent in the east became evident; that is, once German troops began to systematically kill Sov citizens, civilians turned on the Germans. Having spent several months in the former USSR working in the early 1990s, I came to believe that the Sovs were capable of sustaining near-infinite personal discomforts and struggles while still managing to survive. These people were simply used to living in at a level of personal discomfort that would be impossible for a western European or North American to sustain for more than a few weeks. Once, it became clear that the Germans weren't liberators but murderers, the Sov people were never ever going to surrender. Facing near impossible levels of partisan sabotage and extremely difficult weather and terrain, the fears of the three Allied commanders became manifest. We must bear in mind that after 1941, the Germans weren't just fighting the Sov army; they were fighting the entire population of the USSR west of the Urals and the difficult environmental, geographical, and topographical realities present in the vastness of the European east. All of these issues were obviously understood by Montgomery, Eisenhower, and MacArthur during the war.
> the near infinite capacity of the Russian army and people to survive in adversity
yeah, good point, I indirectly covered this with the hunger quote.
Спасибо Roger, вы нас поняли!
Military History Visualized. Something I shall never ever forget. I was working in a city of 300,000. Public water was not potable, water was available 3 days a week, hot water was available for 3 hours Saturday afternoon. This was in 1994 in what was arguably a first world nation, with a world class military. Huh? I pointedly asked a bunch of my friends why they tolerated such incompetence. There response was to shrug their shoulders and say what can we do? If we complain, we might end up in a nameless Siberian city--if we're lucky. It's better to just persevere and hope things will improve. Any nation that goes to war with a people possessing that point of view is in serious trouble.
Denis Richard, wish I could translate this.
Roger H Werner Thank you Roger, you have understood us
I"ve just Patreon you, on this barbarossa birthday ! With admiration, from a Baguette ( and wine... )
But didn’t the Swedish empire invade Russia and lost, leading to the end of the empire
That was a few hundred years before, the situation in Europe had drastically changed, Russia was a backwards, outdated and weak country at the start of the 20th century, and the Soviets were just coming out of ww1 and a civil war
...the Mongols also invaded Russia and won...the difference is they brought the Black Plague with them.
@@peterkropotkin4129 from where did you get your data about "outdated and weak russia" when Ludendorf himself said to kaiser that if he wants a war he needs to start it now in 1914, coz at 1917 russia will outproduce germany in everything. Russia was vast and therefore badly organized but she was not outdated at all. Only less developed than germany
Swedish empire lost the northern war because they were not able to concentrate on Russia alone.
@@mikolajtrzeciecki7979 but they kicked everyone’s ass, even forcing Poland Lithuania or Denmark out of the war, but with their wins they got greedy and attacked Russia, during one of the coldest ever winters.
Großartige Visualisierung mit den Icons als Stichpunkte. Mal wieder ein super Video ! Thumbs up
Wow, these animations are improving day by day
Amazing video. Keep it up!
So what you're saying is...
One does not simply invade the soviet union
Mud or walk into mordor...
Seems some western politicians just repeat the mistakes from 75 years ago...👻
"So what you're saying is....." I see what you did there, my lobster brother.
Sean lobster clap
Jordan Peterson lol
I'd comment more but I need to clean my room. Be the Best Lobster You Can Be!
No no let’s talk about the lobster 🦞
I really love this video and keep coming back to it. One of the best videos on Barbarossa on youtube.
I love the icons you use to designate complex concepts.
I enjoyed the video, very informative, adding great perspective. Also, love the umlauts on the word "Shörtcomings," (time 21:47) somehow, it just looks right. I think it adds dignity and majesty to an otherwise overlooked word. :)
20:00 "so, what you are saying is..." I just about fell out of my chair laughing right there.
thank you very much for making these videos. they're great. the world is lucky to have you doing this work!
"Do you also consider Spain to be unconquerable?"
Oooooohhhhhhh, that's a lot of damage.
Very interesting video! I kinda disagree, though, regarding the ideological component in western powers' vision of the USSR: just as it happens today with any closed, diplomatic pariah country, the information that arrived to western countries was mostly reports and critiques from people fleeing the country or political opposition. That strongly contributed to the idea that surgical attacks against the main industrial and political spots in the country could make it collapse easily: a rough 90-95% of the sources anybody could and WANTED to read in the west was based on the idea that Soviet people were prisoners of a brutal regime and would gladly open their gates to whoever "freed" them.
Ironically enough, that was an important part of French defeat: by 1939 the III Republic was on the verge of political collapse (parlamentary debates on weaponary and rearming policies of the 1936-1939 period defy any rational analysis), and that strongly contributed to the country surrendering after Paris fell, and after the "national hero who will save us" decided that it was better to fight socialists than Germans. This is an oversimplification, of course, but I guess you can get the point. This is also the reason why, when appointed 1st minister, Churchill invested a lot of time and effort in propaganda campaigns, cinema, negotiations with labour unions etc., since it was clear to him that lack of social cohesion had, in the end, costed the French the war. And, retaking my point before, many thought this would also be the case with the USSR. Now we know they were wrong. Based on the info you could get in London in 1940, unless you went to soviet propaganda, it was almost impossible to know the truth. It can be considered one of these cases where your propaganda ends up convincing yourself, instead of convincing your enemy.
Maybe you could do a video of Charles XII invasion of Russia , to find the similarties and differences of the wars in russian soil.
Sorry for my bad English
I second that.
Sweden was destined to fail miserable, they had 0 chances to succeed. It is useless to make a video about that.
sweden decided to wage a war on attrition with russia and was doomed, but true it has lots of similarties
I don't know much about the Napoleonic wars, but in WW2, people in the Soviet Union were fighting for their country's survival and their own. That has a huge effect on motivation, not only of the soldiers, but also of the workers in the (munition) factories. There is nothing that unites people more than a common threat.
Edit: but I know that views on mass psychology were different at the time.
Exactly. Germans were amazed by the stubbornness of the Russians. Germans had a great moral but the Russians were on the same level.
Hitler made the people follow him because he gave them what they wanted, mostly. But following Stalin is something else.
This was pure surviving.
Good discussion (as always). Love the humor as well. The other major consideration that you have touched on elsewhere is the need for oil. There was nowhere for Germany to go than the Caucuses. And the time was urgent. Sometimes you have to play the cards you are dealt (granted the Nazi regime built their hand and the German aristocracy/big business enabled them). Great points on the western powers view of pre-war Russia. And as usual, the western powers just did not take into consideration that Russia would not nor could not adapt. Planning on static situations is disastrous.
Wasn't the USSR providing oil to Germany since they were a semi-Axis member prior to Barbarossa? I think this is where this logic fails. Secure the easier target for oil (Middle East) from the British and then go after Russia once all of that is done.
I have come for less-known historic facts and for Glantz. I was not disappointed.
Best idea I've heard about this discussion is by Vizzini in "The Princess Bride": "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." Me: "It always ends badly!".
Unless you're the Mongols
There are two important overlooked factors regarding this question:
1.the stability of the soviet society
2.the size of the american land lease program
It's an enjoyable state of affairs when historians with shared interest audit each others' channels. In the best cases this leads to some very entertaining collaborations, such as those between MHV and The Great War, Bismarck, et al (TGW is rife with worthy segments using MHV, C&Rsenal, and others, to observe certain points with more powerful lenses). We fans are like that, too. We eagerly seek out useful historical presentations and analyses in order to improve our focus on these fascinating matters. It is a beautiful new age for this endeavor, now that most of the well distributed accounts are readily available online. Reading as many of these as possible puts us all on a more or less level playing field, philosophically speaking. That, in turn, makes the resulting discussions all the more interesting and entertaining and that, I feel, is the ultimate purpose here.
TIK
You can still see the same thinking today when people talk about fighting Russia.
Any idea why Roosevelt turned out to be right when most of the others were so wrong?
In 1941 Germany had 3,500 Tanks and the USSR had 27,000 Tanks for a Ratio of 1 to 8. A strategy of "Let's wait & see" by Germany would have been fatal. In 1942 the USSR produced an additional 14,300 Tanks to Germany's 4,000. A Soviet Armored thrust into Romania in 1941 by 27,000 Soviet Tanks would have taken Germany's ONLY supply of Oil, thus knocking both Germany and Italy out of the War by early 1942. France would have been beaten too and the Iron Curtain would gone up in the summer of 1942.
1. The USSR produced more tanks than Germany. But at the same time it produced fewer trucks, heavy shells, armored personnel carriers, submarines, industrial machines, etc. No country uses 100% of its tanks in a military operation.
2. The percentage of Romanian oil in Germany's fuel balance (in 1940) was 21%.
I like how the initial argument is well everyone thought the Soviet Union was dumb so it was a good idea
It is a very compelling argument. The soviet union was extremely incompetent at the start of the war and it was only after years that they regained their strength. Something like the 5 biggest encirclements of all time were performed at the very start of operation barbarossa. Sometimes even up to 600k soviet soldiers in one go. No wonder the germans thought the soviets were incompetent, because they definetely were
@@weslerembler1 Not compelling. Just stupid. Amazing how the supposedly incompetent Soviets won and the supposedly competent Germans lost.
@@user-jq2iz9zn4p There is no denying that the Soviet Union was incompetent at the very least before the war and most likely for the first couple of months (even years) of the invasion.
Granted they did turn it around completely by the end of the war, but that was with huge losses in manpower and production plus an ungodly amount of help from the west.
@@weslerembler1 The Red Army was competent enough to win.
The Wehrmacht was incompetent enough to lose.
@@weslerembler1 "But"?
All the "but"s in the world cannot change that the Red Army won and the Wehrmacht lost.
A fight between Germany and the Soviet Union was inevitable, even without a German invasion. The Soviet Union would have waited for the Normandy invasion, "liberated" Poland and then straight into Germany. The post war map would be almost identical, perhaps with more (or all) of Germany under Soviet control.
The Normandy invasion would have been more difficult if Nazi Germany wasn＇t already getting whupped in the East。
You dismiss the Mediterranean strategy too fast. That was a viable option, air assets were good and there was no need for such a large Navy as against the UK.
Getting the oil from the middle east to mainland europe would be hard and not enough oil.
Securing North Africa then the Suez Canal
@@jhomariquit7444 that was a viable plan with Lufftflotte 4 based on Crete and Malta taken early ... especially with oil discovered in Libya that would have covered all German+Italian oil needs. Suddenly Romania is less important and Stalin can get more stuff in Eastern Europe and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is not broken but the Soviets start to gravitate towards the Axis especially after the Allies bomb Baku. If that happens, Soviet oil makes it to Japan in 1940 and there is no need for Japan to strike at the US. Pearl never happens, Britain is isolated and its dominion is carved up between the Japanese, Russians and Italian/Germans it is ejected from the Med and the West Coast of Africa is gradually occupied. The Azores becomes a sub base and Britain is blockaded far more efficiently ... the US ramps up the land-lease but grabs British islands and territories as it sees Britain inevitably falling to pieces. The US remains out of the war because it cannot project power across two contested oceans at the same time ... German air power eventually outclasses Britain and Britain sues for peace losing most of its colonies. A new cold war starts where Eurasia is the leading power in the world.
@@andraslibal Actually it would be more like Isolation than war, because Hitler just wanted Lebensraum, no imperialism.
13:00 Where the parallel really falls down is that Hitler wanted conquest. Napoleon was simply trying to get Russia's promise to stick to the boycotts of Britain that Napoleon wanted. Before and during the invasion Napoleon was constantly contacting the Czar, crying that he hated warring against his friend, couldn't Russia PLEASE just stick to the boycott and let's be friends again. But given the war, Napoleon's real problem was just being 4-5 days late in establishing a winter camp. Had the weather held out less than a week longer things would have been different. 2) He was really excellent at logistics and command, but made the mistake of going in with too many men to command personally, and 2-3x more than he could really supply. He'd have been better off with half the soldiers. People don't realize, though that the Russian losses were fairly comperable to Napoleon's. As soon as Napoleon realized the Russians had burnt down Moscow to deny it to him as a winter base, he should have turned around and marched out.
I always assumed it was like in sports when a team looks past an opponent only to have their collective butts handed to them by a lesser opponent.
My older brother was a Cobra/Apache pilot stationed in West Germany in the late 80s. Watching your TH-cam videos, I can see why he wanted to live in Western Germany. His spoiled American wife made him return to the United States.
If his wife wanted to return to the US because she was spoiled then the US must have been more prosperous than Germany。
Such Clarity. I take it a lot of academics knew this already, but you have done a great service to make it digestible and clear for the plebs. I always knew there was something fishy about the conventional portrayal, but this explanation is hard to fault. Looks like the Russian's threw two sixes to pull it off.
For the plebs... Jesus Christ Mark.... After 2 years, embarrassed with 2018 Mark perhaps?
r/iamverysmart
The historical narrative concerning WW2 is obscenely incorrect, Germany in particular
@@dr.lyleevans6915 i like the saying, maybe degaule : history is 1/3 what happened, 1/3 what is happening now, and 1/3 what you hope to happen ....
so glad I found this channel, the best source of information on the matter
Nothing better than listening to a soothing German voice speaking of Barbarossa
The French were overestimated, the Russians were underestimated. Period. End of story
Soviet performance even more so impressive if you take into account that manufacturing capacity of France, Germany, Austria, Czechia, Poland, and all other countries captured by Germany, they all were working toward war effort against USSR. Bulgarian, Italian and Romanian soldiers fought alongside Germans in Russia.
All those US/UK estimates were largely base on misinformation from Germany that people in USSR hate the government and will upraise as soon as some invasion starts. But that was as far away from the truth as it can get. 16 year old kids were fixing their papers to get signed up for army. People volunteered to give their valuables to build a tank or a cannon. Old men joined volunteer battalions to defend their cities. Partisans lived in ground holes in forests to constantly disturb supplies. Read about Kovpak
@kiril marinov does this count? - However, despite the lack of official declarations of war by both sides, the Bulgarian Navy was involved in a number of skirmishes with the Soviet Black Sea Fleet, which attacked Bulgarian shipping.
Excellent! Quality research & presentation
Glantz at soviet performance, I see what you did there.
I always tell people everything that's ever happened has made perfect sense but they never believe me.
Hindsight gives the illusion of omniscience.
This is probaly because people think it has to made sense for them to made sense at all.
I like that, "Hindsight Warrior" lol
Good in depth analysis. Subscribed.
Rasputitsa.
It bogged down the Mongols. It bogged down Napoleon. It bogged down the Nazis.
Weather is by far the biggest defensive advantage Russia has ever had in traditional warfare.
Winter is often mentioned but few ever mention the far less dramatic mud.
The vastness of Russia is of course another massive time killer.
Thank you for making videos!
The Germans thought that Soviet roads would be paved, and that they'd capture more Soviet trains and thus be better able to make use of the Soviet railroads. On top of that the Germans thought that the Russians would collapse like in February and March 1918, so that the intense logistical demands of combat would go away and the logistical system would only need to support the lighter demands of occupation duty.
I’ve studied this for a while, and it is my opinion that had the executed it different, they really may have taken over the Soviet union. They came so close.
Really so close?? Napoleon took Moscow.. and after that realized that the victory was as far as it was when he just crossed the border - nowhere in sight..
A lot of German commanders write that all/most captured soviet soldiers told them that the people will keep fighting even if Germans get to the Ural Mountains 🤷♂️
A lot of German soldiers realized that they lost even during the summer month of 1941, when they witnessed things like 3 soldiers attacking mechanized division on the march and fighting till the end..
Close? They barely took 1/5 of the entire USSR.
16:40 Flanks that are poorly secured by foreign troops? Hmmm sounds very familiar to the Eastern Front.
This is an excellent video. Hindsight is often distorting.
I wonder if there had been too much objectives to take at the same time. We know that there were three army groups that were tasked to take Leningrad, Moscow and the Caucasus. If Army Group North abandoned Leningrad and strengthen Stalingrad, would Fall Blau had a chance to succeed? of course this is just hypothetical but I wonder how the soviet will react?
I often wonder if the plan should’ve been Leningrad & Stalingrad. That’s where they got land-lease imports. Army Group Center could’ve, should’ve been more a decoy to occupy numbers.
No. The issue were logistics.
@@cedricbeard894 Leningrad didn't recieve anything. At least I haven't heard anything about transports, sailing through waters where the Kriegsmarine holds superiority delivering supplies to a city under siege.
@@projectpitchfork860 I could’ve sworn the siege of Leningrad failed because the USSR was still supplying the city ... Similar to Stalingrad, in which, the USSR was still supplying the via Volga River.,
Really enjoyed this thoughtful video. BUT,...The real question is this: If Germany & Russia meet in the 2018 World Cup, AND if Germany wins, AND if they play in Volgograd, does that mean the Germany finally conquered "Stalingrad?"
😂
Damn....looks like the can't conquer Korea let alone Volgograd.
Many blame the Russian winter. But what truly won that war was the Russian's toughness.
No it was German resources, or lack thereof
Lmao exactly, the Russians were tuff but they are no match for artillery rounds😂 and Germans had no good clothes for winter and were getting frostbite then Stalin called in troops from the Siberian front especially trained for fighting in the cold and that’s when Germany started getting their asses kicked bad
and fresh troops from Siberia...
Hitler invaded the Soviet Union for the OIL and food. His generals didn't follow his orders and thus much time was wasted.
Hitler's emphasis was the Ukraine and the OIL FIELDS not Moscow. Hitler knew before Barbarossa that he needed to capture the oil fields if he was to have any chance of winning the war.
Much of Hitler's logistics were HORSE DRAWN and he had a LOT of infantry. Thus those two could not keep up with the mechanized units.
Hitler was told by his chief of logistics prior to Barbarossa that the logistics system could support the attack for about 500 kilometers.
It was NOT the Russian winter that stopped the Panzers it was the fall and then spring thaws that did that when the roads turned to deep mud.
The Russians learned from the early attacks.
It was German tactics not equipment that allowed them to get so far into Soviet territory so quickly. Combined Forces operations such as the Germans used were something the Soviets, the Allies and the U.S.A. all had to learn during WW2.
20:44 Heh, nice Soviet Womble you got there :)
After watching this, I am determined to do it better in HOI4.
You know, rather than invading the ussr for oil you can just make synthetic refiniries and focus on naval invasions but that’s just in hoi4 sadly.
Chalk O'holic seems interesting, thanks for the reccomendation
@Chalk O'holic play what?
@@TheVirtuosoe sadly? Oh no no
@@TheVirtuosoe oh sorry that the game is playable.
As soon as you begin to underestimate your enemy and overestimate yourself - you've already lost. Hitler's racial theory was one of the main reasons for his defeat. Obviously we are not inferior, our people were no worse than the German people in all aspects, you know that there were great Russian inventors, great Russian generals and commanders, great Russian physicists and mathematicians, great Russian artists and composers, great Russian writers and poets, great Russian chess players were the best in the world etc. You know about the rich Russian culture and language, which is more complex than German. For historical and geographic reasons Russia was a poorer and less developed country with a less educated population in general than in Germany, and Hitler had already started talking about racial inferiority? How ignorant can a leader of a nation be?
It’s not just the one leader, racial discrimination is a potent addiction it seems for many in all corners of the world
Also I enjoy the shoutout to Russian chess players
The Germans were hardly the only ones who thought like that just about everyone believed in Eugenics and that was the main reason for a lot of that kind of thinking.
All so well told! To this day the West looks at Russia as some Asiatic backwarded country and are always surprised when a Russian wins a gold at the Olympics or beats the USA in hockey, etc. etc.
What was "just stupid" for the National Socialists was invading Poland and having Great Britain declare war, AND then embargo all oil going to Europe. There was the mistake that cost Germany the war. By 1941, Germany seemed to be unaffected by the embargo, but the Wehrmacht's supply chief said they only had oil until October 1941 once Barbarossa began, and lo and behold, Germany ran out of gas in October before the walls of Moscow.
I just imagined Harley Quin breaking glass that's labeled Barbarossa and saying "We're facists, its what we do!"
Winning the lottery isn't actually any easier in hindsight, considering the fact that you don't pick the number you're given.
Patrick Ellis In Soviet Russia you no win lottery, lottery win you.
Funny thing about the lottery is even if you have a time machine and have those winning numbers because of the random nature of the lottery the winning numbers would be different.
Long story short: Germany lost the war when they run out of Meth, and Goering run out of chocolate bonbons.
Y'know, rewatching this video tonight something occurs to me. A few years back I was thinking of visiting Europe. My parents who lived in Germany for awhile told me that something I'd likely be really surprised by was how small and close everything was compared to the US, and that basically the European countries were basically the size of US states. I wonder if that's a big part of what happened with Operation Barbarossa in reverse. Yes, most people know that geography really helped the USSR in WWII, but what if it's more than that? Did German leadership bring Euro-centric ideas and assumptions of warfare, distance, and logistics to a theater of war where they wouldn't work? Was Germany preparing to fight a European war rather than an Asian land war? You can see all the maps and make all the plans you want, but it's something else entirely to experience it firsthand for the first time. Ultimately I guess this question is one for a military historian but it'd be a very interesting sub-point in the failure of Barbarossa as to exactly how much of a part underestimating distances and logistical challenges may have played versus other factors
.. Nothing changed.. the west even today underestimate Russia..
West are scared asf. European union has no balls
@Hugo Pointillart
>underestimates Russia
>Can't even get their most advanced equipment in production due to economic problems
or they over-estimated them just to procure more weapons
@Hugo Pointillart Nobody in the US underestimates Russia. Hell, half the country thinks Russia controls the elections!!! They've been living in fear of Russia since 1945.
How can anyone underestimate a nation with enough nukes to destroy the planet 7 times over???
While I agree that the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was a bad decision for the Germans, it is only one of several things that I could see that would need to have happened for WWII to have turned out considerably differently.
1. Knock out Britain first. Following the Battle of France, Hitler may have believed that the Continent was clear. However, by failing to annihilate the military threat from Britain, he left a dagger pointed at Germany's back, both in allowing for continuous bombing raids on Germany industry and by giving the Americans an easy European jumping off point. Without Britain, any American war effort would have to make a transatlantic amphibious invasion, a prospect that would have been almost impossible. However, as noted in a previous video and briefly touched on in this one, carrying out Operation Sealion, the amphibious invasion of England, was largely beyond Germany's capabilities early in the war. This factor could perhaps have been mitigate by...
2. Do not waste your surface warships. One thing that has always vexed me when considering Germany's movements in the early stages of the war was their naval policies, chiefly that of using their heavy cruisers and battleships not as strategic assets against the Royal Navy, but as commerce raiders, a job for which they were wholly unsuited. A much smarter strategy would have been to consolidate their surface fleet in and around the North Sea, making use of both German home ports and Norwegian fjords among other safe-ish anchorages, keeping all capital ships in the same general area but separated enough that the whole fleet could not be wiped out by bombers or commando raids. This would mean such things as not sending the Deutschland-class pocket battleships into the South Atlantic, still carrying out the breakout from Brest but with a clearer idea of what to do with those battleships once they returned home, and perhaps most importantly cancelling Exercise Rhine and not losing the Bismarck as well as waiting until the Tirpitz was complete. Even if all of Germany's pre-war naval strength hypothetically survived, and even better if they were able to successfully capture the remnants of the French Navy, it likely wouldn't have been enough to take on the British and/or Americans. But if used in support of an amphibious landing, both for shore bombardment, anti-aircraft protection, and fending off the Royal Navy, essentially a reverse D-Day, Operation Sealion may have stood a much greater chance of success in 1942 once suitable landing, transport, and glider fleets had been developed and constructed. Meanwhile, the Battle of the Atlantic would have been carried out much more effectively had Germany relied more heavily on their U-boats and their auxiliary cruisers and armed merchant ships, a replay of the strategy that garnered moderate success during the First World War. If nothing else, it would have resulted in Germany's surface warships being put to actual strategic use rather than a vital war asset being squandered in the opening stages on tasks for which they were useless.
3. Make allies with the Soviets, not enemies, at least for now. This I realize was likely not diplomatically feasible without the aid of hindsight, but the fact is that Germany needed the Soviet Union and more specifically its oil. Even with the capture of the Romanian oilfields early on, Germany's demand for oil was vastly more than it could ever supply. That is the biggest reason I think their invasion of Russia was a stupid move as it antagonized if not an ally then at least a vital trade partner. Without Soviet oil, Germany was doomed, it's as simple as that. A far better strategy would have been to invade and defeat Britain, secure Spanish territory, render US efforts at European intervention impotent, and then, and only then, even consider turning against the Soviets. To do so any earlier, to cut off Soviet trade while Britain is still a threat and the Americans can still use Britain as a staging ground, and while Germany industry is still being crippled by British and American bombing raids, was to me one of the leading strategic factors in the ultimate outcome of the European front of the war.
sirrliv I agree on your Opinion about the Usage of the surface fleet but you have to add that the Kriegsmarinr should have its own airwings under its command to activly cover the ships not being deployed after they are bombed like what happened to Tirpitz
Perhaps, but that runs the risk of spreading air power too thin, and taking aircraft away from the Battle of Britain, which absolutely had to neutralize British air power, at least in the southeast, for any amphibious invasion to be possible. The advantage of spreading the main capital ships between multiple ports is that even if the British managed to make a successful bombing run, no easy task as also exemplified by the Tirpitz, which survived several bombing attempts and was only finally put down by a hail mary play of a high-altitude grand slam bomb release, something nobody thought would actually work, only one or a few capital ships would be destroyed or damaged. For most circumstances, I believe that bulked up anti-air batteries and the ships' own anti-air defense, aided by early warning from picket ships beyond the harbor mouth, would be sufficient to deal with most direct bombing threats. Fighters should only be stations to guard the surface fleet where it is logistically viable for them to do so; knocking out the RAF is the primary priority, using aircraft to defend the battleships should be secondary.
sirrliv several Air wings where already assigned to Fleet air cover but the problem of slow response due to being under different branches leads to friendly fire and lack of communication would delay the Intel collected by recon planes scouting for enemy large ships escorting convoys as an example . And in my opinion if Germany managed to build 5 Light Cruisers(Nurnberg Class) 14 Destroyers(Zerostorer1934) 3 Battleships(Scharnhorst Class) and 6 Heavy cruisers(Hipper Class) and converted their two old pre-WW1 Battleships into two Carriers instead of U-boats they could keep the RN fleets on Search and Destroy missions luring them close to norway where they would be in Air strike range would cripple the british ships and the German task force I mentioned before would come and finish them and Also to maintain this operation they need as you said to secure the oil trade with the USSR, By doing this with a force of 3 heavy cruisers raiding Convoys the UK will not be able to deploy all its ships as it might suffer Fuel shortages
It's certainly an interesting hypothesis, but I would be inclined to question if Germany would have the resources to launch such a large scale naval construction program even if Hitler could be convinced to do so. The invasion of Norway and France would help, but Germany's native steel production was terrible throughout the war, and warships need a crap-ton of steel. They also take a long time to build, up to years in peacetime and I shudder to think how much slower in wartime. Also, I could be wrong, but if memory serves Germany effectively didn't have any pre-WWI battleships to convert since they surrendered their entire high seas fleet to the British as part of the 1918 Armistice; they may have kept a few, since one, ex-SMS Schleswig-Holstein, kicked off the whole war when it steamed into Danzig and started shelling everything, but they would be a rare resource, and not one well suited to carrier conversion given their low freeboard and generally small size (by large warship standards); the Schleswig-Holstein for example was only half the length of the one carrier Germany did try to build, the Graf Zeppelin. A better idea if you wanted carriers would have been to convert an ocean liner, which are already long enough and have a high enough freeboard. But given the geography of the European front I think having a carrier at all would be unnecessary as German aircraft would be near enough to friendly airfields practically anywhere they were stationed.
I do agree that putting fighter wings under the direct command of the Kriegsmarine would have been a better idea for more rapid defense; cut out the middle man of communicating between military branches that often had poor relations.
Lastly however, alarm bells are raised for me in proposing doing anything that would take away from U-boat construction. As I said in my original post, surface capital ships are virtually useless as convoy raiders as they are too large, too easily spotted, and too valuable to lose to destroyer or air attack. The best weapon against the convoys would be U-boat wolfpacks, long-range aircraft, and *maybe* merchant ships converted to auxiliary cruisers. Surface warships should be saved and hoarded for when they are really needed; fending off the RN during a German amphibious invasion; not even defeating the RN, which they had very little chance of doing anyway, but keeping them busy long enough to get the troops ashore and on their way to London.
sirrliv German
1. steel production was indeed in a bad shape but even with that problem they could have built them lets say those ships are laid down in 1938, the Scharn.. class(two were built) is more affordable and practical than the Bismarck class(two were built) so building 3 of them would spare 10,000 tons of Steel which is enough for an extra Hipper Class Cruiser(they built 5) Light Cruisers can be multiroled so can replace destroyers , for the Carriers seydlitz was nearly finished from being converted to a carrier and there was Europa the largest passenger ship of that time that they started but abandoned the conversion, the naval variants of planes were already ready for testing (Bf109T,Ju87,He100)by 1942 they would be ready keep in mind that there is no barbarossa in this scenario but the german command was confused they did a bit of everything instead of concentrating on a single Doctrine they were between Fleet in being doctrine and trade interdiction doctrine and same goes for their Air doctrine FYI german battleships were well suited to convoy raiding as they are as fast as a cruiser nearly 32 knots withain battery range of 23km they could get out of visual and radar range easily provided with air cover (im talking about the Gneisegnau and scharnhorst) the Bismarck and Tirpitz should have been deployed alongside screening ships to support the surface raiders when detected from norway.
2.ASW developed faster than the Uboats I consider them a waste of resources and manpower runing on a battery for 2 hours at a speed of 9 knots submerged which means that any radio messages from sunk merchant ship would give the enemy a small search area as you can't get too far before they arrive.
No it wasn't a stupid idea , it was a really criminal idea.
Lest we forget.
I know this is 2 years old, but this is a top shelf video. Excellent info basing it on German perspective of operations, rather than analyzing specific battles without proper context. Well done.
I am not sure if you've covered the fuel situation. An improved, mechanized army on a scale untested in large scale combat meant calculations for fuel, maintenance, and mechanical issues was underestimated based on the performances in the western campaign. German fuel and oil problems were the biggest driving force pushing them, gambling on a quick German win in the East restoring rapidly depleting oil, food, and fuel on all fronts. Operation Barbarossa was not stupid, it was the only strategic option. Germany could not continue the war with the resources available to them on the scale they were already committed to and could not turn back underestimating the distance and huge problems getting fuel to the eastern front. They completely underestimated and gambled. Hail Mary - Either they go east for resources, or definitely lose the war by attrition in a matter of months. Same outcome. Wehrmacht army command was aware of this .....
"I have two Generals who have never failed me, General January and General February" - Czar Nicholas I of Russia.
13:14 triggering my math PTSD
The aspect of this video essay that I take objection to is the degree to which it assigns rationality primacy to the process of Nazi decision-making, and it reminds me of TIK (2/19/18) doing much the same by grafting an economic determinist model (over oil) to why the Nazis invaded the USSR. It's not so much that this sort of analysis is wrong as far as it goes; instead, it puts the cart ahead of the horse. What's left is a hollow thought exercise by what it doesn't give voice to.
First and foremost, the Nazi state was an ideological racist/colonial actor that afforded rationality an ancillary role as a means to achieve an end. What's more, rationality was the first casualty when it became inconvenient to Nazi irrational subjectivities. In broad strokes, the Nazi invasion of the USSR was a foregone conclusion in Hitler's mind going back to the 1920s and subsequently developed-articulated all through the 1930s. In this broader context, rational considerations only served to establish within the Nazi military-state apparatus a firm window for an invasion launch date. Great Britain's surrender or not, low oil reserves or not, a "house of cards" economy or not, Stalin purges or not, quick Soviet success in Finland or not, Nazi German was ALWAYS going to invade the USSR.
While I subscribe more to a "how the Allies won WW2" narrative than the commonplace TH-cam Naziphile "how the Nazis lost the war" one, it's naive to look at things through a binary lens. The primary reason that the USSR won the Nazi-Soviet war was that Stalin did not lose power in 1941; hence, the superiority of his totalitarian state military-industrial complex versus his opponent soon became manifest. On the other hand, if I had to identify the greatest "failure" of the Nazi state, it was the racist strategic war aims of ANNIHILATION. "Annihilation warfare" requires TOTAL DEFEAT to bring about the intended enslavement, ethnic cleansing, or eradication of "sub-human" life.
While the discussion of Soviet peace feelers in 1941 is problematic, Nazi war aims (and the vile character of the guy they ELECTIVELY went to war with) only afforded the outcomes of total victory or total defeat: A "rational settlement" was never a possibility, no matter how unlikely that Stalin would bite at an offer. That speaks to a larger truth that was the core impulse that drove this catastrophically disappointing generation of Germans off a cliff and into the maw that became the unstoppable Soviet war machine. The choice for the invasion was always one of madness, never rationality.
One of madness, never rationality!
I like the way you put everything and you coverd it all for me thanks
What about oil? The oil in the Caucasus was the closest and "easiest" oil source that Germany could take at the time.
I thought that for many years: Why not hit fast and take them first and foremost? However: Since the Soviets wrecked the facilities during the time of Fall Blau, it's reasonable to assume they would have done the same at the time of Barbarossa. Besides, as one historian pointed out -I don't remember who, maybe Beevor or Keegan - the Germans actually had no viable means of transporting any meaningful quantity of oil to Germany or other well-secured Axis territories; even if the oil fields had been captured intact. Remember, they didn't even have enough trucks or tractors to haul their artillery pieces, let alone tens of millions of litres of oil. And a rail or pipeline was not feasible due to massive numbers of partisans.
That makes alot of sense however the Germans were really desperate, even though it was a long shot, it was the best chance the Germans had to get more oil as Middle-Eastern oil wasn't as developed yet.
George Evangel but it wasn’t enough
When is having any oil enough?.US largest producer of oil yet it is in Mideast Hitler wanted the oil in Caucasus region
+Machinegun Preacher Did they habw naval superiority in the black see? Romania and by extension its oilfield were only a hop across the lake.
The great problem, is that the Soviet Union was just waiting for the right moment to invade Germany. Hitler caught them with his pants down, and could have arrived in the Caucasus in time had it not been for the Italians in Greece...
Slavophiles: Russia is unconquerable!
Genghis Khan: Hold my fermented yak's milk.
it is. it will be bought inch by inch by china.
@@DerDop
USSR, 20th Century: We will bury you.
PRC, 21st Century: We will buy you.
@@girlbuu9403 Genghis Khan?Are there really idiots in the 21st century who believe in this fairy tale?😂😂😂😂
Well to be fair, that wasn't really Russia.
@@paulvonhindenburg4727 It was a bunch of squabbling east slavic principalities...
... who united against the Mongol threat and still lost.
Though the Mongols were used to life in cold deserts and tundra so the usual strategy of burning shit before they got there didn't work. Also armies in the middle ages aren't as large and didn't require as much logistical support as they did even in the 19th century. The Mongol horde was huge, but it was spread out and they were very self reliant.