World War II: Crash Course European History #38
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2024
- Only a couple of decades after the end of the First World War--which was supposed to be the War that Ended All Wars--another, bigger, farther-flung, more destructive, and deadlier war began. Today, you'll learn about how the war in Europe progressed, from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the invasion of Poland, to the Western and Eastern fronts, to VE Day and the atom bombs used in Japan.
Sources
-Hunt, Lynn et al. Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford St. Martin’s, 2019.
-Kotkin, Stephen. Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941. New York: Penguin, 2017.
-Mazower, Mark. Hitler’s Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe. New York: Penguin, 2008.
-Overy, Richard. Russia’s War: A History of the Soviet Effort, 1941-1945. New York: Penguin, 1998.
-Smith, Bonnie G. Europe in the Contemporary World, 1900 to the Present, 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury, 2020.
-Snyder, Timothy. Bloodlands: Hitler between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books, 2010.
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Thanks to the following patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:
Eric Prestemon, Sam Buck, Mark Brouwer, William McGraw, Siobhan Sabino, Jason Saslow, Jennifer Killen, Jon & Jennifer Smith, David Noe, Jonathan Zbikowski, Shawn Arnold, Trevin Beattie, Matthew Curls, Rachel Bright, Khaled El Shalakany, Efrain R. Pedroza, Ian Dundore, Kenneth F Penttinen, Eric Koslow, Timothy J Kwist, Indika Siriwardena, Caleb Weeks, Haixiang N/A Liu, Nathan Taylor, Avi Yashchin, Andrei Krishkevich, Sam Ferguson, Brian Thomas Gossett, SR Foxley, Tom Trval, Justin Zingsheim, Brandon, Westmoreland, dorsey, Jessica Wode, Nathan Catchings, Yasenia Cruz, Jirat
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support Crash Course on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
#crashcourse #europeanhistory #worldwarii
My wife and I just cheered at the return of the Mongoltage. We've missed it dearly...
😆 its been a while huh
+
For a moment it felt like crash course again. I miss John snarking his younger self for believing common misconceptions about history.
This new series is less jokey than CC World History. There are no running gags... unless you're the Mongols.
I am so happy to have something new in my feed that isn't coronavirus.
Right???
I too like world war 2 much better
That episode is coming.
Sadly this isn't very comforting as well.
Missed the Spanish Flu episode
"Unless.... you're the Mongols" never gets old.
yes... yes it does.
5:32 it is actually generally agreed that Germany’s generals also wanted a wide area of attack and they only changed their opinion on this in hindsight in their memoirs to make themselves look smarter.
Reference please
Also, a narrow drive on Moscow would be a *terrible* idea. Leaving your flanks wide open and in logistics hell is not a clever strategy.
@@BlackStar2161 Worked pretty well in France.
@@kaiserdb France was also a weak government with a population that didn't want war. The USSR, meanwhile, had a strongman government that many genuinely supported and most importantly, they had to fight or else suffer the genocide that began almost immediately.
@@kaiserdb Russia is a whole different animal. Much longer distances, poorer infrastructure, much larger armies. What worked against France (cutting off the army from the rest of the country and then going for the capital) won't work - there's always more territory to retreat to, and always more manpower to draw on.
8:27 Don't invade Russia in the winter. Unless... wait for it... you're the Mongols!
Me: I like the sound of that.
Yeah, which is why Germans and before him Napoleon invaded in summer. They failed to sweep it up quick.
@@VonKrauzer one could argue that if you want to take Russia you schould go straight for moskou but that is what napoleon did.
To defeat Russia the country must both be unprepared and the leadership unwilling to retreat.
@JetDoes They were pretty unprepared at the beginning of the war. The purges officers had still not been replaced. Stalin told his troops on the German border not to fire back at German aggression to keep Hitler from using it as an excuse. The soviets lost men, equipment and land due to this mindset.
@Dwarov 1 They did. They took Moscow, but were stopped at Stalingrad.
@@mikeor- but they were stoped before Moscow, they didn't took it.
5:08 it seems a bit misleading to say the British were standing alone in 1940 when they had a massive empire to help them from Canada to India to Australia. Also in 1940 there were many more polish resistance fighters helping the allies then french. This did not change until case anton and operation torch.
Especially considering that anywhere from 10-20% of "British" troops came from the wider empire. Not to mention the thousands of French Nazi sympathizers who threw their lot in with the Nazis and Vichy France. And poor Poland often gets overlooked in their incredibly valiant and surprisingly costly fight against the Nazi invasion, even before the resistance even began!
Those countries are dominions, almost or virtually independent.
While India, India is too far and too non-british settled, it is virtually another quasi-independent country.
And India had to look out for Japan too
@@thethirdjegs .....Right, so that furthers the point that Britain did not stand alone....
@@hunterhuntoon725 yep. Haha.
This channel is pretty "biased" (occassionally john green would say something i disagree with). A way to agreement is to adopt some assumptions, for example "britain alone in europe" pertains to: its european community rather than the world at large or its empire counted as one (that empire must have as much economy as europe itself).
But technically britain is not alone. Essentially it is with some but's.
Agree with you on the "standing alone" bit, its a total myth perpetuated by "Little Englanders" but he's not talking about resistance fighters, in 1940 the Free French had 73k combatants serving under British commanders compared to 19k Polish, 4k Czechs, etc.
FINALLY. THE MONGOLS MONTAGE IS BACK!
why do I feel like 2013 John is happier than 2019 John
England: We fight to defend liberty!
Colonies: ...
Well they fought World War I for "the freedom of small Nations".
Then between 1919 and 1922, they fought an all out war to prevent Irish freedom!!!
Michael O'Donnell And don’t forgot Wilson’s 14 Points that helped to end the War; self-determination for everyone!
Except Germany...
And the colonies...
As a Canadian, I see no problem with this.
Ordinary Sessel how convenient that is when we don’t consider that colonization often involved the upheaval of local, stable governing structures and replaced them with subservient regimes of extraction. Is it any wonder that countries created out of arbitrarily drawn boarders with systems built to support exploitation didn’t thrive after colonizers not only pulled out, but used strong-man dictators to subvert attempts to democratize and self-determine during the Cold War?
The colonies were absolutely essential to that fight.
8:27 Return of the Mongol-tage!
I know it's an example from fiction but when I first heard this, it made me realize how hopeless WW II must've seemed to British civilians at the time. In an episode of Doctor Who they end up in London during the Blitz and one of the characters, seeing Billie Piper from the 21st century, assumes that the Germans win. When they tell her that actually the Allies win, this characters wonders how it is possible when the situation seems so dire and hopeless? Our hindsight has made the outcome seem inevitable but at some point, nobody actually knew for sure who would win the war, and understanding this can give us an idea of how terrifying that kind of uncertainty must be.
Grandpa served in the 452nd Anti Aircraft Artillery Battalion, US Army. Rest in Power ✊🏿✊🏿✊🏿🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
My grandpa survived D-day. He was a paratrooper and had to eat rotten apples. Other than that, he didn’t talk much about the war. He died when I was four, and the stuff I hear about the war is what my mom tells me.
3:08 so this is somewhat misleading. Germany didn’t really want to go through with operation sea lion (the invasion of Britain). What they really wanted was to show them they had no choice but to surrender. This was after the defeat of their biggest ally France and the fall of most of Europe. Sea lion was more of a backup plan in case Britain fought on and Germany had to invade. The plan was cancelled after it was accessed that their was no way to truly invade Britain without suffering massive causalities.
Well they almost succeeded in a other way. The UK was almost broken do to the very successful U-boat missions on all the cargo going to the UK.
It was more days then weeks. If that was succeeded Germany could just demand the UK what ever they want in order for the UK even just feed/fuel there people.
In that way for the UK the fact that the USA joined the war was really a life saver in it self.
@Dwarov 1 In the earlier stage it really did. out of the words of the UK it self it has been said that they really where buckling under the submarine warfare. the shortages for Germany was not yet a real issue.
If Germany did not open there east front but had only concentrated on the west that could have made it a whole new story.
I needed the Mongols clip. Been a rough few days
I realize that you aren't a military history channel, but there were a few kind of outdated misinterpretations. There was no official use of the term Blitzkreig by the Germans, who were more accurately following the legacy of prussian Bewegungskrieg or "war of movement" ; a lot of the blaming of Hitler for military blunders comes from the memoirs of generals who were keen to avoid responsibility for their own military failures and atrocities (Of course Hitler made many mistakes, and committed the most extreme atrocities, it's just that those under him shouldn't be allowed to escape scrutiny); and Rommel has been a bit over lionized to justify early failures of the inexperienced American forces. I guess this is more of a minor point since you're mostly going for a general impression of the progress of the war.
Everyone calls it blitzkrieg. Dont matter if the nazis called it that or not
@@Plankensen it does matter that it wasn't a new innovation, but rather the application of new technologies to an existing tactic already highly associated with german military tradition. It's one of many cases of history unnecessarily glorifying the nazis.
It wasn't even uniquely German, all of WWI was spent trying break through the lines to allow maneuver warfare where fast moving cavalry would set up behind the enemy and create large encirclements.
@@Plankensen It matters since he said "they plan ..". And it was a tactical success and not some strategic thinking. Also he talks about tanks and mobile infantry as the key factor if not the one. That's the "Guderian version" of the war, as false as the Halder/Manstein version of the eastern front.
Wehraboos everywhere..
thanks for sharing man
Finally! That Mongoltage is back!
we need crash course to do algebra, trigonometry, and geometry. Anyone else agrees
Please make a Crash Course Art history! I love and appreciate what you are doing, you are making a difference in this world.
As an overview this is okay. However, there are several errors, especially when you get into Operation Barbarossa. Winter did not halt the German offensives. At first they had issues with the cold but they did quickly devise strategies to overcome that. Hitler wanted to focus the offensive in the south to capture the Ukraine's agricultural lands and the Caucasus oil reserves, but Field Marshal Halder and the planning staff at OKW (similar to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff) decided to stick to the usual method of conducting war by defeating the enemy's forces in the field and capturing their capital. Which Napoleon had shown doesn't work with the Russians and Hitler knew that the Soviets would be no different. So the broad front offensive was used. Hitler had no notions of occupying all of the Soviet Union. What he wanted was the Ukraine and the Caucasus for their agricultural and oil resources. To that end he wanted to go no further east than the Volga River. The winter clothing issue is a yes-and-no thing. Yes, they decided the war would be over before cold weather equipment would be needed so didn't produce more than what was already on hand. However, no, what was on hand was pretty much sufficient for their needs but logistical issues limited what could be transported to the front. The German army of that period can be described as the most advanced horse-drawn army to exist. Despite what the German films of the period show, considering they were nearly all propaganda films, trucks were primarily confined to motorized units and some panzer units since half tracks were in short supply. Those half tracks were built on truck chassis, the same trucks needed to transport troops and supplies, so they didn't make anywhere near as many as they needed or we were led to believe they had. The infantry divisions were pretty much horse drawn and marching just like Napoleon's Grand Armee. And the Germans were critically short of food and petroleum products (it was a punishable offense to leave a vehicle's engine running while stopped), which is why they invaded the Soviet Union in the first place. That Lebensraum thing. Also, the Royal Navy did the lion's share of the evacuation from Dunkirk. Those little private vessels did save a percentage of soldiers, but their involvement was greatly enhanced by Churchill for propaganda purposes. And Great Britain was the recipient of huge amounts of food, resources, and war materials from the United States as well as their own colonies. It wasn't just them alone by any means. If it had been the U-boats could well have sunk enough shipping to force Britain into starvation and signing a peace treaty with Germany, which is what Hitler wanted anyways. And thanks for bringing back the Mongoltage! I missed that.
I refuse to believe that winter is yes-and-no factor to German loss in Barbarossa. I think it's just not as significant as what people think bcs that's just one of many reasons why German fail. But yeah, generalisation. Thanks for explaining
I think most of your Eastern Front beef is difference of opinion rather than outright error on the part of Crash Course, plus only us speakers of Worldwartwoish actually care about these little subtleties and details. Also I'd argue that Napoleonphobia is an underrated cause of German failure of Barbarossa. Hitler had a massive fear of repeating Napoleon's invasion results and I think it was an underrated factor in his decision making.
What's rather ironic is that -- 1940's Soviet Union being such a radically different country than the 1812 Russian Empire -- claiming Moscow would have been infinitely more valuable for Hitler than it was for Bonaparte. Its population had increased 25-fold, and a combination of Industrial Revolution and Moscow's transformation from secondary city to St. Petersburg to the primary transportation and supply hub of the Soviet Union meant it would have been an *extremely* difficult loss to overcome.
I think the loss of Moscow adds a year to the war and triples US casualties in the European theater. And I think General Mud and his superior, Marshall Winter had enough impact on the invasion that had Barbarossa launched 6 weeks earlier, it would have succeeded. The mud did at least as much to bog down the invasion as the winter and German lack of preparedness.
Perfectly said, I agree with everything you wrote.
@@kaiserdb It's not so much opinion as the accumulation of new facts. Since 1992 the Russian Federation has been periodically opening up it's archives of captured German records and Soviet wartime documents to scholars who have been publishing what they have have learned. These are primary source documents and they paint a different picture from the memoirs and such that have been our only source of information from the German side. Additionally they are also not biased by Cold War politics or Nazis trying to save their head from a noose and place their guilt on Hitler, the SS, or whomever else they can blame. As to the importance of Moscow, it is an important city, being the center of government and a transportation hub. But the Russians don't think of it's loss as being the reason to stop fighting. They would just move what they could, destroy what they couldn't, and carry on with the war as best they could. Which is exactly what they were doing when the Germans were threatening the city. Yes it would have been a loss, but it could be overcome. In fact, using Moscow to bog the Germans down in an urban battle, like Stalingrad, would have done much direct damage to the German military and forced them to redirect troops and supplies away from the other fronts to Moscow which would hinder their operations around Leningrad and at the Don River bend. The Germans did not train to fight in cities. The whole idea of their strategy was to avoid getting caught up in static positional warfare. Given their logistical problems, encircling Moscow wasn't going to happen. Now the mud, yes that has always been a major problem for all armies. My time in the army I've seen trucks sink right down to the frame rails in mud. And that statement about Stalin disappearing for a few days is also not totally correct. He was actually in closed meetings with his marshals and advisers trying to figure out a way to halt the German advance. He was putting in 20+ hour days for a brief while and finally went to his quarters exhausted and didn't come back out for a day or two. So yeah, he did disappear from public view for around a week or so, but he wasn't in shock or denial as was previously believed.
really enjoying this series, great use of video anecdotal information, a vivid and fresh experience on a topic you'd think you've heard everything about.
I've dearly missed the mogoltage!
I just discovered this channel... please never stop posting omg this channel is such a precious gem I’m glad I found it
We are a homeschool family with only ONE left to finish high school. This is an amazing site and I suspect that, after this awfulness, a LOT of families will want to home school over the long haul. The oldest in our family started home school at age 7 and is now 27. She was extremely well-socialized with the kind of socializing that WE wanted for her. She joined different clubs and studied music/singing/chant. She is a published songwriter, performed her original song for a Disney movie, and is a very accomplished young woman. I wish this was around 20 years ago. Now the youngest of 4 grandchildren will be able to enjoy and learn. Thank you!
I miss John's older videos.. Much more engaging that Younger John asked some great questions!
You have one of the most incredible history channels!
Thanks for share the knowledge!!
Finally. Dude I have a test in like 3-4 weeks. Life saver John. Life saver.
Then you'll want a better source. This one is... not up to their usual.
I am back on this channel after years and this is the first video of Mr. Green that I have seen since the very early episodes of this series and I must say, I immediately noticed the slower speed of his speech!
These videos can't come soon enough. Thank you!
Glad you still make videos, in my school we still watch some of your older videos
"The value of a war changes if you're an arms manufacturer or if you're a school teacher murdered for being literate."
War never changes.
While I appreciate the fallout reference, war ALWAYS changes. You're confusing motive with execution. The motives for war are the same, for humanity has barely changed in 100,000 years. But human technology has changed, has progressed. WW2 was fought on tanks and planes. Before ww1 battles were not mechanized and Europeans had rules of engagement. You see now, friend: war always changes.
Got my crash course fix today. Thank you. Now the wait for next episode begins.
It is argued by some historians today that Hitler was actually in the right when it came to the invasion of the USSR. His generals wanted a concentrated attack on Moscow, incorrectly believing that after Moscow falls the Soviet leadership would just capitulate like they did in France, which they'd never do, so long as their industry is alive, while Hitler wanted an attack on the Caucasus to capture Soviet oil fields which were vital to keep the German war machine alive. Neither attack would have worked the way it was imagined, though, because the distances and the soviet resistance were widely underestimated, however Hitler's plan would have higher chance of success simply by the fact that, had the attack succeeded, his goal would have been accomplished (Germany would have had more oil and would have been able to push further into the USSR), while had the Germans captured Moscow, very little would have changed (aside from the obvious deaths of hundreds of thousands of Russians living in Moscow)
Targeting the oil fields is one thing, but splitting your focus between two widely divergent targets is quite another. And doing so so late into an already ongoing operation spells a death knell for your military strategy.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn Im not saying Hitler was a brilliant military strategist, im saying that his generals (who outlived him) whitewashed their military strategy pretending they were smart and that hitler was just dumb and/or and wouldnt listen to them, and if he had they'd have won. But they are also wrong, as they too were stupid and looked at the entire war as a whole incorrectly. The truth is, the moment the USSR was attacked, WW2 was lost for Germany, they could not compete with their manpower or production, nor with that of the British or the Americans, both of whom were fighting that war as well, whom would have bombed the Germans into submission eventually, as well as open up new fronts in order to relieve the pressure from the Soviets. They did about the best they could, and had either military strategy been fully appropriated, they'd have done slightly better, but they'd have inevitably lost either way
@@McGliga Fair enough.
McGliga keep in mind that the official US Army history of the Eastern front was written by the German generals.
I am glad you mentioned the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but the Soviet Union also invaded Poland with Germany. Then the Soviet Union invaded Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania before invading Finland. And Germany invaded Denmark and Norway. The British and French had guaranteed Polish borders, then surrendered them to Soviet Union at the end of the War.
They invaded on separate dates.
Great summary of WW2, hits major points cleanly
“Wow that escalated quickly”
"We don't want Western colonialist to rule Eastern people. We want Eastern colonialists to rule Eastern people" - Japan during WWII
Is that real?
@array s Oh my, as a korean, dont even get me started on those japaneses... lol!
Whenever someone says "War is hell," I think of this speech that Hawkeye gives in M*A*S*H. Basically, war isn't hell, it's war -it's worse than hell because there're no innocents in hell, but there's plenty of them in war.
8:30 they didn’t start the invasion in the winter and also a better exception would be the fins considering you didn’t even cover the winter war
Amen, dude. You're telling straight truth
The winter war could and should have its own episode lol. Maybe Extra History will get to it
Its should be dont invade in winter.
Hunter Huntoon got to Indy Neidell
Well actually, Finland did not invade Russia. It mostly resisted, although brillliantly against forces 20 times more numerous, but each Finno-Russian war resulted in territorial loss for Finland.
thank you for sharing such good content!
Thanks for the help!
why does noone ever talk about the soviet invasion of manchuria? it arguably had as big of an impact on japan as the nuclear bombs
Thanks ,the video is very informative 💙
shout out to him for making videos exactly when i need them for AP Euro
Wow! I literally just watched John Green's WWII video from 2013 less than a minute ago, and then out of nowhere I see this video on the same topic that was only made *today* ! What are the odds, right?! 🤩
THIS IS IT. THIS IS THE ONE WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR
The story of the fight between the Soviets and Nazis presented here has some glaring inaccuracies. Not all German generals disagreed with Hitler's plan, and the alternative, while being pushed as superior, has massive flaws in it. Hitler wanted the wider front invasion to ease logistics and prevent flanking maneuvers from his enemy, and he focused on the south specifically to get at the oil Germany was so desperate for. We like to portray Hitler as a great fool, but the reality is that he made a mixture of foolish and good decisions, and his intellect is thus hard to quantify.
Reminds me of an orange in the White House, about a mix of correct and incorrect decisions. History doesn't repeat, but often rhymes.
Amazing video
Hello bhai
Crashcourse is the future of online education.
I swear, John Green is the best history teacher ever
I think I needed the Mongols, this particular series is hard.
Nice to see Operation Valkyrie get a mention in the thought bubble
I feel you should have at least mentioned the Winter War. It is important in understanding both the Soviet goals in the war and also the German justification for invading Russia.
There're lots of things he missed and the Winter war is surely one them
Truly Enjoy your channel, I expect that someday you give crash course in geology too.
Regards.
7:38 47 million Soviet citizens is way way past the agreed upon historical estimates.
Fnando 12 what are the agreed upon estimates?
@@Will-sl9ix around 27 millon
@@rabbitwho LOL
Regardless, just like nearly every other U.S. history of the Big One, omits the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. In his recorded speech to the Japanese Army, Showa Tenno made it clear that this invasion was why Tokyo was surrendering, he only mentioned the atomic bombings in passing.
You're right 27 million is the estimate that has been used for decades by everybody.
That Mongols reference was absolutely glorious
8:30 there it is! I have missed the Mongols cutaway
8:15
Seeing J Stalin in winterfell garb made me crack up lol that’s why I love this channel
Will future videos be delayed or impacted by the Corona Virus? Thank you for releasing this one.
great content, thanks a lot
Hitler wanted to conquer the south of USSR, because he, rightly, believed that was more important to take due to its economic power. In some German memoirs you can see that these generals mentioned that Hitler said the war in the east must be won in 4 months. This is due to the oil crisis in Germany. That's all the time they believed they had left before the collapse of the German economy. Moscow would have done little to defeat the USSR, as general Timoshenko (of the USSR) notes in a speech in Moscow. Their plan was to make Germany expend oil in massive offensives, something they knew Germany was low on due to their negotiations for trade in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The idea that "if only he listened to his generals" is often wrong, especially in the beginning of the war. For another example, his generals called for operation citadel, but he famously said "everytime I think about operation citadel, my stomach turns over" (Hitler). He definitely began to make awful decisions later in the war but the narrative about generals always being right is wrong. Moscow and Leningrad would have done nothing but add more people to feed, when food was also something Germany was low on. He needed the Ukraine's grain and the caucuses oil fields, that's all he wanted. His generals seemed to think that if they took Moscow, Stalin would surrender in the same vain as the French, no, he would fight to the death like Germany did in our reality. The same can be seen in the Napoleonic wars, Russia doesn't surrender that easily. My only point is Hitler wasn't a total idiot like the traditional narrative says, he was evil, but you don't control an entire nation by making no logical sense whatsoever. See the youtube channel Tik if youd like more information on my point of view.
Just a warning TIK has made a lot of inaccuracies in recent videos
@@jaojao1768 perhaps but I think the core tenant of his point about Hitlers plan in the east is correct.
the ArkhamKnight 123 *tenet
My man, love listening to your vids as im playing civ 6 haha.
Fantastic !!!
Love ur videos support from the uae ❤️❤️❤️
We use Crash Course videos in my AP European History class. So excited to learn through this great channel, keep up the great work!
I know this is a crash course and there is no time to focus on details, but one of my favourite details of Battle of Britain was the involvement of Polish squadron 303 that was the most successful unit during the battle. One of the few times when Poles had a chance to fight back, as Poland was crushed at the very beginning of the war.
What about the fact that according to almost every historian studying the Japanese surrender, the Soviet attack on Manchuria was more influential than the atomic bombs, despite common misconceptions.
Well there is a lot of debate amongst them, but most recognise both of them were important
@@jaojao1768I do not think there is as the atomic bomb did not change the situation for the Japanese, while the Soviet attack removed any option for a negotiated peace with the Allies.
@@oliverbyrne840 on the other hand the Emperor mentioned specifically the atomic bombs in his surrender speech
john i do not like u but u are coming in clutch the night before my history final
thank you
One of the most comprehensive videos by crash course.... thank you 👏👍👌
I think it is important to note that the declaration of war by the USSR on Japan was also part of the reason they surrendered, which is why whether using the Atomic Bomb should be debated more than it is portrayed in the video.
At 7:34. Ummmm...most historians have come to a consensus number of 25 million Soviet citizens and soldiers dying in WWII. This number is the consensus number because it's what the historical record supports as the most likely number. Where are you getting this 47 million number from?
I've seen 27 million, but agreed that 47 million is probably inaccurate.
Just a guess, but the difference may come from whether you consider Soviet borders before or after the war. Many people that were not Soviet citizens when the war started came from the territories annexed by the Soviets during the war. I believe that Soviet sources liked to count them into their own losses, to blow up the size of their sacrifice.
People like big death tolls for all things Soviet. Stalin killed a hundred bajillion squillion people so...
Many of the Soviet casualties of the Second World War were actually victims of Stalin's pre war purges. Others include the Jewish people, either murdered in the Death Camps or by the Einsatzgruppen. But the Einsatzgruppen also targeted Communist party officials and office holders.
It's including the number of soldiers and civilians, some historians claim that roughly 26 million soldiers were killed with an additional 20 million civilians. The numbers fluctuate quite a lot, obviously, and this is largely dependent on how you're counting. FWIW, the official total by the USSR was somewhere around 24 million war dead overall.
8:28 They didn't invade in winter though
As others have noted, Barbarossa’s portrayal is inaccurate. A shame because this is a otherwise a great channel.
Hey guys there's a really good documentary on WW2 out there. Check out Europa: the Last Battle
De Gaulle in the thumbnail made my day, thank you
Hi I liked the video, thanks for your efforts as always, I have one point of constructive criticism: Soviet civilian and miltary casualties are thought to have been 27 million. Still mind bogglingly large but not 47 million. Anyway thanks again John (and your team). Cheers
I too was confused when he stated the casualty figure, I think the crash course team may have added both the civilian and total casualty count to arrive at that figure
The Nazis didn’t actually want to conquer all of the USSR as they realised it was too big for them to take it all. The goal of Barbarossa for them was to take everything west of the cities Arkhangelsk and Astrakhan roughly also known as the A-A line.
They wanted all of it. They wanted that living space.
Educational!
Uhh, sadly so much wrong or superficial enough to come across wrong in this video. (No, I am not a Wehraboo or whatever corner you want to put me in)
- Blitzkrieg (not a real thing, especially not early in the war)
- Hitler vs Generals and the idea that capturing Moscow would have ended the War in the East (the Caucasus oil was the real goal after it became clear that Russia would not cave in like France had)
- "Sudden" decision to invade USSR after failed attempt at GB
- Stalin badly wanting allied landing in Western Europe (he favoured more Lend-Lease over an allied landing)
- British decision for mediterranean campaign put forth as bad decision
I am sure I missed some things.
Still love you, Crash Course, DFTBA!
I'm curious what you mean by Blitzkrieg not being a real thing early in the war. All descriptions of the war I've ever seen described that tactic as something Germany employed in many of its early conquests. Considering most countries in Continental Europe surrendered within a few months of being invaded (at most) after the recent years-long slog of WW1, everything at the time must have felt incredibly sudden.
Poland had some good equipment just not in quantity.
I think the vid was great love 'The Mongols' moment.
To be fair, Germany invaded Russia in June, not the winter. Although still trying to push deeper into Russia after late September was catastrophic for them.
My great-uncle Peebles. Was a Montford Point Marine. He fought in the Battle of Peleliu and Okinawa. As well as serving in the Korean War. Rest in Power Uncle 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲✊🏿✊🏿✊🏿
He earned a seat at Odin's banquet table in Valhalla, where he feasts with his fallen brothers in arms.
I think the importance of Americas Industrial base in winning the war was a bit understated. The goods that America gave out (mainly to the Soviet Union) more than likely saved millions of lives. We gave the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom the logistical support they needed to feed they're people during the war.
2:10 Funnylly people dont anymore say Polish made stupid cavalry charge againts germans tanks, but still show polish cavalry making mock charge when speaking about them.
nothing like quarantine n crash course :))
So glad the Mongoltage is back!
Important video.
Even Russia itself had to learn not to attack during the winter, just before the German invasion. When they wanted to take over Finland.
My brother forces me to do things like watch crash course but at least it’s good
this is kind of cool!!
Oh damn! I missed the Mongoltage!
The return of the Mongoltage! I’m so happy it’s back. My grandpa fought in WWII, it was a very interesting and dark time
I have waited so long for another "unless... you are the mongols," and I was not disappointed.
It's very difficult to talk about ww2 in only 15 minutes. You guys did a good job.
A few clarifications:
The Russian winter itself was not the deciding factor in the poor state of the eastern front after initial success. These were in summation: lack of oil, extended supply lines/low supplies, high armour losses and low manpower.
Oil in the ME had just been discovered and had nowhere near the same levels of refineries and infrastructure required for the Axis to benefit in the short term. And had after that no possibility to safely transport it back to Europe.
The overall strategy of German forces had one overall goal: Oil
I was waiting for the mongols reference!
.........At least you are the Mongols
It never gets old
Is good to that there is always an exception.
jokes on you teacher i enjoy Crash Course history