@@Tamirpop I mean he makes up funny stories that have nothing to do with history. His comments on Stalingrad have been my first exposure to his very uninformed grasp on history.
@@Tamirpop You're listening to a nincompoop. He doesn't have any clue about history and is just retelling the fables that were taught to us. Then he passes them off to you like he's old and wise.
@@The2ndFirst seems that you have a personal problem with the man. Ok so you can present what you know about the "real" history instead of the "fables" as you called them.
This guy's job is in an Austin TX Junior College, next door to a high end university, after working at Univ. of Maryland. That says Something about what his peirs and superiors think of him.
I am at the process of listening to your lectures, its hard to stop listening simply because they are great and sincere and entertaining knowledge Thank you
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you for posting your lectures and interviews! You have students all over the world. Thank you for the time you put into your research and thank you for the thinking it clearly takes to pull it all together.
Professor, please write few books on Middle-East, US Foreign Policy and WWII and all other topics that you are well versed in. I had already purchased your fiction book, just to show my gratitude for all the knowledge that I've gained from your videos (despite I only read non-fiction). I wish I was where you are so I could gatecrash all your lectures. Sincere, heartfelt gratitude Sir!
actually, i heard in one of his lectures that that one isn’t purely fiction. i didn’t read it yet, but maybe dig a little deeper? you’d be surprised ^^. i think the lecture was called “unerasing the erased”.
I’ve been binge watching Dr. Roy’s lectures for three days. I hope the students at Austin College know and appreciate the quality of their education. My community college classes are laughable and embarrassing.
I am from Canada and I would travel to Austin just to get to listen to Dr Casagranda! Does he do speaking engagement? Cause damn he sure makes history lessons so much more substance then other teachers I've heard! I think I've probably listened to every one of his vids! Thank you!
He mentioned the German soldiers were drinking heavily to get through the battle. My father-in-law fought for the Viet Cong for 10 years from 1965 until the end of the American War in 1975. He told me the same thing about that fighting. They drank a lot. He quit drinking after the war and never started again.
Roy turns history into an amazing captivating story with neutral bias. I'm jealous of his students. I'm addicted to his videos, and I'm learning so much history, It's not even funny.
Overall this lecture is pretty fantastic. It is worth noting a few things though, Dr. Casagranda brings up a lot of events regarding the soviets that are only ever mentioned in German war memoirs. The soviet order 227 (not one step back) was directed towards the officer corps, not the average soldier. It is widely regarded as a myth that the soviets shot retreating footsoldiers, the order was used to get rid of the spirit of "we can just keep retreating" that a lot of the officer corps had. The Soviets did have "barrier soldiers" who would stay behind the line and arrest retreating soldiers, but they very rarely shot them and more often than not would just send them back towards the front.
It's not as if we don't have paper trails for such blocking detachments -- imagine a single company of 100 men covering an operational area of several if not 10 km's (I forget the actual prescribed width for these formations). It simply makes no sense to assert that the Soviets had the excess man power to staff hundreds if not thousands of active frontline combat in order to "machine-gun" their own fleeing troops. Sad to see the Dr. repeat such information so assertively
Thank u Dr. Roy Casangranda yet another interesting lecture. One remark 1:02:10 although the bombing campaign helped the ministry of propaganda and public enlightenment, it is interesting to note in this context that it forced the luftwaffe to recall airplanes from the fronts. This helped the soviet air forces to gain air dominance earlier than they otherwise would have. Flak 88's who were often used in an anti-tank role also had to be recalled from the frontlines, severely reducing anti-tank capabilities of infantry regiments, staffing these anti-air guns also took lot of girlpower. All these elements have let militarian historians to conclude that the bombing raids had a negative overall effect on the capabilities of germany to wage war.
The Germans kept producing more tanks planes and guns year over year through the bombing raids. All we accomplished was the murder of millions of women, children and elderly, refugees. And the destruction of ancient European architecture and artwork. The amount of men we lost, the resources sunk into those missions would have been better spent elsewhere.
@@Noorlatgamer I agree with the sentiment. To clarify, I meant the vast majority of people with Internet access. The ones who don't, cannot enable the channel/content to go viral.
@@rayzimmerman6740 I agree with you completely. People dont have attention span. What I would say though is for while now vines / shorts / tiktok short form videos are the trend. So Austin School could use short videos to link back to longer ones. They could also run short courses with credit for an international audience. You can find ways to market to people even with the constraint of low attention span externality that mobile phones cause.
@@Noorlatgamer I admire your optimism - in as much as you think shorter videos would get engagement. I don't think it would meet with much success, but perhaps it's worth a shot? New York minutes are now New York moments. There are few exceptions that prove the rule. I think one would have to identify those "influencers" who are swimming against the tide, and get them on board to make the content relevant, as opposed to Austin School. The challenge is the appeal and stickability. In an increasingly self obsessed, opinionated, argumentative landscape, where everything is measured in likes, views and subscribers - this type of content doesn't quite fit. Look at our world leaders in the recent past - Bush Junior, Blair, Trump, Boris, Putin, Erdogan, Modi et al. With the exception of Putin, these are democratically elected leaders. To Paraphrase Kaku - its like we're all sitting in a car, driving at a great speed towards a brick wall, and we're arguing whose going to drive. I think George Harrison summed it up in the song "I, me, mine" all those years ago. Broadly speaking, this generation doesn't listen to Albums. I'd wager that by and large, they would have to look up George Harrison. As for smart phones, you know what they say - they're only as smart as the person holding it.
Strange thing - when discussing the Blitzkrieg Dr. Casagranda have not mentioned Poland was half occupied by Germany but the other half by Soviet Union. On 17.Sep.1939 Soviet Union attacked Poland from east and occupied the east half of the country. Actually Poland was occupied by both Germany and Soviet Union and against the popular opinion, technically and factually the Soviet Union stepped in WWII as aggressor.
@@marcusc5170 well 3 out of 4 German soldiers died on eastern front in wwii. the price ussr paid in this war was unbelievable and the suffering of the people was unimaginable. but motivation of Stalin in this war in 1939 was much like the nazi's, i guess.
I beg to differ. These guys did far a better job: th-cam.com/video/6W5QYdfQhmc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xX2oAJhEDVMcc-BR delves more profoundly into the topic. It's in Russian but the subtitles are in English. Don't get me wrong, I love Casagranda's lectures related to the Middle East, but Stalingrad demands thoroughness and objectivity.
The first president of Algerian, Ahmed Benbella, and one of the leaders of the war of Algerian independence, was a decorated hero of the battle of Monte Casino, and was decorated by General De Gaulle himself. He later said in an interview that companies of 120 men of Algerians would go up to storm German position and less than 20-30 men would come back from the assault. That was the price Algerians paid for the independence of France. The reward was the famous massacres of 8 Mai 1945, on V-day, when Algerian went out to celebrate victory with illegal Algerian flags, and claim the independence that De Gaulle promised them in his Brazzaville speech in Congo in 1942. They massacred over 40 thousand Algerians over a period of three months to "teach" them to accept colonialism. That's France dark past for you.
Roy is an emotional story teller, but he leaves out facts. Stalin made the Molotov-Ribentroff Pact with Hitler to get half of Poland as a buffer. Stalin traded Soviet food and raw matetials to get the industrial machinery from Germany. Germany was the country that industrialized the Soviet Union. The Soviets fed Germany and also gave them oil and minerals. Stalin was also fighting Japan after the Pact with Hitler. Stalin avoided fighting on two fronts. First, Stalin also tried to negotiate with Finland BEFORE invading. Yes, he wanted certain territory, but was willing to trade Russian territory farther north. The fins didn't trust Stalin, so they said no. Stalin decided to attack instead. When Russia attacked Finland, Stalin overrode his generals and attacked on a broad front. This was a bad strategy. Russia's forces were too spread out and lost. Then Stalin listened to his generals and attacked on a more narrow front and won. Stalin got the Finish territory he wanted in the end.
1:07:30 .. there is some confusion here; there seems to be a proposal that is simultaneously bad for the Germans but also for the Russians, to engage in a battle at Stalingrad. We are to believe that they are both sides making a mistake, and both sides more likely to lose the entire war as a result of the Battle of Stalingrad.
Stalingrad itself wasn't strategically significant. All those deaths were for bragging rights, basically. So it was a stupid reason to fight, for both sides. However, if the Germans had conquered Stalingrad, maybe Hitler would've allowed his soldiers to redeploy and abandon the city. We will never know. So the fact that the Nazis kept throwing soldiers there weakened their fronts, guaranteeing their eventual defeat. If all Hitler cared about was to be able to say "I conquered the city named after Stalin", then holding it would be irrelevant. Stalin had no way to know if that would happen. He only cared about saving face. But maybe, in a different timeline, Stalin did the strategic thing and ignored Stalingrad, by doing so, allowed Hitler to achieve this stupid goal, and maybe Hitler would've let his generals operate the front in a more effective manner after it. This could've changed the war. I think that's why people see this as an absolute stupid mistake from the Germans, but aren't that harsh about the Soviets. Like... If your enemy is fixated in committing a stupid mistake, exploit it the max you can. Unintentionally, that's what Stalin did.
British bombers only flew at night into Germany. US bombers refused to fly at night because they understood that accurate bombing relied on being able to not only see, but identify correctly the target, which meant daylight bombing for them. In addition, the US developed dedicated night fighter aircraft specifically for flying at night.
Stalin actively tried to pursue an alliance with France and the UK before Molotov-Ribbentrop. They refused. Positing the pact as arising abstracted from this is kind of disingenuous.
The German army was never designed of siege warfare. Its key to success was mobility combined with violence of action. The Russians erased an entire German Field Army from the order of battle. It was a loss that Germany would never recover from.
Why do you say by those who went to public schools (33:12), may be you should add some thing like for those who went to a public school from a certain postal code
The Panther tank was the best tank in the war. The Germans did not produce enough of them and ran short of parts but sheer power, speed and agility no tank could match the Panther. The Soviets just produced more tanks. Thank you lend lease
There were three turning points at the Eastern Front: a) Stalingrad in Winter 42/43 was a pschological turning point, as the Sowjet could convince themself that they could win a significant battle against the Germans. This gave confidence. b) Operation Bagration in Summer '44 was such a overwhelming success for the Red Army, so that they became sure after this event that they will win the war. Before that, there were still doubts. So this was the obvious military turning point. c) In hindsight, historians tell us that the war was lost for Germany in late 1941, after if became clear that the Wehrmacht's Blitzkrieg had fizzeled near Moscow. Germany was not capable to sustain a war of attrition - neither by personnel, weapons, fuel, logistics, This was the real, but hidden turning point.
I actually found his storytelling skills awesome, but he often say misleading things and wrong facts. But that’s nothing serious, since he’s telling the story in a such energetic and entertaining way! 😂
Very good lecture but a few historical oversights,mistakes or falsehoods on the details. For example..when talking about The Nightwitches you state that "no airforce in World War 2 flew at night"(1:17:05). This is simply not true as the Royal Airforce bombed Germany(Dortmund Raid) at night May 10-11 1940 and would later begin heavy night bomber raids throughout the rest of the war. Germany would also begin a night campaign over Britain September 7,1940(Black Saturday). Night operations for air forces were rather commonplace throughout the war in many countries. Also it is a gross oversight when talking about armored forces in the war when one focuses only on the "gun-armor" issue of "the best". You clearly forgot the single most important piece of kit..the wireless radio. Communication is the key to early victories for Germany. There were many other instances but overall an entertaining lecture that one can only hope inspires listeners to do a bit of independent research.
I really love Dr. Roy and his talks. They are fantastic. However, I think this is my least favorite one in terms of tone. I feel like the same level of awe and veneration he shows to other combatants against the nazis is not present here for the Soviets and that they’re staggering heroics to essentially fight the nazis alone are downplayed to insulting levels. Also the repeated use of euphemistically referring to the Soviets as “Russians” denies the identity of the many many many different ethnic groups that comprised the Soviet Union and the Red Army itself. Again, I love Dr. Roy but the blatant negative bias shown against some of the biggest heroes of the war is kind of repugnant for a self-proclaimed major fan of interest in the war.
Agreed, I'm about 1hr 20 mins in and he's joking about Soviets sending men into battle without boots & repeating the old line of having no rifles, overstating the usage or intent of blocking detachments etc. etc. While there are undeniable instances of critical undersupply and downright murderous Soviet doctrine throughout the eastern front, the Dr. here does not do well enough a job to buttress these instances against the well-worn Cold War era anti-Soviet historicism. Presenting such anecdotes doesn't accurately present the fact that the Soviet peoples were quite literally fighting an existential and exterminist war. I've only just discovered this Dr. but I'd hope his writings represent a more revisionist understanding than this lecture indicates
Oh i can teach the Doctor something .... Jerry can ... the Brits call Germans Jerries .. during the Desert battles in WW2 the Brits found out that the German petrol cans were much better than the English ones were .. they leaked less .. so the English army would use German petrol cans when ever they could and called them Jerry cans :)
this comment will be considered silly BUT, how could you skip Gauss (died 1855) as the single greatest mind in the last 200 years and one of the greatest in history of mankind
I have been critical of this speaker because I think he uses a lot of false framing in the lectures I've listened to. But I'm still captivated. This is my third one this week. I like this one. I like how he treats the Germans. Too often it's hysterical hand waving and all that about how evil they were. The Nazis are kittens compared to Caesar or the Mongols, and their stories are often told with great fan fare. Nothing can ever take away the harm, but they were not alone in this, but the 40 hour work week, over time, limits on war profiteering, massive reduction in class significance.... it's a real shame because there is a great foundation there. I wonder if Orvil and Wilber Wright invented the airplane to do something evil if we would foreswear air travel today?
@@yjp7959 This video isn't so bad. I think he does a good job of listing the legitimate grievances and justifications for Germany that were created in the wake of WWI. He still clings to the allied idea that the Germans are the most evil thing ever. Anyway, I listened to this one again because I wasn't sure what caused me to make this specific comment months ago and even if I disagree with Prof Cassagrande he is a great story teller. Around 1h 35m in he talks about how a "Syrian refugee" invented the flamethrower. This is highly anachronistic and is simply projecting his contemporary politics on to the past. This doesn't cause significant problems when he discusses very recent history like WWII, although I would say he's a bit weird for saying WWII begins when it does, with the Japanese and Chinese. Why not push it back to the 1920s when the Soviets were at continuous war with their neighbors? Anyway, have you noticed in his videos on ancient history he likes to discredit the idea of western civilization? His argument for this is not much more complicated than "sugar comes from India and the Europeans liked sugar."
@@andysamet4554 his idea of western civ is that it is from the mid east.. he is trying to uncover a whole part of history not in the achool books.. i kinda agree, the ottoman period which basically was the dominant super power for like 800 years or more always get skipped and compiled in like 4 pages. Also the mesopotamia, babylon stuff always is seemed so short for me too... like 90 % of my history class was 1700-2000s That being said idk have not seen to much about him
Found the wiki page of the dude inventing the flamethrower... apparantly it was a jewish syrian refugee en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callinicus_of_Heliopolis doesnt seem anachronistic... but i will now fact check him more often
@@yjp7959 I took my western civilization class a long time ago and it started with Mesopotamia and Nile cultures. Sure we didn't spend a long time on them because so little remains. Very few writings, few artifacts compared to Greek and Roman. Even the pre Islamic Persian culture doesn't have much remaining compared to Roman civilization from the same time. So there isn't as much time that can be devoted to it. It seems to me to be anachronistic because Syrian refugee has a specific meaning in the modern contemporary world. He is attempting to use that as a vehicle to attack contemporary Europeans for not wanting to let refugees overflow their borders today. It's a dirty sneaky political trick. I find he fills his lectures with these. He is still a good story teller. But I find these little bits of subversive political rhetoric he sneaks in discredit him.
Afaik, the reason Germans were so predicteble in battle of kurst, at that time british broke German secret code machine Enigma, so soviets knew detailed German tactics.
Sadly, one can tell this guy is a teacher of history and not a student of it. I didn't make it past "Hitler wanted Stalingrad because it had Stalin's name." There is absolutely no historical proof that is so. Quite the opposite actually. Hitler's whole goal from the beginning was to take the oilfields in the south. The entire goal of the push to the Don/Volga bend to secure the flank of the drive south to oil and survival. Fall Blau was by this time a bad idea but one could argue if all the money and blood spent trying to take Moscow, which was an OKW call had been present, it might've worked. The OKW hid many things from Hitler. The OKW wanted Moscow. They thought that was the "Center of gravity" that Clauswitz talks about. It wasn't. The Russians would have just kept falling back. They (Germany) were very lucky to escape destruction then and there. Casagranda clearly believes, as oh so many sadly do....Just like I did....The line of BS from the captured German generals. They all distanced themselves from Hitler and all of them to a man played the "Madman Hitler get out of jail free" card. Hitler knew exactly what he wanted but the people he really detested was the old Prussian aristocracy and their military class that dominated the army. And in the end really acted as a pull to a push and probably hastened the end of the war. If anyone *really* wants a complete blow by blow examination, multiple source based, examination of the totality of the eastern front there are multiple sources out there that aren't the cult of personality this man seems to be. I understand those students need to answer the right way to pass the class, and the right way is what he teaches need to do so. You can take his word for it. OR f you'd like to know the good the bad and the ugly I'd recommend: th-cam.com/users/TheImperatorKnightvideos It's study down to the minutia and upward. Be a student. Then you can be a teacher. BTW; Call me what you want. Names don't hurt me. I just encourage listening to a voice that knows. The "Battlestorm Stalingrad" series is very good.
Very well then, I shall call you... the only breath of fresh air on this page, your comment is educated, just, fair and much more logic and reasonable than what the teacher says here I suppose, I stopped at the very beginning when he suggests that those he calls neo-nazis, we know what that means, should in fact, leave now. I am no prodessional historian but I have studied those events a little, enough to know that the story we were told at school was a complete set of misinformations and half truths, : ) and that the monsters were not those we thought, what was done to the German people during the war but mostly after the fighting had ended makes no sense on any human scale and the rights the Alliiies awarded themselves through the unbelievable atrocity propaganda they put out made that no one knows about those rapes, expulsions and the intentional starvation of a whole population according to plans established way before the war had ended, the men behing the curtains had called for the systematic destruction of the country and its people. As to Barbarossa I find Suvorov's proposition very interesting, it would explain why the Germans went in with a clear deficit in readiness and equipment, when I found out they had used 750,000 horses for their supply lines I couldn't believe it, once again it went so against the winner's... version. Cheers and thanks again.
@@rosesandsongs21 To be fair the Germans were horrifyingly brutal with the Russian people in areas they occupied. They were pretty brutal with the other occupied countries as well. Both sides weren't angels when it comes to that and one could make the case that the Soviets lost the cold war by the brutality they inflicted on the people of eastern Germany and Berlin in the last days of the war. To say the monsters aren't who we thought they were is a bit of a misnomer as both sides have a lot of baggage to answer for. It's fairly easy to see that western Germany faired a great deal better than the east. I've been there and was stationed there when the wall came down and got to see the proof first hand. The lack of mechanization the the German army is contrary to the whole image of "bewegungskrieg. The wehmacht had a very sharp pointy bit of the spear that was highly mechanized. Even then most wehrmacht panzergrenedier regiments only had one battalion in halftracks and the others rode in trucks. Horses were massively used as prime movers for artillery and for support and supply. De-mechanization started in earnest in 1942. Again, TIK does a great job on his channel and I highly recommend Dr. Robert Citino's work on the eastern front to fully understand the entirety of the situation on the eastern front.
@@The2ndFirst I agree with you to a certain extent, I am well aware of the codes of conduct and the subsequent "adjustments" published by the German high command, fighting an army of partisans dressed like civilians, attacking from behind and then taking refuge among the civilian population requires certain drastic measures that cannot be denied. In such a case the line between barbarity and survival is pretty much draw by the better propaganda machine after the war and we all know it was not German. I saw an interesting video yesterday here on YT that describes the sad life of the Lithuanians who were deported to Siberia after the Soviet invasion it is called "Letters from Siberia | Part One" and the channel is 'Audrius Plioplys' the first few minutes are important, please. Then there is a book and a film about the Soviet atrocities in Eastern Europe called "In the Shadow of Hermes" by Juri Lina, a stunner. And I don't think the Germans would have invaded Russia without being ready if they didn't have a good reason like 'survival' for example, there is clear evidence now that Stalin had over 170 divisions massed on the German border in June 1941, he was about to move over Poland and Germany into Europe, he was almost ready. And with the abundant and revealing documentation released in 1991 by the Russians, the orders Stalin gave like the mass murder of 22,000 Polish intelliectuals # 144 and the scorched earth policy #0428, the "torchmen" order also telling partisans to wear German uniforms and commit some horrors on their own people and so on... I have accumulated much documentation through the years here so I can now finally avoid having opinions as much as possible so you will understand that the deduction based mode of operation of Tik is highly incompatible with most documentation so thanks for the recommendation but I have other sources, mostly official documents, diplomatic communications and proven facts. The horrors inflicted on the Germans have no equivalent in human history and they have no common measure with the crimes commited by the Germans before, during and after the war. Now, let's be clear, I am no Hitler fan or a neo nazi or anything of the sort, I am Canadian but the injustice of the situation simply makes some form of communicating that information impossible for me to avoid, Obviously the Germans did commit war crimes, they were judged and executed for them but Churchill and FDR also have to be exposed as the criminals they really were and the truth be told about the atrocities they committed that almost no one knows about.
@@rosesandsongs21I certainly agree that Churchill and Roosevelt have a lot of things to answer for. More post war than during war. As far as fighting partizans that's not an excuse to did what Germany did. The German army was well equiped to fight with large bodies of troops, but ill prepared to fight with people that would fight. The occupied countries acted exactly like I would if a nation invaded mine and I was as I am; A fat, old Army vet. I think TIK pretty much has things rock on, so if you can post facts and not opinions, I'm willing to listen.. believe the Germans largely chose to reap the whirlwind.
![บังเอิญมันได้อ่ะ - แอน อรดี [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9fwjammKY4A/mqdefault.jpg)
![สักวันฉันจะหายดี - INK WARUNTORN [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qyKVXta1vVY/mqdefault.jpg)
I cant stop watching videos of this mans lectures.
I wish there was a ton more..this man has taught me sooooooooo much Dr Roy you are so much appreciated!
I'm on day 6. 😂
If you're not careful , his profound , detail explanations , if exposed too long can cause ptsd .. something dr Roy suffers from to a mild extent
All great minds do @@sonyjoseph5426
same
The best historical storyteller in the US!
Sadly, they are just stories and not any sort of truth.
@@The2ndFirst what do you mean exactly by your needless comment?
@@Tamirpop I mean he makes up funny stories that have nothing to do with history. His comments on Stalingrad have been my first exposure to his very uninformed grasp on history.
@@Tamirpop You're listening to a nincompoop. He doesn't have any clue about history and is just retelling the fables that were taught to us. Then he passes them off to you like he's old and wise.
@@The2ndFirst seems that you have a personal problem with the man. Ok so you can present what you know about the "real" history instead of the "fables" as you called them.
I swear, I learned more from Dr. Casagranda than I did from my Drs here in Belgium. Thanks for that!
You didn't learn anything.
maybe you don't want to learn
He is amazing
@Oners82 no from his Phd profs in belgium
@Oners82 Dr. Casagranda is a revisionist though are you aware?
This guy Is so underrated, I major I'm history and never had a teacher make so many interesting facts about history that I already learned about
this guy is wrong in like 90% of the shit he waffles about
Same here
@@HippoDripposuch as?
This guy's job is in an Austin TX Junior College, next door to a high end university, after working at Univ. of Maryland. That says Something about what his peirs and superiors think of him.
I am at the process of listening to your lectures, its hard to stop listening simply because they are great and sincere and entertaining knowledge
Thank you
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you for posting your lectures and interviews! You have students all over the world. Thank you for the time you put into your research and thank you for the thinking it clearly takes to pull it all together.
he barely does research, the claim ww2 lasted 8 years is blatantly wrong, ww2 started in 1939 and the japanese invasion of china didnt start it off
Professor, please write few books on Middle-East, US Foreign Policy and WWII and all other topics that you are well versed in. I had already purchased your fiction book, just to show my gratitude for all the knowledge that I've gained from your videos (despite I only read non-fiction). I wish I was where you are so I could gatecrash all your lectures. Sincere, heartfelt gratitude Sir!
actually, i heard in one of his lectures that that one isn’t purely fiction. i didn’t read it yet, but maybe dig a little deeper? you’d be surprised ^^.
i think the lecture was called “unerasing the erased”.
I am so thrilled!! I love listening to him. Please add some more lectures soon.
I want to go to this guys class everyday
I’ve been binge watching Dr. Roy’s lectures for three days. I hope the students at Austin College know and appreciate the quality of their education. My community college classes are laughable and embarrassing.
Me too.I think I have ptsd at this point
I am from Canada and I would travel to Austin just to get to listen to Dr Casagranda! Does he do speaking engagement? Cause damn he sure makes history lessons so much more substance then other teachers I've heard! I think I've probably listened to every one of his vids! Thank you!
The amount of knowledge this man has is very impressive.
The legendary Roy Casagranada at it again!!
with more wrong historical ANECDOTES
@@derick3482 maybe you can correct him with your own professional lecture. Link me
when that comes out…
@@Historiehomme just google enabling act and german federal election 1933
he is distorting truth
@@derick3482 what did he say that was false?
@@Historiehomme you didn't watch the video why did you then even comment, bro?
How come this channel has only 50k subs. It should be millions..
because not everyone in this new generation appreciates history, they always say it is old people story
hahaha
Thanks a lot for sharing these lectures 🙏🙏🙏
I wish more people watch his lectures.
Sir, I thoroughly enjoy your videos.
You do a great job at putting events together.
Thank You.
He mentioned the German soldiers were drinking heavily to get through the battle. My father-in-law fought for the Viet Cong for 10 years from 1965 until the end of the American War in 1975. He told me the same thing about that fighting. They drank a lot. He quit drinking after the war and never started again.
Where does ur father live now? Assuming ur an American living in Vietnam?
I love this professor soo much ❤
Respect to Professor Miller and thanks to the interviewer. We need more academics to shine a light on what most of us in society are completely blind.
Superb content by a talented storyteller Dr Roy
Roy turns history into an amazing captivating story with neutral bias. I'm jealous of his students. I'm addicted to his videos, and I'm learning so much history, It's not even funny.
Can't believe some students left at the Q&A. Fascinating stuff!
Maybe because they’re forced to wear masks I wouldn’t stayed. Or I wouldn’t of wore a mask.
Overall this lecture is pretty fantastic. It is worth noting a few things though, Dr. Casagranda brings up a lot of events regarding the soviets that are only ever mentioned in German war memoirs. The soviet order 227 (not one step back) was directed towards the officer corps, not the average soldier. It is widely regarded as a myth that the soviets shot retreating footsoldiers, the order was used to get rid of the spirit of "we can just keep retreating" that a lot of the officer corps had. The Soviets did have "barrier soldiers" who would stay behind the line and arrest retreating soldiers, but they very rarely shot them and more often than not would just send them back towards the front.
It's not as if we don't have paper trails for such blocking detachments -- imagine a single company of 100 men covering an operational area of several if not 10 km's (I forget the actual prescribed width for these formations). It simply makes no sense to assert that the Soviets had the excess man power to staff hundreds if not thousands of active frontline combat in order to "machine-gun" their own fleeing troops. Sad to see the Dr. repeat such information so assertively
It shows the man is honest . I like how he put things simple to understand.. can i get a chair for any lecture
Great man knows how tell story in intresting way
Thank you Dr. Roy
Thank u Dr. Roy Casangranda yet another interesting lecture. One remark 1:02:10 although the bombing campaign helped the ministry of propaganda and public enlightenment, it is interesting to note in this context that it forced the luftwaffe to recall airplanes from the fronts. This helped the soviet air forces to gain air dominance earlier than they otherwise would have. Flak 88's who were often used in an anti-tank role also had to be recalled from the frontlines, severely reducing anti-tank capabilities of infantry regiments, staffing these anti-air guns also took lot of girlpower. All these elements have let militarian historians to conclude that the bombing raids had a negative overall effect on the capabilities of germany to wage war.
The Germans kept producing more tanks planes and guns year over year through the bombing raids. All we accomplished was the murder of millions of women, children and elderly, refugees. And the destruction of ancient European architecture and artwork.
The amount of men we lost, the resources sunk into those missions would have been better spent elsewhere.
1:33:11 "If there's a stupid thing somebody can do - definitely prepare for it!" 😂😂😂😂😂 Quote of the lecture!
Love the passion! Another solid historiographical presentation.
Love the lecture keep it up.
Fantastic lecture! I would love a 1080p upload so I can see all the visuals/maps better.
i am from uzbekistan, my great grandfather is veteran of stalingrad. if he wasnt veteran i wouldnt born thanks allah
👍🏽
Allahu ekber brother!!!
Alhumdulilla
Congratulations with something that happened 80 years ago.
Thanks allah for causing the unimaginably horrible suffering of millions of people so I could be born
great lecture
How has this channel not gone viral??
Because tthe vast majority doesn't have time to listen, assimilate and absorb.
@@rayzimmerman6740 True, but also lack of online presence.
@@Noorlatgamer I agree with the sentiment. To clarify, I meant the vast majority of people with Internet access. The ones who don't, cannot enable the channel/content to go viral.
@@rayzimmerman6740 I agree with you completely. People dont have attention span. What I would say though is for while now vines / shorts / tiktok short form videos are the trend. So Austin School could use short videos to link back to longer ones.
They could also run short courses with credit for an international audience. You can find ways to market to people even with the constraint of low attention span externality that mobile phones cause.
@@Noorlatgamer I admire your optimism - in as much as you think shorter videos would get engagement. I don't think it would meet with much success, but perhaps it's worth a shot?
New York minutes are now New York moments. There are few exceptions that prove the rule.
I think one would have to identify those "influencers" who are swimming against the tide, and get them on board to make the content relevant, as opposed to Austin School.
The challenge is the appeal and stickability. In an increasingly self obsessed, opinionated, argumentative landscape, where everything is measured in likes, views and subscribers - this type of content doesn't quite fit.
Look at our world leaders in the recent past - Bush Junior, Blair, Trump, Boris, Putin, Erdogan, Modi et al. With the exception of Putin, these are democratically elected leaders.
To Paraphrase Kaku - its like we're all sitting in a car, driving at a great speed towards a brick wall, and we're arguing whose going to drive.
I think George Harrison summed it up in the song "I, me, mine" all those years ago. Broadly speaking, this generation doesn't listen to Albums. I'd wager that by and large, they would have to look up George Harrison.
As for smart phones, you know what they say - they're only as smart as the person holding it.
Germans are discipline masters. This makes them powerful when they decide to go in the same direction
A brilliant communicator indeed
Strange thing - when discussing the Blitzkrieg Dr. Casagranda have not mentioned Poland was half occupied by Germany but the other half by Soviet Union. On 17.Sep.1939 Soviet Union attacked Poland from east and occupied the east half of the country. Actually Poland was occupied by both Germany and Soviet Union and against the popular opinion, technically and factually the Soviet Union stepped in WWII as aggressor.
Very true.
One could make the point the Sovjets overcame the Nazi war machine, also against popular opinion. 🙏
@@marcusc5170 well 3 out of 4 German soldiers died on eastern front in wwii. the price ussr paid in this war was unbelievable and the suffering of the people was unimaginable. but motivation of Stalin in this war in 1939 was much like the nazi's, i guess.
I've been waiting to hear him for 2 years now.
I would say that WW II started on 18 July 1936... in Spain.
Love watching his talks, so knowledgeable.
It was called Operation Uranus because you're getting furked 😅
Great content! Thank you so much from Japan!
Love this guy, happy Veterans Day. 🎉
Love the WW2 stories
Watched the whole video, good stuff
This lecture was better than the episode dedicated to Stalingrad in the best WW2 doc series 'world at war'.
I beg to differ. These guys did far a better job: th-cam.com/video/6W5QYdfQhmc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xX2oAJhEDVMcc-BR delves more profoundly into the topic. It's in Russian but the subtitles are in English. Don't get me wrong, I love Casagranda's lectures related to the Middle East, but Stalingrad demands thoroughness and objectivity.
Honestly i learned more in 2 hours about my countrys history than in 10 years of german school lessons.
Charles Le Gai Eaton, King of the Castle, gives an excellent perspective that makes sense of the capacity of 'good' people to do evil.
Thanks for your awesome lectures. One point: the French had a lot of Algerians fighting in their midst, didn't they?
The first president of Algerian, Ahmed Benbella, and one of the leaders of the war of Algerian independence, was a decorated hero of the battle of Monte Casino, and was decorated by General De Gaulle himself. He later said in an interview that companies of 120 men of Algerians would go up to storm German position and less than 20-30 men would come back from the assault. That was the price Algerians paid for the independence of France. The reward was the famous massacres of 8 Mai 1945, on V-day, when Algerian went out to celebrate victory with illegal Algerian flags, and claim the independence that De Gaulle promised them in his Brazzaville speech in Congo in 1942. They massacred over 40 thousand Algerians over a period of three months to "teach" them to accept colonialism. That's France dark past for you.
@@NedBoukharinethey also graped a lot of Italian women
65 million deaths from WW2 is such an astounding fact that i was unaware of.
Love the History great job
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
So fascinating
Roy is an emotional story teller, but he leaves out facts. Stalin made the Molotov-Ribentroff Pact with Hitler to get half of Poland as a buffer. Stalin traded Soviet food and raw matetials to get the industrial machinery from Germany. Germany was the country that industrialized the Soviet Union. The Soviets fed Germany and also gave them oil and minerals. Stalin was also fighting Japan after the Pact with Hitler. Stalin avoided fighting on two fronts.
First, Stalin also tried to negotiate with Finland BEFORE invading. Yes, he wanted certain territory, but was willing to trade Russian territory farther north. The fins didn't trust Stalin, so they said no. Stalin decided to attack instead.
When Russia attacked Finland, Stalin overrode his generals and attacked on a broad front. This was a bad strategy. Russia's forces were too spread out and lost. Then Stalin listened to his generals and attacked on a more narrow front and won. Stalin got the Finish territory he wanted in the end.
1:07:30 .. there is some confusion here; there seems to be a proposal that is simultaneously bad for the Germans but also for the Russians, to engage in a battle at Stalingrad. We are to believe that they are both sides making a mistake, and both sides more likely to lose the entire war as a result of the Battle of Stalingrad.
Stalingrad itself wasn't strategically significant. All those deaths were for bragging rights, basically.
So it was a stupid reason to fight, for both sides.
However, if the Germans had conquered Stalingrad, maybe Hitler would've allowed his soldiers to redeploy and abandon the city. We will never know. So the fact that the Nazis kept throwing soldiers there weakened their fronts, guaranteeing their eventual defeat.
If all Hitler cared about was to be able to say "I conquered the city named after Stalin", then holding it would be irrelevant.
Stalin had no way to know if that would happen. He only cared about saving face. But maybe, in a different timeline, Stalin did the strategic thing and ignored Stalingrad, by doing so, allowed Hitler to achieve this stupid goal, and maybe Hitler would've let his generals operate the front in a more effective manner after it. This could've changed the war.
I think that's why people see this as an absolute stupid mistake from the Germans, but aren't that harsh about the Soviets.
Like... If your enemy is fixated in committing a stupid mistake, exploit it the max you can. Unintentionally, that's what Stalin did.
Make videos about Indian History also please sir
Thank you 🙏
Outstanding
British bombers only flew at night into Germany. US bombers refused to fly at night because they understood that accurate bombing relied on being able to not only see, but identify correctly the target, which meant daylight bombing for them. In addition, the US developed dedicated night fighter aircraft specifically for flying at night.
1:04:20 feels both incredibly relevant and ironic today.
Brilliant
1:17 the British flew their bombing raids at night.
And?
@@user-wx1ts2fm6lDr Casagranda made the claim that no other air forces flew at night, which is incorrect.
Phenomenal. Glued to the screen
Stalin actively tried to pursue an alliance with France and the UK before Molotov-Ribbentrop. They refused. Positing the pact as arising abstracted from this is kind of disingenuous.
He’s right about Stalingrad. I played Call of Duty and had to clear out campers behind a brick wall multiple times. Ridiculous
hi from Portugal
Thanks a lot
1:10:00 the river banks are that way because of the spinning of the earth.
I wanna know what those papers were being burned in front of Churchill when he flew to France after winning. What a time to be a live.
It’s professors like this guy who make college seem like a waste of time.
I hope you mean that in the way as you don’t need to spend money on college when you could listen to a great professor like this on TH-cam for free
The German army was never designed of siege warfare. Its key to success was mobility combined with violence of action.
The Russians erased an entire German Field Army from the order of battle. It was a loss that Germany would never recover from.
Why do you say by those who went to public schools (33:12), may be you should add some thing like for those who went to a public school from a certain postal code
Thank you for share your knwoledge with the public.
Dr. The dude
It's clear Fred Armisen found this channel before anyone else
I watch people who do this recovery of fallen soldiers. Some people can sense some smell or aura of the area where a person died or was buried.
The Panther tank was the best tank in the war. The Germans did not produce enough of them and ran short of parts but sheer power, speed and agility no tank could match the Panther.
The Soviets just produced more tanks. Thank you lend lease
There were three turning points at the Eastern Front:
a) Stalingrad in Winter 42/43 was a pschological turning point, as the Sowjet could convince themself that they could win a significant battle against the Germans. This gave confidence.
b) Operation Bagration in Summer '44 was such a overwhelming success for the Red Army, so that they became sure after this event that they will win the war. Before that, there were still doubts. So this was the obvious military turning point.
c) In hindsight, historians tell us that the war was lost for Germany in late 1941, after if became clear that the Wehrmacht's Blitzkrieg had fizzeled near Moscow. Germany was not capable to sustain a war of attrition - neither by personnel, weapons, fuel, logistics, This was the real, but hidden turning point.
As a historian, you forget one very important thing I mean a fact Russians stabbed Poland in the back 17 days after Germans attacked Poland.
Poland didn't want to let russians to fight against german. It was arrogant politics from poland.
Germany and Soviets agreed to divide poland. Germany did it first and took the flak. Soviets did it later. Stalin was smart
The idea behind comisars with machine guns was that people in fronlines would know that their allies won't run and the same was true vice versa
The intro is so funny lol
This was more fascinating than any stupid movie 👍
I just wish they would have footnotes regarding some of the conclusions he States almost like they are gospel
The Japanese are a very chilled people nowadays, but what they did in Asia was brutal.
This lecture reminds me of Dr Zhivago the movie
Wasn't the German plan in WW2 basically the same as Franco-prussiaj war? Go through lightly defended area and get between them and Paris?
I actually found his storytelling skills awesome, but he often say misleading things and wrong facts. But that’s nothing serious, since he’s telling the story in a such energetic and entertaining way! 😂
Very good lecture but a few historical oversights,mistakes or falsehoods on the details.
For example..when talking about The Nightwitches you state that "no airforce in World War 2 flew at night"(1:17:05). This is simply not true as the Royal Airforce bombed Germany(Dortmund Raid) at night May 10-11 1940 and would later begin heavy night bomber raids throughout the rest of the war. Germany would also begin a night campaign over Britain September 7,1940(Black Saturday). Night operations for air forces were rather commonplace throughout the war in many countries.
Also it is a gross oversight when talking about armored forces in the war when one focuses only on the "gun-armor" issue of "the best". You clearly forgot the single most important piece of kit..the wireless radio. Communication is the key to early victories for Germany.
There were many other instances but overall an entertaining lecture that one can only hope inspires listeners to do a bit of independent research.
I really love Dr. Roy and his talks. They are fantastic. However, I think this is my least favorite one in terms of tone. I feel like the same level of awe and veneration he shows to other combatants against the nazis is not present here for the Soviets and that they’re staggering heroics to essentially fight the nazis alone are downplayed to insulting levels. Also the repeated use of euphemistically referring to the Soviets as “Russians” denies the identity of the many many many different ethnic groups that comprised the Soviet Union and the Red Army itself. Again, I love Dr. Roy but the blatant negative bias shown against some of the biggest heroes of the war is kind of repugnant for a self-proclaimed major fan of interest in the war.
Agreed, I'm about 1hr 20 mins in and he's joking about Soviets sending men into battle without boots & repeating the old line of having no rifles, overstating the usage or intent of blocking detachments etc. etc. While there are undeniable instances of critical undersupply and downright murderous Soviet doctrine throughout the eastern front, the Dr. here does not do well enough a job to buttress these instances against the well-worn Cold War era anti-Soviet historicism. Presenting such anecdotes doesn't accurately present the fact that the Soviet peoples were quite literally fighting an existential and exterminist war.
I've only just discovered this Dr. but I'd hope his writings represent a more revisionist understanding than this lecture indicates
Idk mby bcuz the Russians were as bad if not worse than the nazis Stalin murdered 10 million of his own people Hitler did 6
@@Incoherencelrevisionist? So just pretend the Russians weren't just as bad if not worse than the nazis sure we definently
Oh i can teach the Doctor something .... Jerry can ... the Brits call Germans Jerries .. during the Desert battles in WW2 the Brits found out that the German petrol cans were much better than the English ones were .. they leaked less .. so the English army would use German petrol cans when ever they could and called them Jerry cans :)
It’s Kyiv, Dr Casagrande, please don’t disappoint us
this comment will be considered silly BUT, how could you skip Gauss (died 1855) as the single greatest mind in the last 200 years and one of the greatest in history of mankind
Guessing this was recorded around 2016?
Posted Dec 2021. Covid era or he was still dutifully complying with covid- mask long hair.
AD ON he is always obese.
I have been critical of this speaker because I think he uses a lot of false framing in the lectures I've listened to. But I'm still captivated. This is my third one this week.
I like this one. I like how he treats the Germans. Too often it's hysterical hand waving and all that about how evil they were. The Nazis are kittens compared to Caesar or the Mongols, and their stories are often told with great fan fare.
Nothing can ever take away the harm, but they were not alone in this, but the 40 hour work week, over time, limits on war profiteering, massive reduction in class significance.... it's a real shame because there is a great foundation there.
I wonder if Orvil and Wilber Wright invented the airplane to do something evil if we would foreswear air travel today?
Can you tell an example of false framing he used?
@@yjp7959 This video isn't so bad. I think he does a good job of listing the legitimate grievances and justifications for Germany that were created in the wake of WWI. He still clings to the allied idea that the Germans are the most evil thing ever. Anyway, I listened to this one again because I wasn't sure what caused me to make this specific comment months ago and even if I disagree with Prof Cassagrande he is a great story teller.
Around 1h 35m in he talks about how a "Syrian refugee" invented the flamethrower. This is highly anachronistic and is simply projecting his contemporary politics on to the past.
This doesn't cause significant problems when he discusses very recent history like WWII, although I would say he's a bit weird for saying WWII begins when it does, with the Japanese and Chinese. Why not push it back to the 1920s when the Soviets were at continuous war with their neighbors?
Anyway, have you noticed in his videos on ancient history he likes to discredit the idea of western civilization? His argument for this is not much more complicated than "sugar comes from India and the Europeans liked sugar."
@@andysamet4554 his idea of western civ is that it is from the mid east.. he is trying to uncover a whole part of history not in the achool books.. i kinda agree, the ottoman period which basically was the dominant super power for like 800 years or more always get skipped and compiled in like 4 pages. Also the mesopotamia, babylon stuff always is seemed so short for me too... like 90 % of my history class was 1700-2000s
That being said idk have not seen to much about him
Found the wiki page of the dude inventing the flamethrower... apparantly it was a jewish syrian refugee en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callinicus_of_Heliopolis doesnt seem anachronistic... but i will now fact check him more often
@@yjp7959 I took my western civilization class a long time ago and it started with Mesopotamia and Nile cultures. Sure we didn't spend a long time on them because so little remains. Very few writings, few artifacts compared to Greek and Roman.
Even the pre Islamic Persian culture doesn't have much remaining compared to Roman civilization from the same time. So there isn't as much time that can be devoted to it.
It seems to me to be anachronistic because Syrian refugee has a specific meaning in the modern contemporary world. He is attempting to use that as a vehicle to attack contemporary Europeans for not wanting to let refugees overflow their borders today.
It's a dirty sneaky political trick. I find he fills his lectures with these. He is still a good story teller. But I find these little bits of subversive political rhetoric he sneaks in discredit him.
Alhamdulillah that wars like this are over
Can you Re-do this amazing lecture. The mask muffled the audio Badly!
We need him on drunk history
He didn’t mention how the Germans lost this battle at all.
It's a lecture, part of a whole year course, not a movie
Afaik, the reason Germans were so predicteble in battle of kurst, at that time british broke German secret code machine Enigma, so soviets knew detailed German tactics.
Won't be fooled again!
Fun fact: Roy says guy-jant-ic instead of gigantic 48:57
Sadly, one can tell this guy is a teacher of history and not a student of it. I didn't make it past "Hitler wanted Stalingrad because it had Stalin's name." There is absolutely no historical proof that is so. Quite the opposite actually. Hitler's whole goal from the beginning was to take the oilfields in the south. The entire goal of the push to the Don/Volga bend to secure the flank of the drive south to oil and survival. Fall Blau was by this time a bad idea but one could argue if all the money and blood spent trying to take Moscow, which was an OKW call had been present, it might've worked. The OKW hid many things from Hitler. The OKW wanted Moscow. They thought that was the "Center of gravity" that Clauswitz talks about. It wasn't. The Russians would have just kept falling back. They (Germany) were very lucky to escape destruction then and there.
Casagranda clearly believes, as oh so many sadly do....Just like I did....The line of BS from the captured German generals. They all distanced themselves from Hitler and all of them to a man played the "Madman Hitler get out of jail free" card. Hitler knew exactly what he wanted but the people he really detested was the old Prussian aristocracy and their military class that dominated the army. And in the end really acted as a pull to a push and probably hastened the end of the war.
If anyone *really* wants a complete blow by blow examination, multiple source based, examination of the totality of the eastern front there are multiple sources out there that aren't the cult of personality this man seems to be. I understand those students need to answer the right way to pass the class, and the right way is what he teaches need to do so. You can take his word for it. OR
f you'd like to know the good the bad and the ugly I'd recommend:
th-cam.com/users/TheImperatorKnightvideos
It's study down to the minutia and upward.
Be a student. Then you can be a teacher.
BTW; Call me what you want. Names don't hurt me. I just encourage listening to a voice that knows. The "Battlestorm Stalingrad" series is very good.
Very well then, I shall call you... the only breath of fresh air on this page, your comment is educated, just, fair and much more logic and reasonable than what the teacher says here I suppose, I stopped at the very beginning when he suggests that those he calls neo-nazis, we know what that means, should in fact, leave now. I am no prodessional historian but I have studied those events a little, enough to know that the story we were told at school was a complete set of misinformations and half truths, : ) and that the monsters were not those we thought, what was done to the German people during the war but mostly after the fighting had ended makes no sense on any human scale and the rights the Alliiies awarded themselves through the unbelievable atrocity propaganda they put out made that no one knows about those rapes, expulsions and the intentional starvation of a whole population according to plans established way before the war had ended, the men behing the curtains had called for the systematic destruction of the country and its people. As to Barbarossa I find Suvorov's proposition very interesting, it would explain why the Germans went in with a clear deficit in readiness and equipment, when I found out they had used 750,000 horses for their supply lines I couldn't believe it, once again it went so against the winner's... version. Cheers and thanks again.
@@rosesandsongs21 To be fair the Germans were horrifyingly brutal with the Russian people in areas they occupied. They were pretty brutal with the other occupied countries as well. Both sides weren't angels when it comes to that and one could make the case that the Soviets lost the cold war by the brutality they inflicted on the people of eastern Germany and Berlin in the last days of the war. To say the monsters aren't who we thought they were is a bit of a misnomer as both sides have a lot of baggage to answer for. It's fairly easy to see that western Germany faired a great deal better than the east. I've been there and was stationed there when the wall came down and got to see the proof first hand.
The lack of mechanization the the German army is contrary to the whole image of "bewegungskrieg. The wehmacht had a very sharp pointy bit of the spear that was highly mechanized. Even then most wehrmacht panzergrenedier regiments only had one battalion in halftracks and the others rode in trucks. Horses were massively used as prime movers for artillery and for support and supply. De-mechanization started in earnest in 1942.
Again, TIK does a great job on his channel and I highly recommend Dr. Robert Citino's work on the eastern front to fully understand the entirety of the situation on the eastern front.
@@The2ndFirst I agree with you to a certain extent, I am well aware of the codes of conduct and the subsequent "adjustments" published by the German high command, fighting an army of partisans dressed like civilians, attacking from behind and then taking refuge among the civilian population requires certain drastic measures that cannot be denied. In such a case the line between barbarity and survival is pretty much draw by the better propaganda machine after the war and we all know it was not German. I saw an interesting video yesterday here on YT that describes the sad life of the Lithuanians who were deported to Siberia after the Soviet invasion it is called "Letters from Siberia | Part One" and the channel is 'Audrius Plioplys' the first few minutes are important, please. Then there is a book and a film about the Soviet atrocities in Eastern Europe called "In the Shadow of Hermes" by Juri Lina, a stunner. And I don't think the Germans would have invaded Russia without being ready if they didn't have a good reason like 'survival' for example, there is clear evidence now that Stalin had over 170 divisions massed on the German border in June 1941, he was about to move over Poland and Germany into Europe, he was almost ready. And with the abundant and revealing documentation released in 1991 by the Russians, the orders Stalin gave like the mass murder of 22,000 Polish intelliectuals # 144 and the scorched earth policy #0428, the "torchmen" order also telling partisans to wear German uniforms and commit some horrors on their own people and so on... I have accumulated much documentation through the years here so I can now finally avoid having opinions as much as possible so you will understand that the deduction based mode of operation of Tik is highly incompatible with most documentation so thanks for the recommendation but I have other sources, mostly official documents, diplomatic communications and proven facts. The horrors inflicted on the Germans have no equivalent in human history and they have no common measure with the crimes commited by the Germans before, during and after the war.
Now, let's be clear, I am no Hitler fan or a neo nazi or anything of the sort, I am Canadian but the injustice of the situation simply makes some form of communicating that information impossible for me to avoid, Obviously the Germans did commit war crimes, they were judged and executed for them but Churchill and FDR also have to be exposed as the criminals they really were and the truth be told about the atrocities they committed that almost no one knows about.
@@rosesandsongs21I certainly agree that Churchill and Roosevelt have a lot of things to answer for. More post war than during war. As far as fighting partizans that's not an excuse to did what Germany did. The German army was well equiped to fight with large bodies of troops, but ill prepared to fight with people that would fight. The occupied countries acted exactly like I would if a nation invaded mine and I was as I am; A fat, old Army vet.
I think TIK pretty much has things rock on, so if you can post facts and not opinions, I'm willing to listen.. believe the Germans largely chose to reap the whirlwind.
@@rosesandsongs21 sounds pretty soft if you're worried about the PR for the countries involved here
I wish you had more online material on ww2, professor.