Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/r4wLXNydzeY/w-d-xo.html Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman Guest bio: John Mearsheimer is an international relations scholar at University of Chicago. He is one of the most influential and controversial thinkers in the world on the topics of war and power.
one of the reasons hitler wanted to send an army to the caucasus is bc, at the time, russia and the people there waren't on good terms. hitler wanted a new army of people there to unite with him against stalin. stalin ordered a mass migration. 100s of thousands of people died durring it.
An underappreciated aspect of the German war with the Soviet Union is that they needed the Russian oil to keep the war machine going. That's why the southern leg of the invasion was so important. And that's why Stalingrad was the beginning of the end.
True, but they did have access to the Ploiești oilfields in Romania but ended up getting bombed to kingdom come. Oil didn't come critical for the Germans until 1944. In terms of Baku, the Soviets filled the oil deposits with concrete before leaving. Meaning it'd take months for the Germans to even get a significant drop from there. The British Indian and Middle East airfields would make it an easy and relatively close target for large scale bombing. Thankfully the Soviet counter offensive didn't let that happen.
Hitler made a key blunder in the summer of 1942 by splitting his forces heading for the oil fields of the Caucasus, sending the 6th army to Stalingrad which turned out to be a territorial battle enabling the Soviet encirclement.
Correction in WW1 a lot of people failed to mention there was thousands of Russian troops fighting in the Western front well into 1918 until Germany surrendered there are monuments dedicated to the Russian Expeditionary Force who fought and died to defend Paris
Just ONE HUGE note! Not only Russians and Ukrainians fought from Soviet Union. Other nations which were minority in Soviet Union like Belarusians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kyrgyzs, Kazakhs, Azeris, Turkmens, Armenians all other nations which were part of Soviet Union.
Sabaton mentions this, In the song moscow shall not fall..FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE PLAINS, COME IN THOUSANDS ON THE TRAINS.. FROM KAZAKHSTAN TO MOGOTAN..
@@KrisVesel thats because of number of population of Russians are more than other nations. Distribution wise the percentage would be same. Also for smaller nation if they send same percentage of their population to fight as bigger nation its hard to reproduce population back.
One of the key elements as to why I’m willing to believe what he says. Not only does he DISPLAY great knowledge, but his conduct is always extremely humble, and airing on the side of accuracy and precision, even if that means being precise about what he knows and does not know.
@@Libroer oh come on. There's a video of a lecture here on youtube where he says Ukraine got a "great" deal from Russia before 2014 events, but a horrible deal from EU. Then in the questions after he admitted he knows 0% of the terms of the Russia-Ukraine deal. Why would he call it a great deal if he doesnt know any of its terms?
@@Libroer Mearsheimer lays much more grand statements about these vague things than most other thinkers, and he definitely doesnt air on the side of accurracy and precision.
Nah. The man just spreads misinformation. Remember, he was predicting that Russia would never invade Ukraine like this, and when it happened he was among the many voices saying Ukraine would fall quickly. He's a professional liar. Plain and simple.
1. The Soviet Union is massive, one German general even said "The vastness of Russia devours us" I think it was Runstedt who said it 2. The Germans thought that Soviet reserves numbered around 5 million when in reality it was closer to 30 million 3. It was a war of annihilation, the Soviets believed that if they lost it would pead to the end of their people 4. Despite the damage done by the war the Soviets still produced ridiculously large amounts of weapons 5. The Germans suffered the same problem as the US in the middle east which is they can't define the condition for victory which wasted precious resources 6. Oil and logistics
3 Reasons why Nazi Germany Lost: 1) Germany did not have production capacity of the US. 2) Germany did not have the manpower of Russia. 3) Hitler was an incompetent leader.
1. The Soviet Union was massive before the Germans attacked and the German general staff had accurate maps yet they attacked anyway. The Germans can't claim to have the best General staff in the war while at the same time claim ignorance of the geography of the country they are invading. 2. The german military trained with the Soviets in Russia in the 1920's. They knew the Russians had a system of universal conscription and every citizen capable of fighting. They believed, like the Russians believed in 2022, that all they had to do was "kick down the door" and the Russians would revolt against the Bolsheviks. 5. The Germans had a well defined condition for victory. They planned to take control of European Russia east of the Volga, raze the cities, ethnically cleanse the territory and populate it with Germans.They had a written plan in "General plan Ost" and the direction of their war efforts confirmed they were working that plan.
Just like Karl Dönitz during the closing days of the war in Europe said the Americans and the Brits won't continue the war for the sake of their people but for the spread of bolshevism in Europe, as much as he is demonized bc of the fact he was a nazi he, was also right
Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch said that. He was a hardliner who called for harsher terms at Versailles in 1918. When he conquered France, Hitler made the French capitulate in the same train wagon where the Germans had signed the armistice in 1918. Foch's statue was dismantled by the Germans.
There were many reasons why the German invasion of the Soviet Union failed. But number 1 was: The sheer size of Russia! That is also what defeated Napoleon. The Russians could lose battles, but they could trade land for time...fight more battles, lose again....and again trade land for time. No one else in Europe could do that, but the Russians could. The Wehrmacht could beat any other continental European power in a "lightning" campaign fought over one summer...but not Russia. In the end the Russians would survive that initial campaign (just barely) and then build up to a strength of men and material that could not be beaten. The same kind of thing was true of China. No matter how many battles the Japanese won in China, they could never conquer and hold all of China. It was just too big for them to do that...and it had too many people. In the end, Japan would become exhausted. Japan, of course, also took on the USA, UK, and the other Allied powers (in order to get the oil they desperately needed), and that made victory even more impossible for them to achieve. The same thing happened to the Germans after the USA entered the war. Just a case of biting off more than they could chew. Once the enormous industrial strength of the USA was added to that of the UK and Russia, the Axis was finished. Just a matter of time and attrition. Hitler didn't even believe what his own agents were telling him about American production totals, but what they were telling him was true. Nor did he realize the production capabilities of the Russians...and the sheer numbers of tanks and aircraft they could field. He said himself that if he had known how many tanks the Russians had in service in 1941, he would not have launched operation Barbarossa. (But it's easy to say such things in hindsight. He needed the Russian oil that was in the Caucasus, and that more than anything else was what convinced him he had to conquer Russia.) The Allies always had adequate supplies of oil. The Axis did not.
You hit the key point. Space. Every mile they advanced into Russia the supply trucks had to make a return trip to reload. Also, Catholic Ukrainians willing to help fight the Russians were denied the opportunity because Hitler considered them "Untermensch".
Supply lines is why Germany lost That and the supplies given to Stalin by the USA Russia by themselves would not have been able to repel the Germans like they did had it not been for the USA sending trucks, ammunition and other important supplies
@@robertfetrow4612 - You could even more say that about the UK. They would not have been able to win against Germany either without a great deal of supply and assistance from the USA. What they would probably have had to do was negotiate an armistice with the Germans (who would still not have been able to get across the Channel). The result would have been that the Germans got a free hand in western and eastern Europe, while the British would have retained their huge overseas empire and their positions in the Mediterranean, Egypt, the Middle East, etc. That was basically what Hitler was envisioning anyway, before he got into war with the UK. He figured that Germany could run Europe, and the British could run their overseas empire, and everything would be hunky dory that way....with superior Anglos and Aryan Germans dominating the world. It wasn't going to happen, though, because the USA would never allow a situation where the Germans (or anyone else) could get that powerful. *** It took ALL the Allied nations to defeat Germany. No one of them was going to do it completely alone. That doesn't change the fact that it was the Russians who caused the heaviest losses to the German Army...........by far. That's a fact. But it doesn't mean they did it alone....or could do it alone.
I just wanted to add to what was already said that top Russian generals (ex. Zhukov) and top planners (ex. Vasilevsky) were given a lot more trust and liberty by Stalin as the war began to unfold while Hitler was taking more and more control away from his generals. There was a sort of a natural selection for top strategic minds that were quickly promoted to top positions. By 1943 Russian top command was on par with its German counterpart. By the summer of 1944 they got better. I think this important fact is frequently overlooked and replaced with the tales about snow and mud...
Another thing to take into account is that Soviet tactics involve throwing human waves at the enemy, learning about their strengths as they kill your men, and then adapting to dominate. It's literally how the USSR went from being an inept fighting force to the world's strongest mechanized fighting force in no time at all.
@@P3RF3CTD3ATH It took alot of time . Russia did not start seeing consistent offensive successes until 1943 - two years post invasion. As for human wave attacks its kind of a misconception , in the beginning the germans outnumbered the soviets , then for a while the soviets had a slight numerical advantage that slowly began to turn into a huge numerical advantage. The soviets always posessed a much larger airforce and tank force but they were poorly trained. they learned during the war
@@bsaintnyc and time they had thanks to the reserve system of the Prussians. Well yeah. You can't train your troops in mechanized warfare and send them onto the battlefield before the hardware for this mechanized force is even built. The heavy focus on infantry prior to the mechanization was a stalling tactic while the mechanized hardware like troop carriers were still being built in large numbers.
@@P3RF3CTD3ATH the soviet force was far more mechanized than the german force from the beginning. the germans had a few thousand tanks , the soviets had close to 20,000 in the beginning . the soviets were just poorly trained. training is everything. by the time that stalingrad took place training standards in the far rear areas was increased dramatically , they had a pool of experienced vets at that point to create new doctrines and enforce standards , the talent vaccum from the great purge had been filled
@@P3RF3CTD3ATH it was because of the lack of experienced commanders following the purges. They were a competent army. The Japanese knew that after their defeat at Khalkin Gol.
yeah. he is smart. however, I hate his general position. realism, especially offensive realism, is just the most unprincipled position you can take ever. and I disagree that this realist position is the "only real position", because every system that contains subjects (i.e. humans) is inherently REFLEXIVE, i.e. free will and decision can overwrite everything. of course if we believe realism to be true, it will become true through this reflexive nature. but this is the evil position.
@@_kopcsi_ Realism does indeed offer a lens through which we can analyse and predict conflicts based on historical patterns and power dynamics. Its emphasis on states' pursuit of power and security can provide valuable insights into global politics and the good professor was on the money predicting the war with Ukraine over 7 years ago giving credibility. However, your point about reflexivity and human agency is crucial. While realism may accurately describe certain aspects of international relations, it doesn't account for the full complexity of human behaviour and decision-making. People have agency and can defy structural constraints, sometimes acting in ways that go against realist predictions. Moreover, as you mentioned, the reflexive nature of social systems means that our beliefs and actions can shape the reality we perceive. If we believe in the inevitability of conflict, we may inadvertently contribute to its escalation. This underscores the importance of considering alternative perspectives and approaches, such as constructivism or liberalism, which focus on norms, ideas, and cooperation in addition to power dynamics. Ultimately, while realism can offer valuable insights, it's essential to recognise its limitations and remain open to different interpretations of international politics. I still think on Ukraine Prof. Mearsheimer is measured when cross checked from my personal understandings and analysis on actors involved, military and or math of resources of each combatants economical and military output appears sound. Whilst I think it is highly probable taking into reflexivity there is always exceptions to every rule. :)
@@_kopcsi_a further problem is that the model of spheres of influence of great powers completely ignores the sovereignty of those countries in that supposed sphere of influence
@@wodidos in Hungary, there is a proverb: “the stronger dog fucks”. actually this logic prevails in those minds who accept realism (in international relations and geopolitics), which is the most unscrupulous strategy that can exist. and it is even worse when such idiots say this like Orban, the autocratic leader of an extremely small and weak country. that’s just plain stupidity.
Lex notes that his origins are from Eastern Europe and that his grandfather fought the Nazis for the Soviets. This is why Lex has a drastically different view of WWII than most Americans who simplistically believe it was they who saved Europe from the Nazi scourge.
USSR had already shifted the initiative early 1943 at Stalingrad, and they paid most in soldier’s lives, by far. The US, however, did do a lot. They pretty much single handedly fought Japan, Japan could have easily Invaded the Eastern USSR and created two fronts for the USSR. Stalin wouldn’t have been able to move troops from the far east to fight the nazis if Japan had invaded. Of course we all know lend lease and the importance of that. The US also did open up a second front, but by this time the USSR was already pushing West hard.
@@alexanderfabian8414 Japan wouldn't have invaded. They were afraid of the Soviets and what they had shown themselves capable of doing to the Japanese forces. Hence the treaty at Khalkin Gol.
@@alexanderfabian8414 Not true, the Japanese were already beaten in 1938 in the battle of Khalking Gol in mongolia against the Soviets. With this, the Soviet Union was able to close an eventual 2nd front for the upcoming war against Germany. Khalkin Gol battle played a significant role in the outcome of ww2 but very few people know about it. Later in 1945, the blitzkrieg attack by the Soviet Union against japanese forces made 750 000 japanese prisonners or deaths. And lets not forget Chinese nationalists and communists fighting japan, so saying USA single handedly defeated japan is a COMPLETE lie.
@@alexanderfabian8414 The US definitely did a lot in the war, fighting on two fronts. Japan and Germany were "allies" but they didn't really help each other. The alliance was made out of political convenience, it was more of a loose association. Japan and Germany both wanted to invade and expand their empires. They agreed recognized each other territorial ambitions, but were fighting completely independently. So I doubt Japan would have come to Germany's aide in their fight with USSR, they were focused on China. Japan wanted the US to stop sending weapons to China, and the German's wanted the US to stop supporting the UK, so Japan and Germany declared war on the US. IMO the US was letting the USSR take the brunt of the Germany war machine, and bear most of the cost. It was only when the USSR started to turn the tide of the war that the US and UK decided they needed to attack Germany. They were worried the Soviets would take all of Europe if they didn't. So it became a race to take Berlin.
My grandfather was part of the Nazi invasion of Russia and ended up losing a leg and part of a foot to gangrene/frostbite. Germany was completely unprepared for the Russian winters and their soldiers did not even have remotely adequate winter gear to survive in the extreme cold.
I know it’s hindsight but how was this possible? Didn’t they know? Or did they expect to move quicker before the winter set in? I heard Hitler had other plans for project Barbarossa but he was too ill due to an assassination attempt. What I heard.
@@michaelfern4079They expected Russia to fall in a couple weeks, allegedly Hitler was obsessed with Stalins purges of high ranking officers and how bad they fought again Finland
At least your grandfather is was alive. My family lost all males as well as my husband's side. We will never forget what USSR suffered during this invasion. Мы помним! Никто не забыт и ничто не забыто!
Hitler's ideology said that he needed more living space for Germany and that the "Untermensch" of Eastern Europe could be dispensed with. I don't think you can really separate Hitler from ideology.
@michaelchristensen5965 Certainly so but the "living space" mainly meant the huge very fertile plains of what is today Ukraine and the wheat that can be produced there. A growing Germany (by conquest) needed food for soldiers and the general population
Россия бы выиграла на изи первую мировую, если бы не революция. Боевое население Германии и Австро-Венгрии уже физически просто заканчивалось@@konstantinkelekhsaev302
There is actually very simple difference between WWII or Napoleon invasion and WWI from the point of view of ordinary Russian. During WWI Russia was not invaded by a huge military force. So, people did not care much about that war. They just did not consider it a threat for their existence.
The Germans in WW1 wanted hegemony over Eastern Europe. The Germans in WW2 wanted to exterminate all Slavs west of the urals. One was a political war the other was a battle for the survival of an entire people.
@CrystaliaV I wondered why Mearsheimer did not mention this... kinda important... esp. since he mentioned that the war started with Russia, but the Soviet Union capitulated
@@cheeto8960 Yes, this is just one segment of the interview with J. Mearsheimer. Throughout the whole interview, Lex proved to be very naive. I would say very affected by "westestern" propaganda. I would expect more balanced position from him, especially when he was born in Soviet Union and speaks the Russian language.
Unfortunately not everyone got this incentive and for some reason decided to join the genocidal adversary. I’m talking about Bandera and Vlasov. The most frustrating fact is that the first one is still very celebrated in some parts of the world and even has the avenue with his name.
Stalin murdered 10 million Ukrainians in the 1930's The Holodomor. Forced labor Starvation Disease Stalins Motherland peasants Murdered 50 MILLION Russians over decades in Gulags. "The greatest PRACETIME mass murder In human history," see Alexander Solhynitsen. Save Mao Tse Tung and his murder Of 70 MILLION CHINESE the same way Forced labor Starvation Disease Decades.
No capturing Moscow would had zero impact on the outcome of the war. If Germany did as Hitler wanted, ( going to caucuses ) they might have better odds but even then the probability of Germany winning that war was next to zero. The reason Barbarossa started in the first place was that the German economy did not have enough resources to mount an offensive afterward if it was delayed. The sheer desperation of economic issues caused these actions and if we do not understand this dynamic, we might repeat these tragedies.
I agree that the Soviets would have won the war anyway, but Moscow in 1941 is not Moscow in 1812, back then they just left to Leningrad and Napoleon logistics were not enough for his desire to keep going. But in 1941 you must understand that the railway system was the lifeblood of the soviet union and it is centralized in Moscow, if you take Moscow you ruin their logistics, so it would have had a devastating impact. I still think the Soviets would have won but it would have been even more costly. To make my point even clearer google Russian railways map
@@eneas9038 Where is the bridge of Victory located and where does that rail road end do you know? Your analysis is on point only your assumptions are not accurate. What you do not take into consideration is A) German logistics were very limited and due to that victory for Germans was impossible even if capturing Moscow or Caucasus. B) The majority of goods and raw materials were shipped via Iran to CCCP. That route does not go to Moscow but goes by ship via the Caspian Sea. So even the fall of Moscow would not have impacted this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veresk_Bridge
@@villek3722 I do know it but I also know how logistics works and also I studied WW2 and countries that fell like Poland who btw still fought after the fall of Poland so sorry you are just wrong.
@@danushairan Poles fought after fall of Poland but Polands military was detroyed. Germans would have entered Moscow if Yugoslavia didnt prevent the start of barbarossa by few weeks
Look at the documentary "Unknown War", made by the Americans, together with the Russians, at a time when the Americans still had a conscience and did not dare to lie as brazenly and shamelessly as they do now. Sprawling, 20-part documentary history in film of the World War II conflict between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Companion book, The Unknown War, written by NYT reporter Harrison Salisbury. Each episode is about 52 minutes, similar in format to The World at War. The footage was edited from over 3.5 million feet of film taken by Soviet camera crews from the first day of the war, 22 June 1941, to the soviet entry in Berlin in May 1945. Most of these films have never been seen outside this documentary series. The series is hosted by Academy Award winner Burt Lancaster, who spent three weeks in eight cities in the USSR for location filming. Film footage from Soviet archives comprises a major portion of the series, supplemented by film from both the United States and British archives. Appearing in exclusive interviews would be Russian Commanders like Georgi Zhukov and Vasily Chuikov. Other interviews shot for the series included Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev and Averell Harriman, who was U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union during World War II. Released in 1978. th-cam.com/video/7ibizxvxgaY/w-d-xo.html
I agree that if the Germans have had concetrated the attack more in the south early in 1941, they could have succeeded. The oilfields were in the south, the Don river was the supply line for the Soviets. Hitler did recognize that but he had to deal with the believe of his generals that the capture of a capital city should be the main goal. Such thinking was outdated. The attack came to late.
Agreed, but there was hardly any infrastructure in the south, no roads or railways, the main infrastructure was in the center on the road to Moscow, hence why his generals wanted to push to Moscow. The main reason why the 42 offensive in the caucus failed was supply difficulties.
@@koenhughes9267 Logistics was a nightmare for the germans throughout the entire war. Operation Barbarossa was a huge gamble, everybody in high command knew that. But from the German sstandpoint, they had to attack anyway because they fiered that Stalin would attack first in Romania (Bessarabia) where the petroleum fields were. If that would have happened in 1941, Germany would have been lost. Also, the Germans had no clue that the Soviets had vast numbers of reserve troops. The reserves stopped the German advance on Moscow in 1941, and also waged the counteroffensive at Stalingrad successfully. You can hear Hitler speaking about all of this in the Mannerheim audio recordings from 1942. All in all, it was too big of a bite to swallow. Just imagine the length of the frontline, from Leningrad to Caucasus. Nobody can hold that effectively. The Germans did for years nonetheless.
Troops are useless if you have no weapons, and ammunition to give them, the Russians hosted the biggest industrial migration in the history of the planet. Over 3000 factories moved from western Russia to the east, if the Germans had stopped this by punching enough force in the center, it's likely the Russian campaign would've ended by the end of 41. The Russians had many redoubts and forts to stop the oncoming German advance and this gave them enough time to migrate the economic necessities to continue to fight the war and successfully counterattack the Germans on the gates of Moscow by December, from that moment on German defeat was just a matter of when not if.@@neinsager3236
@@neinsager3236no way Stalin would have attacked in 1941… he wasn’t going to attack in 1941.. maybe 43 definitely not 41.. fighting a defensive war is a lot easier… Germany had almost all of the Ukraine to help them fight the Russians… but he killed them
"Hitler should have marched on Moscow" The invasion of the USSR took place on June 22, 1941. The Battle of Moscow lasted from September 30, 1941 - April 20, 1942 The battle for Moscow began three months after the invasion. In total, 174 divisions - more than 3 million soldiers - took part in the battle for Moscow. 3000+ tanks, 23000+ guns. The Battle of Moscow is one of the most famous and bloody battles. It took place long before the battle for Stalingrad. During the battle, Stalin did not leave Moscow. The USSR won the Battle of Moscow.
An underrated argument for why the Axis lost. On the Eastern Front, being captured (by either side) meant almost certain death. The force w/ the most soldiers is most likely to win. Contrast this w/ the Western Front, where German soldiers understood that being captured by British/US forces meant going to a POW camp where they'd be treated humanely and fed (and likely survive the war) - of COURSE surrender is an option in that case..
Germans was too late for switching economy and nation into a Total War mode Read how Manny German, Hungarian, Italian, Romanian Finnish and French soldiers survive Russian POW camps and you will understand the difference, comparing it to the fate of Russian soldiers fate after surrender. Wikipedia
Now go google how many of the ss tank divisions were on the eastern vs western fronts. You might also wonder who the gornison troops in the west were made up of. Or go to school for example.
@@delon32321 You will make professor Maershimer laugh. What Western Front in 1941? In 1941 SS divisions officers and soldiers actually not as good as Wearmaht.
Well, in the western front dear you objectively faced guys who came from the Hitlerjugend, not even men, but highschool boys, and they almost beat your asses. The sole occasion when Americans met the real wehrmacht was known as the battle of the bulge, when they ran down 500 km in mere 3 days.
I believe in the lead up to Barbarossa Hitler was informed he had only enough oil for approximately 2 months of unhindered offensive operations. The southern push seems logical to me.
The oil mattered for *offensive* operations, like "Blitzkrieg". But the Nazis could have paused and consolidated / defended their advances at any point, it was the lack of adequate supply transportation that doomed the Nazis to lose in Russia. German trains could not run on Russia's railroad tracks, they are different gauge size. All through the war Germany could never build enough trucks to supply their forces, they always had to rely on horses. That cost the Nazis during the first winter in Russia and every day after. So did the fact the Nazis killed so many Soviet POW's that could have been converted to help them. ( starting 9:09 ).
@@williestyle35 Fair points. Certainly, maintaining an offensive would consume more but even on the defensive the need for oil would not be negligible. The Wehrmacht had a surplus of military hardware through to 1943 but did not have the fuel required to haul it to the front or keep up with ammunition demand. I believe Opel actually had to stop producing trucks because it lacked the fuel needed to test its fuel pumps. By all means consolidate, but without oil from Maikop or Grozney I don't think the Germans had a chance.
I think had he chosen for Moscow first and then south he could have won. The russians used railroads for most transport and Moscow was an important hub. Luckily we wil never find out
Currently reading Dr. Stephen Kotkin's series on Stalin and I've learned that the Germans post-WWI actually cooperated with the Soviets in the military-industrial domain. Per the book, the Soviets sought to acquire the technical know-how while the Germans were uniquely interested in production and offering little concessions. Kotkin also does a great job of explaining how Stalin and Soviet leadership prized the element of surprise and always figured betrayal in their plans. Stalin always knew his time would come with Hitler; Hell, the Russians had been predicting a conflict with Germany since the end of WWI! For me, it goes without saying that Stalin was not as sage concerning geopolitics as he thought he was. The Wehrmacht had every reason to believe that they'd subjugate the Soviets in a lightening war: They had the upper hand in technology and production and Stalin had purged the military.
Well, they even cooperated in WW2. They occupied Poland together and then soviets tried to capture Finland (according to secret Molotov-Ribentrop pact). Also I am reading one book from one of Russian soldiers who fought in WW2 and later become the closest Gorbachev ally, he is telling that soviets trained German tank guys, not to mention they had a parade together. In Russia we are never taught about WW2, we are taught only about great patriotic war, which started two years later, when they Hitler and Stalin stopped being an allies.
You should add Timothy Snyder's _'Bloodlands_' to your reading and watching list. Points out that the War in the East was always Hitler's stated end goal, for resources and "labensraum"..
@@andrewzhukov304 It's more complicated than that. The Soviets occupied "their" half of Poland 16 days after Germany invaded, and by the time this happened, Poland was all but defeated. I tend to think (based on how the Soviets behaved regarding Germany before WW2) they were waiting to see if Germany would actually win. Finland is even more complicated, because of the geo-political realities of the time regarding Germany, Finland, and the USSR. First thing we need to note is, the USSR, recognized that Finland was a natural ally of Nazi Germany, and they spent a fair amount of time trying to get security guarantees from Finland in the pre-war period. One of the things they tried to do, was rent a series of small islands in the gulf of Finland, so they could create a buffer from a German naval invasion of Leningrad. They also tried to rent land north of Leningrad to act as a buffer against a German invasion out of Finland. They also tried to buy all this land as well. Why was the USSR concerned about this? Well, Finland had a far right nationalist government at this time. After the war, when defending its actions in WW2 as a Nazi Ally, various Finnish politicians stated (to paraphrase), "Finland was stuck between Hitler and Stalin, and eventually we would have to choose a side". The USSR understood the reality then, that Finland would eventually choose Germany, because they were both far right nationalist governments. This is why the USSR attempted to buy, or lease land from Finland to bolster their defenses. They knew it was a matter of time until Finland and Germany formed an alliance, and Finland became a staging point for the eventual Nazi invasion of the USSR. Finland was of course within their rights to tell the USSR to kick rocks, which is what they did. However, the gravity of the situation was such that, the USSR had decided it WAS going to have that land. Either by diplomacy, or by force. Germany at the time of the M-R pact, believed the USSR to be stronger than it was, so they signed off on the Soviets enforcing their security concerns on Finland. Of course, it was the performance of the Red Army in achieving those goals that likely prompted Hitler to attack as soon as he did.
People in cold climates have a hard life. Its not surprising that when war starts they are very much prepared for a hard fight. That just looks like a higher level of bravery.
@@Hrotiberhtaz The fact that you are prepared for a hard slog in life, whatever comes your way, doesn't mean you will be motivated to fight. People with hard lives can't just throw resources at something with a weak potential payoff. That's the kind of sloppy behaviour only the resource rich can afford and still survive the winter. Its does, however, mean that with appropriate motivation they can be a juggernaut.
@@Hrotiberhtaz Of course there are other major factors in human behaviour affecting the outcome. There are numerous accounts of people inspecting the aftermath of a major battle who found only a small percentage of the guns laying there were actually fired. Most people, however initially motivated to fight find it hard to kill another human being when they can see them down the barrel of their gun. This is one of the reasons why the military loves the idea of remote warfare. They say it keeps their people safe, and only risks machines. Much more than that, most people don't really give a shit about someone the can't see, so its much easier for them to kill.
@@Hrotiberhtaz Perhaps, but I think we are seeing a lot of evidence at the other end of the spectrum. Western militaries are finding it difficult to recruit enough people who meet their standards of fitness and ruggedness, so they are lowering standards. Soft lives have created too many soft people. I can't see that ending well in a battle.
"The stone cannot know why the chisel cleaves it; the iron cannot know why the fire scorches it. When thy life is cleft and scorched, when death and despair leap at thee, beat not thy breast and curse thy evil fate, but thank The Builder for the trials that shape thee." - The Hammer Book of Tenets
@@Hrotiberhtaz That quote was created by the human beings and thinkers that created the work of art that the game is. If these ideas don't ring true to you then I have to wonder what kind of life you have lived. Have you never exercised and become stronger because of it? Have you never sacrificed instant gratification and skipped social events so that you could study in the library and become smarter and get better grades on your way to a successful career? I want some of what you're smoking if you think that such ideas come from a mere video game and not from centuries of human experience.
Biggest what if for me is if Hitler never invaded the Soviets. Would Stalin of eventually invaded? Would Hitler have taken England? Would the US have nuked Germany? Would Stalin have remained neutral? From the books I’ve read on Stalin, he was preparing for war, but it doesn’t seem like actually wanted to invade, but I could be wrong
Stalin was in no shape to invade and he knew it. His officers were in their 40s because of the great purge. Axis officers were 50s, 60s,70s . Stalin had no experienced officers after the great purge.
Talk about Stalin “invading” Europe is as hilarious as talks about Putin “invading” Europe. In both cases Russia is 10x weaker economically, 10x less population and has exactly 0 reasons to expand westwards. While Europe has many reasons to expand eastwards (hint - resources). All these propaganda are simply to prepare for the next attack on Russia, Europe did it on average every 50-100 years in the past, and looking at current ukra8nian events is keen on repeating the same mistake forever.
8:42 I think it DOES fit your argument because it’s clear the Russian army was not fully committed in WW1. I’ve never felt the Russian soldiers had their heart fully into the war but resented the aristocracy throwing them into the conflict. Obviously, history shows that many Russians wanted something different than Czarist rule. In WW2, their very existence was in jeopardy.
The Soviet Union did not lose the WW1 and didn’t sign Brest treaty with Germany. Bolshevik government did. Because they didn’t control all of Russia and they couldn’t fight both Germany and royalists. So they pulled out of the WW1 since it wasn’t their war. That’s why they sacrificed a bit of land ceding it to Germany, Baltic states, Finland, Poland for a greater purpose. In 1918-1922 Russians defeated royalists and kicked out British, American, Turkish, Japanese, French and several more interventionist armies who tried to take some of Russian territory while the country was going through the turmoil of a civil war. Then the Soviet Union was created and it later took back most of the territories ceded in 1918. Europeans always had their asses whipped when trying to invade Russia with very few small scale exceptions. That’s why they had to make Ukrainians who are not different from Russians fight Russia instigating de facto a civil war between Russians. But the result will be the same as usual.
Yes, but regained part of the territory back in 1939, took the rest of Poland from Germany in 1944-45 and then reestablished Poland as a state giving it a huge piece of German lands. But it seems that the Polish learn nothing from the history and do whatever they can to guarantee its fourth division.
>That’s why they sacrificed a bit of land ceding it to Germany, Baltic states, Finland, Poland for a greater purpose. Communists also sacrificed a bit of people (literally millions).
The Wehrmacht was very sceptical with invading Poland, the sudden victory was a surprise. Internal there had be many flaws in the operation. Like Mr Mearsheimer said, also the France invasion was seen very critical. Just after the sudden and fast victory again all critics get silenced and the over optimistic people get the upper hand. When you consider that Mussolini needed German support in the Balkans / Greece campaign and Northern Africa, you have a lack of 1 million troops and a time delay. That lack of troops and time lead to the situation with the early winter and the lack to push into Moscow.
Hitler should have simply told Mussolini to remain neutral until he neutralized Britain, which he didn't. Mussolini had Albania by this point anyway. He didn't need to pick a fight with the Serbians and Greeke while also picking a fight with Great Britain, who destroyed half of Italy's navy in one bombing raid.
@@Banana_Split_Cream_Buns Mussolini didn't want to take part in the war first but after seeing the success of the Wehrmacht he wanted his share too. He then join into the war against France. Driven by that he started his conquest.
It is a least well known fact, but Wehrmacht used all of its forces to invade Poland. French sent in a scout bataillon shortly after the declaration of war, they instantly moved forward by 200 km in the Rhineland, and reported back, that Germany is totally empty, and if the French forces attack now, they can capture Berlin in a few days, but they were ordered back. They thought the Maginot line will defend them.
@@albertmaziarz6739 That's what they said. It was close. The delay with Northern Africa, Balkans and Greece took away troops and delayed the attack. Also the different railway systems made the logistics such a hardship. But even if the Wehrmacht take Moscow. It is no guarantee for the collapse of the Soviet Union and didn't take into account the production capability behind the Ural. The whole strategy of one single hard hit to make the enemy collapse is risky. But who knows.
To back up Prof. Mearsheimer's point, when I was a child we knew a Ukrainian lady. She said they originally greeted the Germans as liberators, but the Germans were having none of it and treated them as sub-humans. It was at that point the resistance began.
Germans did not realized that Russians get more united when danger comes and partisans war another big problem for Germans and Russian BIG land, deeper you get it's more difficult keep supply your troops, shortage of oil for vehicles is #1 and Russian winter another BIG problem.
AH greatly underestimated the enemy. He himself says this to the Finns, not knowing he is being recorded, as can be heard in the video 'Hitler speaks with his normal voice': "if one of my generals had told me that the Russians would produce 45,000 tanks I would have called that general crazy". he was convinced he would win with a lightning war in a couple of months, in fact the troops had autumn supplies and the soldiers instead died of cold
I find it interesting that Napoleon also started his invasion in late June and also thought it would be a 6 week campaign. And he also had to deal with Russia's scorched earth policy. Both Napoleon and Hutler's troops were forced to live off the land, which starved and dehoused the locals and encouraged increasing partisan activity. And neither one had nearly adequate preparation for the winter. 500,000 of Napoleon's Grand Armeé marched in and only about 20,000 came out.
Some factual points on German invasion of Soviet Union: 1) The invasion was not a preventive measure to the possible Soviet invasion as there are no German or Soviet intelligence documents to suggest that. (This point was only raised at Nuremberg to defend the accusations of an unprovoked attack) 2) Germany had fully mobilised its army by the time of the invasion whilst the USSR hadnt. The Red Army was initially outnumbered 3 to 1 on most fronts and subsequently surrounded. 3) German panzer divisions were a knowhow which enabled them to break through the front lines. (Tanks were previously used separately with each infantry division). 4) Stalin and most of Allied high comand did not forsee such a rapid german edvance as they expected a more conventional warfare. He had enough military experience to understand the dire need of army reforms and utilising active defence. 5) Finally, Hitler was not a mad man concerning military strategy, he listened to his comanders and agreed with them more often than not. His main contributions usually concerned the economy aspects of war. Again, the notion that he overulled his more experienced generals and was the sole cause of the failuers on the eastern front was introduced at the trials by the Wehrmacht high command to avoid the responsibility for the losses. The notion was further supported in the memoirs of Wehrmacht comanders who survived the war.
Have you ever read or listened to Viktor Suvorov? He makes the case that the Soviets had plans to attack Westward once the Germans and British had exhausted each other. He argues that a large part of why the Red Army performed so poorly in the early days of Barbarossa was because they were postured for an attack into enemy territory rather than for a defensive war. The element of surprise was due in part to Stalin's belief that winter solvents and sheepskin/wool garments would be stockpiled before any attack. His claims are interesting if nothing else.
@@RubbaDubbaDooskie His claims was horseshit. The Red army was in piss poor shape and needed a decade to reorganize. The great purges had just happened. Without experienced officers training standards were in the toilet. They could not even conquer finland.
@@bsaintnyc Yes but they had airfields right on the border. Not useful in a defensive war. Nor are amphibious tanks, fortress busters, or tanks that were engineered for Western European roads. There were primary sources on record regarding Stalin's intent. Would he really have been above attacking Westward? Was he some sort of Saint?
@@bsaintnycI believe that Finland lost ~10% of its territory. It would've been suicide without improved offensive capability. What piques my interest is the question: were the Soviets building an army that was meant to imitate that of the Finns or the Germans? And why is that?
Germans were a bit amazed at how Soviets would fight with tenacity and in many cases to death. Some folks from Soviets considered being prisoners or taken humilations and rather kill as many before the last chance to take one with him by naked knife.
@@UshankaShow 'some foks from Soviets' are minority that they considered fight to death. Not All of them . . . specifically, more, from Siberian regions. But Soviets in - general - looked more like fanatics to many Germans.
@@symmetry08 I didn't get that impression reading German war memoirs. My grandfather survived WW2 because his whole unit surrended near Smolensk in 1941.
Soviets tried to use as many ethnic minorities as cannon fodder as possible. And, they were shot if they retreated. So, not much (anything) has changed. Normalny, as they like to say.
You always hear how Germany almost succeeded in conquering USSR and Moscow, but never really feel how "almost" it was. Until you visit Moscow, and there is a monument of 3 antitank hedgehogs, and the guide told that this is the closest place where German forces managed to get to. And it is reaaaaly close, like 20-25km to Kremlin, presently within modern city limits. It was just that close to history and modern world being completely different
That's not how it works. They couldn't take Stalingrad, and without Stalingrad and crossing the Volga into the Caucasus, German army had no good supply line for fuel to continue the offensive.The fact that they got close to Moscow is due to the fact that Soviets were playing a stalling game by skirmishing (fighting and retreating upon heavy artillery fire). It was never close. Hitler's generals knew it too, that is why they advised the cancelation of Barbarossa. It's not some war game where you take the capital and win de facto. Moscow's industry was mostly in the Urals at that point.
Yes it was a recon unit that got close to Moscow and at that point the German offensive had ground to a halt as Soviet reinforcements were crashing into their lines.
I thought Napoleon wanted to transition and began identifying as a cat with ze/zey pronouns. The Russians were not happy with that so he left and went to settle in the US
4:30 - "They (Germans) came terribly close to winning" - ummm, no. Think Monopoly (the game), the Germans needed to roll snake eyes three times in a row. The problem of oil was always nipping at the Germans' heels. 7:00 - "I think in the end the Soviets were going to win no matter what". yup.
Wasn't Germany focusing on the southern parts of the Soviet Unios was to secure the oil fields?. if i'm not mistaking Adolf Hitler wanted Germany to be energy self-sufficient.
@@waleed8530 Yes but the Soviet plugged the oil fields by filling the drilling holes with concrete. Meaning it'd take months of engineering to be able to get it back operational.
I've gone in circles on this. Everyone says how dumb Hitler was for opening a two front war, but after losing the battle of Britain he was at least 2 years away from either forcing British capitulation or being able to take the island directly. In the mean time Hitler rightfully believed Stalin was gaining strength every month that passed, and that Stalin eventually planned to invade Europe to spread the communist revolution. Had he waited years until Britain was knocked out then it very well have been too late and the Russian bear could have invaded him while German forces were committed in the West. The Molotov pact was always just both sides buying time to position themselves and gain strength before an ultimate clash. So in this context it made sense for Hitler to strike as quickly as possible while Soviets were at their weakest. Getting bogged down and delayed in Yugoslavia and Greece in order to bail out Italy may have been detrimental from this point of view. So if invading the USSR in the summer of '41 was the best gambit, then should he have gone straight for Moscow, finished the encirclement of Kiev (historical choice), blitzed the Caucuses, or something else? Doing any one of these had certain strategic effects, but would also have many strategic drawbacks. Like John I'm not sure Germany was in a winnable position in the summer of '41 under all of the historical circumstances. It very well may have been Hitler's Kobyashi Maru. But fortunately things turned out as they did and we will never need to run that scenario again to find out.
The problem was oil. It was always about oil. The entire purpose was to take the Caucasus oil fields. That means Germany had two options: 1. Take out Moscow to try and collapse the government, then focus on the south; or 2. Take out the south, cut the Soviets off from their own oil supply, and then take Moscow. This would be even better if joined by a Japanese invasion of Vladivostok. The USSR would have no oil and no means of receiving any US lend-lease aid. The German army was on (1) while Hitler was more focused on (2), since Hitler understood (maybe rightfully) that the economy is what really matters and Germany's economy couldn't function without oil. Either (1) or (2) could've been a decisive blow, but in they end they stretched themsleves thin by trying both, and they failed at both.
@@schadenfreude000 yup I agree either one could have been decisive, but it's also possible it might not have been or that they could have failed either objective even if they concentrated on one. They were so close to Moscow historically that had they concentrated on it instead of Kiev it's plausible they could have taken it, but it could have also become another protracted siege like Leningrad and Stalingrad were. And even if they did take it, it certainly would have been strategically powerful as a symbol and as a railway node, but not necessarily a knockout blow if Stalin and his government were able to withdraw in functioning order before the capture. And the idea of them being able to take the caucuses by winter of '41 with how stretched thin their logistics were as it was, although it's not impossible it would have been very difficult. And even if they did take it the Soviets could have fought on for at least a period of time in 1942 with lend-lease shipments of petroleum products from the US but I'm not sure for how long (historically they received over 2.6 million tons of Petro products over the course of the war). Anyway, all interesting stuff. Who knows, like I said I'm glad we never have to find out.
I was looking for historical accuracy, and you guys didn't disappoint. People thinking taking Moscow would mean the end of Stalin/Soviets are wrong imo. They would have just retreated into itself and gathered resources for a counter attack the Nazis couldn't stop (especially if they didn't have the oil fields). Stalin had moved lots of industrial and military east to avoid delays from bombings. Hitler was right to go for the oil fields. They were desperate for it. Most people don't believe when you tell them the Nazis still heavily relied on horses for their mode of transport.
Well Hitler wasn't the first to make this mistake. Napoleon, The Ottoman Empire. It seems to be a 'loop' that repeats every 70 years or so where western countries go to war with Russia...
the stupid barbarossa was nothing but a gamble, it was completely unnecessary. Germany, for the amount of money and effforts that it spent on this useless war, could have bought a ton of oil from USSR. This war was nothing more than a war of drug addicted German leadership, with psychiatric problems. We try to come up with some logical explanation. But we can't logically explain a psychosis. This war is a very sad and unnecessary part of the history of this planet. It shows what happens when people use heroin and think they are invincible.
Stalin actually blamed for purges and camps, but in reality, and that is very fascinating to learn, the purges happened before he gained power. There was a person named Ezhov who pretty much started all the atrocities. And when Stalin and Beria came to power the first thing they did were to start releasing the massive number of prisoners and stopping the entire repressions. Of course nobody wants to tell that. Stalin was the savior of USSR and it was a revenge of the fallen Czar Nicolay II because essentially Stalin continued his politics and revived Russian Empire.
It felt as if Lex was a step behind on occasions. Mearsheimer had to correct him a couple of times on his assumptions, albeit politely. He has been a professor for a while. The one item that was different in the whole interview, there was very little laughter, which Lex actually engages most of the people on his podcast. There was a distance and eye contact was rather different. It could be my perception due to camera position during the filming. I really enjoy Lex but there was something different in this podcast.
Soviets were fighting on behalf of humanity, right-wing Nazis were fighting against humanity & for Hitler. The ideological edge couldn't be greater for the left in this matchup.
I am from Russia and I believe that we need to build normal relations between European countries and forget all previous wars. But unfortunately, our politicians are preventing this .
The single greatest reason for invading the Soviet Union was Oil. Nothing was more pressing for Nazy Germany heading into 1941. By the end of 1940 beginning of 1941 the Germans were virtually kings of Europe, Belgium, France, Norway, Greece were all conquered. The remaining European countries were either allied or neutral with the exception of England which was the only holdout. Yet at this height of power the Nazy regime was already feeling the effects of low oil availability. With England able to create a sea embargo of any shipments into our out of mainland Europe and the Germans unable to challenge the British on the seas, Germany was left with little recourse to alleviate the oil situation. In fact by the end of 1940 the Germans had already imposed a rationing of gasoline in virtually all conquered territories. In 1941 one of the major truck suppliers to the german army was forced to halt production because not enough gasoline was available to fill the gasoline tanks of the trucks with just enough fuel in order to test the engines before shipment, a German general had to personally create a request for more gasoline. At the beginning of 1941 the German oil minister said to Hitler that he had heard talks about invading the Soviet Union and that if this was true that it would need to be done in 1941 because by 1942 there would not be enough oil reserves to fuel a major military operation. What people dont understand is that in 1939 when the war started, USA produced 70% of the worlds oil, Norway was not making any oil (their oil is under the sea and the tech to discover let alone extract underwater oil deposities was not there yet.) The middle east was at its infancy of oil discovery and production and it was under British control and so the Germans were left with one realistic target, the oil field in the balkans, under soviet rule. The problem was that while Hitlers aim was a war for economic acquisition, many if not most of his Generals were fighting a war for political acquisition. instead of aiming for the oil field they aimed at major cities and eventually Moscow as a means to defeat the Soviet Union. This was done after being successful in France, capturing major cities and forcing the French to capitulate. The soviets however were perfectly willing to continue the fight and even had plans for evacuate and reestablish their capital behind Moscow should the city fall to Germany. By the time they reached the Balkan oil field they were spread too thin and focused on pointless city attacks such as Stalingrad and Leningrad. If they had been committed to the oil fields from the start, the war could very well have turned out different. Thankfully it didnt.
I heard a German soldier who fought on the East front say that the evil Jews resurrected soviet mongloid hordes to defeat the outnumbered racially pure European Aryans. Why are you using a nazi as a source?
I think it comes down to underestimating your enemy. For a 6 month of less campaign that Hitler planned where your enemy surrenders, the Nazis had a somewhat prepared army and supply chain. But where your enemy doesn’t surrender and keeps fighting it was in no way prepared, ready or capable.
1 - Russians did not put all the troops on a border. 2 - It was a 2-nd line of defense. And behind they build a 3-rd 3 - In 1939 russia move front line far from Kiev , Minsk, Smolensk and Leningrad. 4 - Introduce all male mobilization system in 1939 4 - New higher officers core much better then Tuhachevskiy group with napoleon tendencies. 5 - New weapons like T-34 and Katusha. Better then German counterparts. 6 - Rapid movement of industry to the East. 7 - In a end of July 1941 Russians capture German tank division documents about how actually Blizkrieg War on a Tactical level is working 8 - Understanding that this war was about life or death of the nation. Thanks to germans. 9 - Many other things - germans cannot capture northern port base Murmansk, Russian fleet dominance Black Sea, winter equipment and etc. 10 - Guderian can never capture Moscow with one Tank Army. And huge Russian force at his flank That why after Kiev silent one more, Tank army group North, was concentrated in a Center.
Germany;was fighting the British Empire which controlled 25% of the world's population and land area;the USSR;the world's largest country;the French Empire(Free French) which controlled 20% of the world's population and area AND the US which was an Industrial powerhouse.They(Germany) had no chance.
Hitler's decision to divert the Southern Army group to take Stalingrad was a huge mistake that turned the tide. Their original objective was to cut off the Caspian oil fields from the Soviets and that may have forced further retreats of the Soviets.
They forgot to mention that the soviet population also fought to preserve a state that provided them for the first time with education, health and many other services.
World War one was different for the Russians because they had a coup de tat so that is why Russia sued for peace but he also right becase World war 2 and war of 1812 against Napoleon were called Great Patriotic War and not world war.
@@Hrotiberhtaznobody is denying the non aggression pact. That was to buy time and prepare the Soviets for the inevitable war with Germany. Stalin was doing anything he could to not provoke Germany into conflict. I don’t see how that takes away from seeing it as the Great Patriotic War, since the Soviets were invaded and facing annihilation.
You mean the Soviet union got into a nonagression pact with the Nazis AFTER they all invaded the Soviet Union in a failed intervention to stop bolshevism, yeah even the Brits the French and the Americans were there but they were beaten out by the red army, just they were AFTER the Western powers didnt help the Spanish republicans, AFTER the western powers gave Czechoslovakia, the sole ally of the Soviet Union, to Hitler, and to have a little fun AFTER Poland took its share from the Chzechoslovakian cake. Yeah thats the top, that the Poles stole territories from the Czechs the very same way how the Soviets stole territories from them later on, and the icing on the cake is the thousand of pages of diplomatic cables, where the Poles offered alliance to Hitler to declare war on the Soviets. It was a very realistic hypotesis from the Soviet side that in the case of a nazi agression western powers would side with them, or at least watch it from the sidelines. Of course Stalin didnt trusted "kill the bolshie kiss the Hun" Winston Churchill, noone would do with a sane mind. But I guess they leave it out from your western educational books. Honestly this whole BS about the nonagression pact was invented after the war, noone took it seriously it was that logical move,only the Brits cried a little because of it, which was funny since their conservative government had ice cold relations with the soviets. @@Hrotiberhtaz
@@Hrotiberhtaz yeah and poland participated in the division of chezhoslovakia, yet nobody shoves it to their faces. The very fact that these kind of events even occurred is due to a majority of european powers acting selfish and irresponsible while dealing Hitler. If european powers closed their eyes for more than a decade on the fact that germany is rearming itself, seeing them as a possible counterweight against the soviets, why couldnt ussr get a deal with the germans?
I've seen a lot of historians talk about this subject, and the reasons are, not in any particular order: 1) logistics; the nazis simply couldn't move their logistical lines fast enough to keep up with motorized forces, which were their vanguard when attacking. 2) production; they also had a hard time keeping up with attrition, especially when it came to the most strategic of their forces, such as tanks and airplanes. The panzerwaffe was the spear point of the wehrmacht and without it they simply couldn't break Soviet lines, which employed a huge number of tanks by 1942. 3) fuel; germany couldn't produce enough fuel to fuel all their forces. If i recall correctly, they had 6 months worth of fuel when they started barbarossa. The germans, beyond their air force and army, also had to fuel their navy. 4) the threat of genocide; if your enemy will kill you no matter what, then there's no incentive to surrender, as pointed by the guest, you might as well fight to death. There are many ways in which these problems compound, and one could probably write an entire book on it, so i tried to be succinct.
Wow! What a learning moment! Love Mearsheimer’s public speaking and lectures but not as exited by his writing. This isn’t unusual for academics. Most can’t do one as well as another.
Any other war historians that you enjoyed reading? I have read and enjoyed the WW2 books of Niall Ferguson (War of The Worlds), All Hell Let Loose (Max Hastings) and The Second World Wars (Victor Davis Hanson). I have loads more I'm yet to start.
@@goodyeoman4534 Ernst Nolte and William Shirer. The best is of course- Thucydides - also the gossip Suetonius and Tacitus, all not WW2 chroniclers. You’re aware that Mearsheimer is a political scientist and not a historian per se?
It's worth mentioning two things, many on the Soviet side joined the Germans in fighting Stalin, and the Soviet soldiers fought to avoid being shot by their own side as deserters.
If german solders could quickly reach Moscow in 1941 they would do that, but thanks to brave solders of the Red Army who even being in desperate situations they kept fighting, wearing elite germans troops out, eventually by the fall 1941 the spear head of german army was broken which led to their first lost in that darkest year. If someone says that the Red Army showed poor results in the beginning of the war, I would like to remind, what about allies ( French, England, Belgium) in 1939, Battle of Dunkirk, did they perform any better?
Another bullshit, Red Army lost almost 11 million solders, 20 million civilians we killed "thanks" to german invasion, according to western sources Germany lost over 5 million solders ( in reality can be almost 9), even in the best case scenario we get 2:1 ratio. This is the fact not bullshit magical thinking.
Germany absolutely could not win WW2, or conquer the USSR in particular. Not low chance - zero. Things already went as well as they could for Hitler, he had luck many times in incredibly risky, "Russian roulette" style campaigns and operations in 1939 and 1940 where to achieve victory German military had to leave itself terribly exposed and vulnerable, it was a gamble with death. But however good Hitler played his hand, his cards was terrible. Germany was simply in the wrong weight class for taking on all of continental Europe and Russia, let alone the economic monsters of the Commonwealth and the US. Basically Hitler's only plan was that he could win with shock alone - frighten his opponents into either surrendering or backing down, without having the real strength to crush them. Had he the access to the inner courts and the real understanding of the societies he was trying to fight, he would have known that he was absolutely doomed from the start.
His successful annexations in 1938-39 were due to European powers letting him do it with no consequence. Aka the strategy of appeasement (something that "realists" such as Mearsheimer suggest we do for dictators today, because it has worked so well in the past). The invasion of Poland nearly destroyed the Luftwaffe while leaving German industrial heartland left completely open to easy and quick French invasion. But the French, not wanting to escalate, did not do because they thought they could avoid a big war that way. The invasion of France next year was possible thanks to a desperate gamble that was the push through the Ardennes (French would have easily stopped it if they were proactive). That plan was only approved in 1940, the original invasion plan for France was the exact same one Germany had in WW1, and would lead to the same result. And so on. Once Germany challenged countries that weren't third-rate powers abandoned by their Western protectors, or countries in terrible political dissaray with many Nazi sympathizers, Hitler's luck ran out very quickly. His early victories were due to two factors: 1)being irrationally, fanatically bold and aggressive in his attacks, disregarding his nation's survival for a chance at victory 2)appointing very clever generals who made very good use of Germany's very limited resources to catch unaware, sleepy enemies unprepared Neither of those things could have worked long term, and it didn't.
Lol the commonwealth, as you call it was in tatters, and they dont even get the beating from the Germans but the Japs. They captured Malaysia and Singapore in a mere 2 month, where there were more British soldiers than the expeditionary forces sent to France, bombed Western Australia, and prepped their battlefleet for an allout invasion in the Coral sea, meanwhile taken Burma by suprise, and even break into India, where the locals were quite sympathetic to their cause. The greatest blow what the Germans could do to the commonwealth, if Rommel would be successful, and cut the Suez canal, in that case, the only member of the Commonwealth, which wouldnt be knocked out from the game would be Canada, but here comes the real question, Chuchill based his calculation that if he lose the British isles he could retreat to Canada and continue the war from there, but I dont know the actual appetite for the Canadians to support a fallen empire on their own blood. Doing the normandian landing was in itself a risky venture, which was near the english shores, doing it through the Atlantic without having a base in Europe is almost impossible.
While Tik has some good work on the Eastern Front, he has far too many problematic points of view on other issues to be mainstreamed. He also isn't doing any original work. He collates the work of actual historians. It would be like talking to someone who writes about David Glantz, rather than talking to David Glantz himself.
I respect and admire prof Mearsheimer's work. However, I disagree at some points. - The Wehrmacht was excellently shaped for war in 1941, that's true - but only for relatively short ones. Neither German economy, nor material resources, nor supply of recruits were not able to keep up with long war of attrition. - Operation Barbarossa was derailed as early as September of 1941 (not December). The SU didn't collapse, and the resistance didn't decrease. General Halder was dismissed and the war goals were re-planned. Germans simply didn't count on such strong Red Army nor such political stability, nor such desperate fighting will from the soviet side. - Not even further pressing forward the Caucasus in Autumn '41 won the war for the Germans, since the infrastructure of the southern part of the Soviet Union was lesser developed and the overextended,strained supply lines wouldn't have been able to handle the demands. - The fall of Moscow -in theory- wouldn't reversed the course of the history either. At a ceremonial event of 7th Nov '41 Soviet general Timoshenko openly told that they can accept it if they fail to defend Moscow, but they would go to extreme lengths to keep the Germans away from soviet oil. - Of course, there were some defectors for anti-bolshevik reasons, but not too much. All who wanted to switch sides, did it in the first months. It is not true that soviet resistance was strong because of german violance and mass killings of POWs and civilians. Soviet soldiers and people were indoctrinated and flooded with propaganda; discipline was high and resistance was fierce from the first day of the attack. Anyway, poor organization and low quality of the officer corps rendered the relentless defense to be not effective enough in the first months - but it contributed to wear down the Wehrmacht. - It is hard to imagine that there could have been better decisions that would have helped the Germans to win the war. It is simply not easy, if at all possible to defeat a country with more population, more resources, more military industry, strong handed leadership and virtually infinite land to retreat and recover. Maybe they could prolong the war some.
Yes, it was nothing more than a perfect example of hubris. The Germans were banking on their blitzkrieg strategy to overpower and overcome the Russians early, but their intelligence was incredibly bad. They had no idea of the nearly 40 divisions sitting in eastern Siberia (even though they were there to potentially confront the Japanese) nor of their ability to raise almost 100 new divisions once the confrontation dragged on. Poor logistics, and the combinations of the 3 Generals; General Mud, General Winter, and General Distance, killed off their vision
The average soviet citizen born during the 20s had grown up to the horror stories of the terrible conditions of being a serf under the landlords, and had seen a huge increase in standard of living, education, culture and so on, even if at the cost of political repression. The enemy they were facing was going to genocide them all. And in their ideology, if they succeeded, they would achieve communism by the time they were old. And so under such conditions, not much motivation is needed, and with the Soviet focus on collectivism and so on, the readiness to lay down one's life for one's country was arguably larger for the average Soviet soldier than even the Japanese. The Germans did respect them as adversaries, because Russians never gave up and would always fight to the bitter end. And for very good reason: to them, it was extermination or the hope for a society free of oppression
Germany had unprecedented successes in the beginning of the war, and they still lost. It went about as well as it could have gone. The Soviet resistance was just too fierce and determined to overcome.
The difference between having something to fight for. A metaphysical death cult can only hold the people for so long. The Soviets were fighting to exist.
@@weisthor0815 If you read books by John Erickson or David Glantz you will see the Soviets fought fiercely from the get-go and inflicted a high cost on the Germans, the battle of Smolensk for instance, and then by the time the drive for Moscow came, the Germans were totally battered and depleted, and matched by the Soviets.
@@archyology might be part of it, but hitler also set wrong priorities. he should have concentrated on the causasus oil fields instead of stalingrad for example. also when germany entered ukraine they were greeted as liberators from the soviets, but the death squads pretty quickly changed that. there was a pretty good chance for germany to get a lot of willing and motivated fighting men in ukraine, but it was ruined by ideology.
@@weisthor0815 The Caucasus is really big, and far away, if you look on a map, to conquer that region is a major difficulty. Indeed the entire ideology of Nazis was to murder the Russians and Ukrainians, which spurred on massive resistance. No war has ever been fought like that, totally genocidal.
Adolf wanted to go for the Oil Fields of the Caucasus from the get go. He planned to have the majority of his armored divisions to be in Army Group South but Franz Halder thought there should be more of an emphasis towards Moscow. Hitler didn’t realize his forces were more concentrated in Army Group Centre until it was too late. Hence why he diverted Guderians Panzer divisions to Army Group South during the Battle of Kiev
Mearsheimer is brilliant as usual. However, is he right when he says there was little opposition from the Wehrmacht generals to Operation Barbarossa? The following is an extract from Ian Kershaw’s biography of Hitler (p. 619): “On 14 June Hitler held his last major military conference before the start of ‘Barbarossa’ … Most of the generals had concerns about opening up the two-front war, the avoidance of which had been a premiss of military planning. But they did not voice any objections. Brauchitsch and Halder did not speak a word.”
What he doesn’t mention is that Germany had zero reserves 75 % of men ideal aged were already on the front line in 1939. After Moscow the German army was already defeated as IT’s second army was far weaker.
@@kilogolfbravo9567 My understanding is Kotkin did not say that but mentioned that the two front-war after 1939 closer to 1942 early 1943 had depleted German reserves. There was well over 2-3 million troops from a combination of nations helping the German war effort (Romania, Croatia, Ukrainian volunteers (SS division) Italian Belgian & Vichy French forces)
On top of that there was Russian troops fighting in the Western front in WW1 Russian Expeditionary Force who fought well into 1918 until Germany surrendered
Germany was relatively big back then. 80 million was significant in 1939. They conscripted over 18 million soldiers during WW2 (many of them boys under 18 by the end).... lost over 4,300,000 dead some estimates go higher Approximate populations when the war broke out in 1939: Germany (after Anschluss & Munich) = 79 million France: 40 million UK: 47 million USSR: 170 million
The Russians moved machines by train from cities just ahead of the advancing Germans, and set the machines along the tracks some miles from the city, and went back for more machines. The Germans came close to capturing Russia's machinery, but a miss is as good as a mile.
one opinion, the NAZI invasion failed because Mussolini invaded Greece and got his butt kicked, Hitler postponed operation Barbarossa one month to bail out Mussolini, Russian winter caught up with the German troops.
I’m not sure the Poles where that high on the hit list. I’m not saying they lined them but my dad grew up in Berlin in the Hitler Youth. He was in a high school anti aircraft unit and in the Battle of Berlin. His mom was Polish and his dad was from Posen originally. They spoke Polish at home. I don’t too many people cared that much and it was no secret.
In any case, Poland's POWs enjoyed a good international status, while the Soviet POWs for the lack of Geneva Convention acceptance by Soviet Union were murdered.
What was the truth behind germans being slaughtered in Danzig? Was that just an excuse to go into Poland and reclaim territory or was it a legitimate concern? Thanks.
@@michaelfern4079 I seriously doubt in any German pretexts of that era. There was a bogus Poles-in-uniforms attack on German prescient near Gliwitze in 1939, with shooting and dead, but all done by Hitler.
I think the Germans would've been prepared to assimilate many of the Poles just as they were preparing to do so with the Czechs. The reason is that Germans lived side-by-side with the Poles for over a century, just as they (or the Austrians more specifically) did with the Czechs. But they had genocidal intent as far as the Russians went.
Finally. Hitler announced blood-thirsty plans against Poles in 1939, for Lebensraum (killed nearly 2 million during occupation for this specific reason). A few years later in a letter to Himmler he assessed Poles as the brightest people under German occupation, very inventive and intelligent - so change of heart must be registered.
Don’t forget that Germany is still a conquered territory. It’s constitution was designed by the Americans to keep it down for a long time. Germany doesn’t have an independent foreign or domestic policy. Imagine if DDR had taken over GDR, and Soviet Union still had its largest foreign military base stationed there, wouldn’t have you said that DDR is a puppet of the USSR?
Happy to hear that, from a fellow German guy. Actually, Germany in the 19th century was one of the most liberal places in Europe, especially Prussia, the most influential German state. Prussia gave asylum to the persecuted French protestants and equal rights to the Jews. You hear a lot about Prussian militarism but in fact they fought much less than the Brits and French and Germany didn't partake in the colonial race for a very long time until they feared coming short against the other powers in Europe. Remember, the UK and France had already taken half of the world, Belgium was killing millions in Congo and Russia was constantly expanding to the east. The historic fate of the Germans had been their location in the middle of Europe - either Germans feared their neighbors or their neighbors feared them. It finally ended in WWI which led to some kind of deadly mass psychosis namely national socialism. And the results of this dark turn are well known. A tragic case for millions of people. European unification has been such a blessing and almost a miracle.
@@minoruhaginoya2249 Prussia was indeed more liberal than much of continental Europe, Bismarck still banned the SPD meaning Prussia and the German Empire were not even British level Constitutional Monarchy with Parliamentary democracy. The Lower House of the Prussia did not operate on a "one vote; one value" principle until after 1918. Instead of allowing social democrats to participate in democracy, they were oppressed by the state. This is why Marx called for the violent overthrow of the state because violence was being used against social democrats, whereas Marx supported social democrats in the UK to attempt to gain election via Parliamentary democracy. If Prussia and the German Empire had true liberal democracy, all that the Marxist movement would've turned out to be is like UK Labor Fabianism, or what the SPD came to be _after_ democracy was implemented. This is even moreso the case with even less liberal Russia and the Bolsheviks. The violence of the state was met by violence of social democrats, socialists and anarchists. In contrast if these groups were allowed to freely and participate in a legitimate liberal democracy, thete would've been none of the problems we had with World Wars, extermination camps, tyrannical states (right or left) and gulags.
John Mearsheimer deserves more respect i feel. he really is just laying it to you or anyone rather - how it is and more importantly how it was. today we see history really being twisted to validate the Russophobia
The reason why Operation Barbarossa failed was partly because of the lend-lease deal between US and Soviet, and also because Britain wanted to eliminate Germany as a peer competitor. That being said, Germany fought a full front war.
4:39 honestly, I make that argument and it is easy to see why. The Soviets just had way too many strategic reserves to just plug the gaps by 1941. They were also already massively outproducing the Germans by late 1941 (before lend lease was material). The Germans were quite worn out when they got to Moscow. Glantz and House put it nicely. There is a reason why the Germans did not replicate their massive encirclements in Case Blue.
Hitler made a huge mistake attacking before the British capitulated. He never even really wanted to conquer England anyway. He saw the Anglo-Saxons as being very similar to the German people as well as them being a trade Empire, the East was always his real goal, he just wanted to shore up his West flank. He really thought they were out of the war. It’s one of the reasons Stalin refused to believe he was being attacked despite all the reports coming it. Stalin just couldn’t believe Hitler would attack him while the British were still in the war. If Hitler had waited til the English capitulated, perhaps things would have gone differently for him.
In ten minutes of a TH-cam talk it would be impossible to give a thorough and accurate analysis of the WWII outcome, but perhaps either of the participants should have mentioned a few "smaller" factors that contributed to the eventual failure of Plan Barbarossa. Off the top of my head: 1. Hitler hadn't planned to fight the Allies in North Africa, and in general on having to "help" Mussolini with his geopolitically irrelevant vanity wars 2. Finland could have very easily cut off the supply line for the war materiel and other lend-lease good from the US that kept pouring into the USSR through the Murmansk port 3. Hitler had expected Japan to join the war and attack the USSR from east, but Japan was not interested 4. The armies of the European allies of the Nazi Germany, notably the Hungarians and Romanians, proved to be a liability rather than an asset on the Eastern Front As they say, with allies like these, who needs adversaries>
He was out of depth the whole time during this interview in my opinion. Mearsheimer was a sweetheart who was wonderful and patient throughout. He was able to steer the interview into good conversation. Still a very good interview that I enjoyed
It's not hard to see Lex wants to believe his heritage is more brave. It's kinda transparent. And it's immature. Russians are no more brave than any other countries. They've always throwed bodies at the problem and they either get killed by the enemy in front of them, or their own behind them. It,s not bravery. When Napoleon invaded, except for the battle of Borodino, where they were slapped around quite a bit, the Russians never fully faced Napoleon. They harassed his column during his retreat and burned down Moscow to aviod direct confrontation with Napoleon. Not exactly bravery either. Most of nations who display 'bravery', or steadiness in combat if you will, have highly trained troops. That is how Britain won at Trafalgar for instance or managed to hold at Waterloo. It's not DNA. It's context of the battle at hand and training. For instance, France's mentality under Napoleon was offense, offense, offense. Napoleon was a proponent of marching his troops as fast as he could. He didn't do so out of DNA, btu because he had to defeat his enemies one by one before they joined up. Then came WW1 and France's population was decimated. Military leaders were more keen to be on the defense. Despite that, the french built the Maginot line, not to be on the defense (that is myth peopel continue to believe) but to funnel the germans into the Low Countries. And there they would meet them and defeat them with the combined BEF and best french forces. What they did not anticipate was the Ardennes and their best forces were trapped. Then France fell like a house of card, they lost 300k men in a few weeks and fighting was simply impossible3 at this point, so they folded. They didN,t surrender how of lack of courage but out of necessity. Russia has so much land that it could move its war industry to the East and keep throwing bodies at the Germans, with their own barbaric military leadership. Anyway, long story short, Lex wants to believe his ancestors are courageous and that's cringy af for anyone with an intellect.
Stalin executed under 1m Soviet citizens. He arguably starved 3-5m Soviet citizens to death intentionally/recklessly/needlessly. He imprisoned 18m people over 30 years in the Gulag, 2-3m of whom died before release. He engaged in massive transfers of ethnic groups that caused great hardship. The arbitrariness of his repression probably caused more terror to the average Soviet citizen than Hitler did to the average German citizen. Stalin also turned a country that had lost wars to Japan and Germany and which was left in ruins by civil war into an industrialised global superpower that defeated the Nazis and challenged the USA. He doubled life expectancy and increased the size of the population by 50%, and put in place programmes that gave the world the first civil nuclear power plant, the first satellite and first human in space.
@@user-baev The numbers come from Timothy Snyder, who got them from Soviet records. You need some pretty strong evidence to conclude they're "a complete lie".
well the informations are off... some 700 000 (less) people were executed during Stalin years (mostly murderers etc), additional 1 200 000 died because of being in gulag (gulac is an abbreviation so gulag=prison), those ethnicities moved, well moving Volga Germans before Wehrmacht could get to them was wise, wasn't it??
Very interesting brief interview, and spot-on analysis. My own reading of this history is similar, so I'd say the major reasons the Nazis failed in the USSR - 1. The German Army only had enough fuel for a few months of effective operation in the USSR. Most of that fuel was oil purchased from the USSR prior to the invasion; obviously the USSR sent no more oil to the Nazis once they were invaded. 2, As per the first point, the German Army needed to capture the oil fields of the Caucasus and use that fuel to continue. Though the Nazis did capture some of the USSR oil fields, these had been deliberately damaged by the Soviets and would have taken nearly a year to be fully operational. So a long holding action would have been necessary. 3. As stated in the interview, Hitler's generals favored a northern USSR strategy, even though most of the economic value (Ukraine wheatfields, Donets Basin minerals and industry, Caucasus oil fields) was in the southern USSR. So a more full and effective southern push was compromised. 4. The vastness of the USSR overwhelmed the Nazis and spread them thin, as well as taking them too far from their supply lines. Even when the Nazis invaded France, they had supply problems and outran their lines. The European part of the USSR was many, many times larger than the part of France they'd successfully invaded. 5. The weather of the USSR was unfavorable to invasion, with the bitter winters, as well as periods where all off-road activity would encounter deep mud. 6. Related to points 4 and 5, the USSR had a very limited network of rail and good-quality roads (i.e. roads that wouldn't turn to mud during the rainy seasons). Furthermore, the USSR's rail network used a wider gauge (distance between rails) and supported heavier trains than the Germans (and the rest of Europe) used. The Germans tried to use their European trains on the Soviet rail network by moving the rails closer together, but they still had to adapt to using smaller trains that weren't designed to handle extremely cold weather. A very high percentage of the German trains had freeze ups during the bitter Soviet winters. 7. Related to 4, 5, 6 - the Germans had a massive supply problem. The "lack of winter clothing" in front of Moscow wasn't actually due to the non-availability of winter clothing - it was due to an inability to move it from German to where it was needed in the USSR. And along a similar line, even as many German soldiers were fed into the battle for Stalingrad in 1942 and it wasn't quite enough, it would have been difficult to send even more troops and keep them supplied. So supply was an issue all its own, even if the Germans could have found more manpower to fight. 8. The manpower of the USSR seemed nearly as vast as the land. The Germans eliminated (via death or capture) essentially the entire Soviet Army as it existed in June 1941. Yet behind that the Soviets brought in an army more than twice the size of what had been eliminated. The Germans were not prepared to fight so many Soviet units. 9. The Germans might have gotten vast numbers of people from the Baltic states, Ukraine, perhaps the Caucasus, and even ethnic Russians to fight for them - if they hadn't treated everyone so horribly. Those people did not like being ruled by Russians, did not like the Soviet economy, and - especially the Ukrainians - had been treated terribly by Stalin. Yet the Nazis didn't act as the "liberators" they might have become, and while they did promise the Cossacks some autonomy and thus gained significant Cossack manpower, in general they did not try to or get large numbers of USSR men to fight for them. 10. Related to point 9, and as mentioned in the video, once the people of the USSR realized that they were slated for either removal or complete elimination, they fought as if their lives depended on it - because there lives did depend on it. Soviet troops also came to realize that survival after being captured was not high, so they became unlikely to surrender under any circumstances. This was not the German army of WWI, which was not bent on extermination like the Nazis. 11. Eventually the Soviet military leadership learned from their early mistakes, and became much better at directing the war effort. This was obviously not possible for the French, as their war was over so quickly. 12. Lend-lease from the UK and US was very helpful in supplying food, fuel, trucks, and other equipment to the Soviets. The food meant that more troops could be fielded rather than raising their own crops and livestock. The fuel and trucks gave the Soviets a much greater mechanized capability to their military. This impact was felt much more in 1943-45 than the first two years, but it was still a large factor in the Soviets driving the Germans out of the USSR. 13. And finally, related to point 12, the USA, UK/Commonwealth, and allies bombed Germany relentlessly and eventually fought them on the European continent. The bombing greatly suppressed German war production, they hit the Romanian oil fields too. The Allied invasion of Europe drew troops away that could have been used on the Eastern Front.
This myth that Germany was solely responsible for this war is so pervasive its insane, they had a legitimate claim to the territory they wanted back from Poland (Danzig, a region full of ethnic Germans split away due to the change of ethnic borders from the Treaty of Versailles after WW1). Hitler made generous terms to the poles, one of which was an alliance against the Soviet Union, but that Danzig was to be reunified with the Reich, the Poles refused this offer. Then, when Germany invades, the UK and France declare war and reject every peace offer Hitler made to end the war peacefully, so who in their right mind would blame the Germans for starting the war? Even if they did, they certainly tried to stop it, one could argue that the UK's refusal to agree to peace terms is what caused such unnecessary loss of life and destruction.
I've been reading a lot about this subject this Fall/Winter. It seems that the Kiev pocket was the high-point of Barbarossa for the Germans. At that point, via multiple envelopments, the Wehrmacht had killed/captured 3.5 million Soviet soldiers, a majority of their aircraft and armor were destroyed, and the Germans thought they were going to be home by Christmas. What the Germans did not count on was that the Soviets had moved most of their military production to the far East out of German range, and that the US would back the Soviets with more production than the Germans could muster until Soviet production had rebounded. At one point in 1941 the Germans had produced 110,000 vehicles for Barbarossa (Trucks, cars, etc. for moving men/materials). The US had given the Soviet Union 425,000 vehicles during the same period! By 1943 the German officers appear to have known that they would lose because they didn't have the numbers of men and vehicles to compete with the Soviets anymore. But imagine those numbers of killed/captured and LOSING.
Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/r4wLXNydzeY/w-d-xo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: John Mearsheimer is an international relations scholar at University of Chicago. He is one of the most influential and controversial thinkers in the world on the topics of war and power.
one of the reasons hitler wanted to send an army to the caucasus is bc, at the time, russia and the people there waren't on good terms. hitler wanted a new army of people there to unite with him against stalin. stalin ordered a mass migration. 100s of thousands of people died durring it.
Whats up jew
stalin "murdered" where is the proof? Solzhenitsyn does not make it any more, due to current events. He definitely killed lots of germans/naz|s
An underappreciated aspect of the German war with the Soviet Union is that they needed the Russian oil to keep the war machine going. That's why the southern leg of the invasion was so important. And that's why Stalingrad was the beginning of the end.
They kept it going though
True, but they did have access to the Ploiești oilfields in Romania but ended up getting bombed to kingdom come. Oil didn't come critical for the Germans until 1944.
In terms of Baku, the Soviets filled the oil deposits with concrete before leaving. Meaning it'd take months for the Germans to even get a significant drop from there. The British Indian and Middle East airfields would make it an easy and relatively close target for large scale bombing.
Thankfully the Soviet counter offensive didn't let that happen.
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
Love it when people actually know the historical facts.
Cheers mate.
Hitler made a key blunder in the summer of 1942 by splitting his forces heading for the oil fields of the Caucasus, sending the 6th army to Stalingrad which turned out to be a territorial battle enabling the Soviet encirclement.
Napoleon actually took Moscow however and it didn't make a difference. He still lost.
Russia leave Moscow as a trap
Moscow was a second-rate city back then, St. Petersburg was the capital
Tolstoy's War and Peace has a very good account of that episode in history.
Napoleon Bonaparte woned EU eith Rassa Zar agenst England and Hitler same Not to destroy Rassa meny Rassa Generals in Werhrmacht.
@@bashkimgjikokaj275u wot mate ?
Correction in WW1 a lot of people failed to mention there was thousands of Russian troops fighting in the Western front well into 1918 until Germany surrendered there are monuments dedicated to the Russian Expeditionary Force who fought and died to defend Paris
"With Snow On Their Boots"
that french-german ''historians'' forgot to mention in their '' school system.
Russia lost over 1 million men in ww1
Intentionally forgotten to mention.
There are also cemetrys for vietnamese and northj africans quietly sat there around france
Just ONE HUGE note!
Not only Russians and Ukrainians fought from Soviet Union. Other nations which were minority in Soviet Union like Belarusians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kyrgyzs, Kazakhs, Azeris, Turkmens, Armenians all other nations which were part of Soviet Union.
Yes. 65% were ethnic Russians, but 35% were all other nationalities.
Sabaton mentions this, In the song moscow shall not fall..FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE PLAINS, COME IN THOUSANDS ON THE TRAINS.. FROM KAZAKHSTAN TO MOGOTAN..
@@KrisVesel thats because of number of population of Russians are more than other nations. Distribution wise the percentage would be same. Also for smaller nation if they send same percentage of their population to fight as bigger nation its hard to reproduce population back.
mostly ukrainians fought, just like today.
The same can be said about Germany and Great Britain.
'I'm not 100% sure of that' so refreshing to hear a highly specialized and accomplished individual admit something like that
That’s what makes John so invaluable to discourse
One of the key elements as to why I’m willing to believe what he says. Not only does he DISPLAY great knowledge, but his conduct is always extremely humble, and airing on the side of accuracy and precision, even if that means being precise about what he knows and does not know.
@@Libroer oh come on. There's a video of a lecture here on youtube where he says Ukraine got a "great" deal from Russia before 2014 events, but a horrible deal from EU. Then in the questions after he admitted he knows 0% of the terms of the Russia-Ukraine deal. Why would he call it a great deal if he doesnt know any of its terms?
@@Libroer Mearsheimer lays much more grand statements about these vague things than most other thinkers, and he definitely doesnt air on the side of accurracy and precision.
Nah. The man just spreads misinformation. Remember, he was predicting that Russia would never invade Ukraine like this, and when it happened he was among the many voices saying Ukraine would fall quickly. He's a professional liar. Plain and simple.
1. The Soviet Union is massive, one German general even said "The vastness of Russia devours us" I think it was Runstedt who said it
2. The Germans thought that Soviet reserves numbered around 5 million when in reality it was closer to 30 million
3. It was a war of annihilation, the Soviets believed that if they lost it would pead to the end of their people
4. Despite the damage done by the war the Soviets still produced ridiculously large amounts of weapons
5. The Germans suffered the same problem as the US in the middle east which is they can't define the condition for victory which wasted precious resources
6. Oil and logistics
3 Reasons why Nazi Germany Lost: 1) Germany did not have production capacity of the US. 2) Germany did not have the manpower of Russia. 3) Hitler was an incompetent leader.
1. The Soviet Union was massive before the Germans attacked and the German general staff had accurate maps yet they attacked anyway. The Germans can't claim to have the best General staff in the war while at the same time claim ignorance of the geography of the country they are invading.
2. The german military trained with the Soviets in Russia in the 1920's. They knew the Russians had a system of universal conscription and every citizen capable of fighting. They believed, like the Russians believed in 2022, that all they had to do was "kick down the door" and the Russians would revolt against the Bolsheviks.
5. The Germans had a well defined condition for victory. They planned to take control of European Russia east of the Volga, raze the cities, ethnically cleanse the territory and populate it with Germans.They had a written plan in "General plan Ost" and the direction of their war efforts confirmed they were working that plan.
7. The Breaking of the Enigma Code (from 1943 onwards the allies knew the movements of German forces
8. US War Aid
you forgot the convicts, and shovels
but the Ukraine war turned out to be WW1 style war of attrition and the Ukrainians aren't winning
French general at the conclusion of the WW1 peace treaty: "This is not a peace treaty. It is a 20 year armistice." Boy, was he right!
General Pershing said much the same thing, along the lines of , "we will be back in 20 years and will have to go all the way to Berlin".
French general was Fosch
I thought so but was not sure. @@robertkelly-jh9zu
Just like Karl Dönitz during the closing days of the war in Europe said the Americans and the Brits won't continue the war for the sake of their people but for the spread of bolshevism in Europe, as much as he is demonized bc of the fact he was a nazi he, was also right
Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch said that. He was a hardliner who called for harsher terms at Versailles in 1918. When he conquered France, Hitler made the French capitulate in the same train wagon where the Germans had signed the armistice in 1918. Foch's statue was dismantled by the Germans.
There were many reasons why the German invasion of the Soviet Union failed. But number 1 was: The sheer size of Russia! That is also what defeated Napoleon. The Russians could lose battles, but they could trade land for time...fight more battles, lose again....and again trade land for time. No one else in Europe could do that, but the Russians could. The Wehrmacht could beat any other continental European power in a "lightning" campaign fought over one summer...but not Russia. In the end the Russians would survive that initial campaign (just barely) and then build up to a strength of men and material that could not be beaten. The same kind of thing was true of China. No matter how many battles the Japanese won in China, they could never conquer and hold all of China. It was just too big for them to do that...and it had too many people. In the end, Japan would become exhausted. Japan, of course, also took on the USA, UK, and the other Allied powers (in order to get the oil they desperately needed), and that made victory even more impossible for them to achieve. The same thing happened to the Germans after the USA entered the war. Just a case of biting off more than they could chew. Once the enormous industrial strength of the USA was added to that of the UK and Russia, the Axis was finished. Just a matter of time and attrition. Hitler didn't even believe what his own agents were telling him about American production totals, but what they were telling him was true. Nor did he realize the production capabilities of the Russians...and the sheer numbers of tanks and aircraft they could field. He said himself that if he had known how many tanks the Russians had in service in 1941, he would not have launched operation Barbarossa. (But it's easy to say such things in hindsight. He needed the Russian oil that was in the Caucasus, and that more than anything else was what convinced him he had to conquer Russia.) The Allies always had adequate supplies of oil. The Axis did not.
You hit the key point. Space. Every mile they advanced into Russia the supply trucks had to make a return trip to reload. Also, Catholic Ukrainians willing to help fight the Russians were denied the opportunity because Hitler considered them "Untermensch".
Without US and U.K. support China is lost toJapan.
Supply lines is why Germany lost
That and the supplies given to Stalin by the USA
Russia by themselves would not have been able to repel the Germans like they did had it not been for the USA sending trucks, ammunition and other important supplies
@@robertfetrow4612 - You could even more say that about the UK. They would not have been able to win against Germany either without a great deal of supply and assistance from the USA. What they would probably have had to do was negotiate an armistice with the Germans (who would still not have been able to get across the Channel). The result would have been that the Germans got a free hand in western and eastern Europe, while the British would have retained their huge overseas empire and their positions in the Mediterranean, Egypt, the Middle East, etc. That was basically what Hitler was envisioning anyway, before he got into war with the UK. He figured that Germany could run Europe, and the British could run their overseas empire, and everything would be hunky dory that way....with superior Anglos and Aryan Germans dominating the world. It wasn't going to happen, though, because the USA would never allow a situation where the Germans (or anyone else) could get that powerful. *** It took ALL the Allied nations to defeat Germany. No one of them was going to do it completely alone. That doesn't change the fact that it was the Russians who caused the heaviest losses to the German Army...........by far. That's a fact. But it doesn't mean they did it alone....or could do it alone.
Yeah but as Mearsheimer pointed out, size wasn't an issue in ww1, which Germany won undoubtedly.
I just wanted to add to what was already said that top Russian generals (ex. Zhukov) and top planners (ex. Vasilevsky) were given a lot more trust and liberty by Stalin as the war began to unfold while Hitler was taking more and more control away from his generals.
There was a sort of a natural selection for top strategic minds that were quickly promoted to top positions. By 1943 Russian top command was on par with its German counterpart. By the summer of 1944 they got better. I think this important fact is frequently overlooked and replaced with the tales about snow and mud...
Another thing to take into account is that Soviet tactics involve throwing human waves at the enemy, learning about their strengths as they kill your men, and then adapting to dominate. It's literally how the USSR went from being an inept fighting force to the world's strongest mechanized fighting force in no time at all.
@@P3RF3CTD3ATH It took alot of time . Russia did not start seeing consistent offensive successes until 1943 - two years post invasion. As for human wave attacks its kind of a misconception , in the beginning the germans outnumbered the soviets , then for a while the soviets had a slight numerical advantage that slowly began to turn into a huge numerical advantage. The soviets always posessed a much larger airforce and tank force but they were poorly trained. they learned during the war
@@bsaintnyc and time they had thanks to the reserve system of the Prussians. Well yeah. You can't train your troops in mechanized warfare and send them onto the battlefield before the hardware for this mechanized force is even built. The heavy focus on infantry prior to the mechanization was a stalling tactic while the mechanized hardware like troop carriers were still being built in large numbers.
@@P3RF3CTD3ATH the soviet force was far more mechanized than the german force from the beginning. the germans had a few thousand tanks , the soviets had close to 20,000 in the beginning . the soviets were just poorly trained. training is everything. by the time that stalingrad took place training standards in the far rear areas was increased dramatically , they had a pool of experienced vets at that point to create new doctrines and enforce standards , the talent vaccum from the great purge had been filled
@@P3RF3CTD3ATH it was because of the lack of experienced commanders following the purges. They were a competent army. The Japanese knew that after their defeat at Khalkin Gol.
Prof. John Mearsheimer is brilliant, he is so clear and explains it really well. Love his work.
yeah. he is smart. however, I hate his general position. realism, especially offensive realism, is just the most unprincipled position you can take ever. and I disagree that this realist position is the "only real position", because every system that contains subjects (i.e. humans) is inherently REFLEXIVE, i.e. free will and decision can overwrite everything. of course if we believe realism to be true, it will become true through this reflexive nature. but this is the evil position.
@@_kopcsi_ Realism does indeed offer a lens through which we can analyse and predict conflicts based on historical patterns and power dynamics. Its emphasis on states' pursuit of power and security can provide valuable insights into global politics and the good professor was on the money predicting the war with Ukraine over 7 years ago giving credibility.
However, your point about reflexivity and human agency is crucial. While realism may accurately describe certain aspects of international relations, it doesn't account for the full complexity of human behaviour and decision-making. People have agency and can defy structural constraints, sometimes acting in ways that go against realist predictions.
Moreover, as you mentioned, the reflexive nature of social systems means that our beliefs and actions can shape the reality we perceive. If we believe in the inevitability of conflict, we may inadvertently contribute to its escalation. This underscores the importance of considering alternative perspectives and approaches, such as constructivism or liberalism, which focus on norms, ideas, and cooperation in addition to power dynamics.
Ultimately, while realism can offer valuable insights, it's essential to recognise its limitations and remain open to different interpretations of international politics.
I still think on Ukraine Prof. Mearsheimer is measured when cross checked from my personal understandings and analysis on actors involved, military and or math of resources of each combatants economical and military output appears sound. Whilst I think it is highly probable taking into reflexivity there is always exceptions to every rule. :)
Dumb
@@_kopcsi_a further problem is that the model of spheres of influence of great powers completely ignores the sovereignty of those countries in that supposed sphere of influence
@@wodidos in Hungary, there is a proverb: “the stronger dog fucks”. actually this logic prevails in those minds who accept realism (in international relations and geopolitics), which is the most unscrupulous strategy that can exist. and it is even worse when such idiots say this like Orban, the autocratic leader of an extremely small and weak country. that’s just plain stupidity.
Lex notes that his origins are from Eastern Europe and that his grandfather fought the Nazis for the Soviets.
This is why Lex has a drastically different view of WWII than most Americans who simplistically believe it was they who saved Europe from the Nazi scourge.
True
USSR had already shifted the initiative early 1943 at Stalingrad, and they paid most in soldier’s lives, by far. The US, however, did do a lot. They pretty much single handedly fought Japan, Japan could have easily Invaded the Eastern USSR and created two fronts for the USSR. Stalin wouldn’t have been able to move troops from the far east to fight the nazis if Japan had invaded. Of course we all know lend lease and the importance of that. The US also did open up a second front, but by this time the USSR was already pushing West hard.
@@alexanderfabian8414
Japan wouldn't have invaded. They were afraid of the Soviets and what they had shown themselves capable of doing to the Japanese forces. Hence the treaty at Khalkin Gol.
@@alexanderfabian8414 Not true, the Japanese were already beaten in 1938 in the battle of Khalking Gol in mongolia against the Soviets.
With this, the Soviet Union was able to close an eventual 2nd front for the upcoming war against Germany.
Khalkin Gol battle played a significant role in the outcome of ww2 but very few people know about it.
Later in 1945, the blitzkrieg attack by the Soviet Union against japanese forces made 750 000 japanese prisonners or deaths. And lets not forget Chinese nationalists and communists fighting japan, so saying USA single handedly defeated japan is a COMPLETE lie.
@@alexanderfabian8414 The US definitely did a lot in the war, fighting on two fronts.
Japan and Germany were "allies" but they didn't really help each other. The alliance was made out of political convenience, it was more of a loose association. Japan and Germany both wanted to invade and expand their empires. They agreed recognized each other territorial ambitions, but were fighting completely independently.
So I doubt Japan would have come to Germany's aide in their fight with USSR, they were focused on China. Japan wanted the US to stop sending weapons to China, and the German's wanted the US to stop supporting the UK, so Japan and Germany declared war on the US.
IMO the US was letting the USSR take the brunt of the Germany war machine, and bear most of the cost. It was only when the USSR started to turn the tide of the war that the US and UK decided they needed to attack Germany. They were worried the Soviets would take all of Europe if they didn't. So it became a race to take Berlin.
My grandfather was part of the Nazi invasion of Russia and ended up losing a leg and part of a foot to gangrene/frostbite. Germany was completely unprepared for the Russian winters and their soldiers did not even have remotely adequate winter gear to survive in the extreme cold.
I know it’s hindsight but how was this possible? Didn’t they know? Or did they expect to move quicker before the winter set in? I heard Hitler had other plans for project Barbarossa but he was too ill due to an assassination attempt. What I heard.
@@michaelfern4079They expected Russia to fall in a couple weeks, allegedly Hitler was obsessed with Stalins purges of high ranking officers and how bad they fought again Finland
@@Jakegotjuice thank you. That’s so interesting.
At least your grandfather is was alive. My family lost all males as well as my husband's side. We will never forget what USSR suffered during this invasion. Мы помним! Никто не забыт и ничто не забыто!
nazi grandfather? who gives a fk!
Hitler's ideology said that he needed more living space for Germany and that the "Untermensch" of Eastern Europe could be dispensed with. I don't think you can really separate Hitler from ideology.
@michaelchristensen5965 Certainly so but the "living space" mainly meant the huge very fertile plains of what is today Ukraine and the wheat that can be produced there. A growing Germany (by conquest) needed food for soldiers and the general population
That's his propaganda facade.
In the Mannerheim recordings you'll hear no such thing
Russia kind of lost in WW1 because of the Revolution. The Russian army was not defeated but the state it was fighting for ceased to exist.
The army was already in taters way before the revolution
@@konstantinkelekhsaev302 Sir, I beg to differ. It wasn't. On the contrary: Things were getting better both on the Western front and in the south.
@@aleksandroshis9777 So the Romanian Campaign, Baranovichi offensive and Kerensky offensive were complete successes ?
Россия бы выиграла на изи первую мировую, если бы не революция. Боевое население Германии и Австро-Венгрии уже физически просто заканчивалось@@konstantinkelekhsaev302
Land &Lease Saved the Soviets and nothing else..
There is actually very simple difference between WWII or Napoleon invasion and WWI from the point of view of ordinary Russian. During WWI Russia was not invaded by a huge military force. So, people did not care much about that war. They just did not consider it a threat for their existence.
Also, the political situation in Russia itself. How can you successfully fight a outside war, when you essentially have a civil war.
The Germans in WW1 wanted hegemony over Eastern Europe. The Germans in WW2 wanted to exterminate all Slavs west of the urals. One was a political war the other was a battle for the survival of an entire people.
Which was the huge mistake of the germans.
@CrystaliaV I wondered why Mearsheimer did not mention this... kinda important... esp. since he mentioned that the war started with Russia, but the Soviet Union capitulated
wouldn't it be better if you learned the WW1 history before stating something about it? "Russia was not invaded by a huge military force" LOL
Always a pleasure and a fascinating watch with prof Mearsheimer - man has an encyclopedic knowledge. Keep 'em coming Lex! great job.
There was no Soviet Union in 1918. It was formed in 1922. In 1918 it was Russian Socialist Republic which controlled only fraction of former Empire.
I'm always amazed at how naive science/engineering guys are when it comes to history/social science/human affairs.
He does ask nuanced questions at least
@@cheeto8960 Yes, this is just one segment of the interview with J. Mearsheimer. Throughout the whole interview, Lex proved to be very naive. I would say very affected by "westestern" propaganda. I would expect more balanced position from him, especially when he was born in Soviet Union and speaks the Russian language.
They think they’re smart because they lost 5k on Bitcoin
@tomasprokop4519 you say that but don't give any examples... western propaganda about what hitler?
what is naive about this?
Unfortunately not everyone got this incentive and for some reason decided to join the genocidal adversary. I’m talking about Bandera and Vlasov. The most frustrating fact is that the first one is still very celebrated in some parts of the world and even has the avenue with his name.
Buy a brain somewhere, Stalin killed more Ukrainians than Hitler, Bandera fought against the Soviet Union that was killing Ukrainians in huge scales
Stalin murdered 10 million
Ukrainians in the 1930's
The Holodomor.
Forced labor
Starvation
Disease
Stalins Motherland peasants
Murdered 50 MILLION Russians
over decades in Gulags.
"The greatest PRACETIME mass murder
In human history," see Alexander Solhynitsen.
Save Mao Tse Tung and his murder
Of 70 MILLION CHINESE
the same way
Forced labor
Starvation
Disease
Decades.
I believe one was celebrated in the Canadian parliament recently. To quote Kurt Vonnegut........So it goes !
Vlasov although a traitor, unlike Bandera, was initially a Soviet pow.
@@tomcolvin8199? Vlasov joined the Red Army in 1919
No capturing Moscow would had zero impact on the outcome of the war. If Germany did as Hitler wanted, ( going to caucuses ) they might have better odds but even then the probability of Germany winning that war was next to zero.
The reason Barbarossa started in the first place was that the German economy did not have enough resources to mount an offensive afterward if it was delayed.
The sheer desperation of economic issues caused these actions and if we do not understand this dynamic, we might repeat these tragedies.
I agree that the Soviets would have won the war anyway, but Moscow in 1941 is not Moscow in 1812, back then they just left to Leningrad and Napoleon logistics were not enough for his desire to keep going. But in 1941 you must understand that the railway system was the lifeblood of the soviet union and it is centralized in Moscow, if you take Moscow you ruin their logistics, so it would have had a devastating impact. I still think the Soviets would have won but it would have been even more costly. To make my point even clearer google Russian railways map
@@eneas9038 Where is the bridge of Victory located and where does that rail road end do you know?
Your analysis is on point only your assumptions are not accurate.
What you do not take into consideration is A) German logistics were very limited and due to that victory for Germans was impossible even if capturing Moscow or Caucasus.
B) The majority of goods and raw materials were shipped via Iran to CCCP.
That route does not go to Moscow but goes by ship via the Caspian Sea.
So even the fall of Moscow would not have impacted this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veresk_Bridge
You seemingly have no idea how important Moscow was and still is to Russian logistics
@@villek3722 I do know it but I also know how logistics works and also I studied WW2 and countries that fell like Poland who btw still fought after the fall of Poland so sorry you are just wrong.
@@danushairan Poles fought after fall of Poland but Polands military was detroyed. Germans would have entered Moscow if Yugoslavia didnt prevent the start of barbarossa by few weeks
I have really wasted my time watching clips I should have just watched the whole thing now I have to basically re listen the entire thing again
Yeah I’m thinking the same thing. Really good interview.
Look at the documentary "Unknown War", made by the Americans, together with the Russians, at a time when the Americans still had a conscience and did not dare to lie as brazenly and shamelessly as they do now.
Sprawling, 20-part documentary history in film of the World War II conflict between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Companion book, The Unknown War, written by NYT reporter Harrison Salisbury. Each episode is about 52 minutes, similar in format to The World at War. The footage was edited from over 3.5 million feet of film taken by Soviet camera crews from the first day of the war, 22 June 1941, to the soviet entry in Berlin in May 1945. Most of these films have never been seen outside this documentary series.
The series is hosted by Academy Award winner Burt Lancaster, who spent three weeks in eight cities in the USSR for location filming. Film footage from Soviet archives comprises a major portion of the series, supplemented by film from both the United States and British archives. Appearing in exclusive interviews would be Russian Commanders like Georgi Zhukov and Vasily Chuikov. Other interviews shot for the series included Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev and Averell Harriman, who was U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union during World War II.
Released in 1978.
th-cam.com/video/7ibizxvxgaY/w-d-xo.html
@rileyfoster4794 And you will discover new things that escaped your attention the first time.
I agree that if the Germans have had concetrated the attack more in the south early in 1941, they could have succeeded. The oilfields were in the south, the Don river was the supply line for the Soviets. Hitler did recognize that but he had to deal with the believe of his generals that the capture of a capital city should be the main goal. Such thinking was outdated. The attack came to late.
Agreed, but there was hardly any infrastructure in the south, no roads or railways, the main infrastructure was in the center on the road to Moscow, hence why his generals wanted to push to Moscow.
The main reason why the 42 offensive in the caucus failed was supply difficulties.
@@koenhughes9267 Logistics was a nightmare for the germans throughout the entire war. Operation Barbarossa was a huge gamble, everybody in high command knew that. But from the German sstandpoint, they had to attack anyway because they fiered that Stalin would attack first in Romania (Bessarabia) where the petroleum fields were. If that would have happened in 1941, Germany would have been lost. Also, the Germans had no clue that the Soviets had vast numbers of reserve troops. The reserves stopped the German advance on Moscow in 1941, and also waged the counteroffensive at Stalingrad successfully. You can hear Hitler speaking about all of this in the Mannerheim audio recordings from 1942. All in all, it was too big of a bite to swallow. Just imagine the length of the frontline, from Leningrad to Caucasus. Nobody can hold that effectively. The Germans did for years nonetheless.
Troops are useless if you have no weapons, and ammunition to give them, the Russians hosted the biggest industrial migration in the history of the planet. Over 3000 factories moved from western Russia to the east, if the Germans had stopped this by punching enough force in the center, it's likely the Russian campaign would've ended by the end of 41.
The Russians had many redoubts and forts to stop the oncoming German advance and this gave them enough time to migrate the economic necessities to continue to fight the war and successfully counterattack the Germans on the gates of Moscow by December, from that moment on German defeat was just a matter of when not if.@@neinsager3236
@@neinsager3236no way Stalin would have attacked in 1941… he wasn’t going to attack in 1941.. maybe 43 definitely not 41.. fighting a defensive war is a lot easier… Germany had almost all of the Ukraine to help them fight the Russians… but he killed them
There is no scenario in which the Nazis would’ve won the Second World War, at least no realistic scenario
Stalin wasnt russian Hitler wasnt german and Napoleon wasnt french
Yeah, Stalin was Georgian, Hitler was Austrian, and Napoleon was Corsican.
But Georgia at that time is a part of Soviet union
"Hitler should have marched on Moscow"
The invasion of the USSR took place on June 22, 1941.
The Battle of Moscow lasted from September 30, 1941 - April 20, 1942
The battle for Moscow began three months after the invasion.
In total, 174 divisions - more than 3 million soldiers - took part in the battle for Moscow. 3000+ tanks, 23000+ guns.
The Battle of Moscow is one of the most famous and bloody battles.
It took place long before the battle for Stalingrad.
During the battle, Stalin did not leave Moscow.
The USSR won the Battle of Moscow.
What is your point ? The question was if the dividing of the middle army was a failure or not.
@@sebastianruhland5198 Stop searching excuses for these nazi losers.
An underrated argument for why the Axis lost. On the Eastern Front, being captured (by either side) meant almost certain death. The force w/ the most soldiers is most likely to win.
Contrast this w/ the Western Front, where German soldiers understood that being captured by British/US forces meant going to a POW camp where they'd be treated humanely and fed (and likely survive the war) - of COURSE surrender is an option in that case..
Germans was too late for switching economy and nation into a Total War mode
Read how Manny German, Hungarian, Italian, Romanian Finnish and French soldiers survive Russian POW camps and you will understand the difference, comparing it to the fate of Russian soldiers fate after surrender. Wikipedia
Now go google how many of the ss tank divisions were on the eastern vs western fronts. You might also wonder who the gornison troops in the west were made up of. Or go to school for example.
@@delon32321 You will make professor Maershimer laugh.
What Western Front in 1941?
In 1941 SS divisions officers and soldiers actually not as good as Wearmaht.
Not really, about 70-80% of Germans pows came back home.
Around 40% soviet pows came back
Well, in the western front dear you objectively faced guys who came from the Hitlerjugend, not even men, but highschool boys, and they almost beat your asses. The sole occasion when Americans met the real wehrmacht was known as the battle of the bulge, when they ran down 500 km in mere 3 days.
Fought like wild dogs is an insult. They fought like men. Real soldiers. We owe our freedoms to soviet Russia.
I believe in the lead up to Barbarossa Hitler was informed he had only enough oil for approximately 2 months of unhindered offensive operations. The southern push seems logical to me.
The irony of Russian oil not being captured by the Germans is frequently lost on many
Part of it was captured. They didnt reach Baku, but they did reach Grozny.@@Dirtywesterner
The oil mattered for *offensive* operations, like "Blitzkrieg". But the Nazis could have paused and consolidated / defended their advances at any point, it was the lack of adequate supply transportation that doomed the Nazis to lose in Russia. German trains could not run on Russia's railroad tracks, they are different gauge size. All through the war Germany could never build enough trucks to supply their forces, they always had to rely on horses. That cost the Nazis during the first winter in Russia and every day after. So did the fact the Nazis killed so many Soviet POW's that could have been converted to help them. ( starting 9:09 ).
@@williestyle35 Fair points. Certainly, maintaining an offensive would consume more but even on the defensive the need for oil would not be negligible. The Wehrmacht had a surplus of military hardware through to 1943 but did not have the fuel required to haul it to the front or keep up with ammunition demand. I believe Opel actually had to stop producing trucks because it lacked the fuel needed to test its fuel pumps. By all means consolidate, but without oil from Maikop or Grozney I don't think the Germans had a chance.
I think had he chosen for Moscow first and then south he could have won. The russians used railroads for most transport and Moscow was an important hub. Luckily we wil never find out
Currently reading Dr. Stephen Kotkin's series on Stalin and I've learned that the Germans post-WWI actually cooperated with the Soviets in the military-industrial domain. Per the book, the Soviets sought to acquire the technical know-how while the Germans were uniquely interested in production and offering little concessions.
Kotkin also does a great job of explaining how Stalin and Soviet leadership prized the element of surprise and always figured betrayal in their plans. Stalin always knew his time would come with Hitler; Hell, the Russians had been predicting a conflict with Germany since the end of WWI! For me, it goes without saying that Stalin was not as sage concerning geopolitics as he thought he was. The Wehrmacht had every reason to believe that they'd subjugate the Soviets in a lightening war: They had the upper hand in technology and production and Stalin had purged the military.
Well, they even cooperated in WW2. They occupied Poland together and then soviets tried to capture Finland (according to secret Molotov-Ribentrop pact). Also I am reading one book from one of Russian soldiers who fought in WW2 and later become the closest Gorbachev ally, he is telling that soviets trained German tank guys, not to mention they had a parade together. In Russia we are never taught about WW2, we are taught only about great patriotic war, which started two years later, when they Hitler and Stalin stopped being an allies.
Military cooperation between Germany and USSR stopped in 1933...
You should add Timothy Snyder's _'Bloodlands_' to your reading and watching list. Points out that the War in the East was always Hitler's stated end goal, for resources and "labensraum"..
@@andrewzhukov304 It's more complicated than that.
The Soviets occupied "their" half of Poland 16 days after Germany invaded, and by the time this happened, Poland was all but defeated. I tend to think (based on how the Soviets behaved regarding Germany before WW2) they were waiting to see if Germany would actually win.
Finland is even more complicated, because of the geo-political realities of the time regarding Germany, Finland, and the USSR. First thing we need to note is, the USSR, recognized that Finland was a natural ally of Nazi Germany, and they spent a fair amount of time trying to get security guarantees from Finland in the pre-war period. One of the things they tried to do, was rent a series of small islands in the gulf of Finland, so they could create a buffer from a German naval invasion of Leningrad. They also tried to rent land north of Leningrad to act as a buffer against a German invasion out of Finland. They also tried to buy all this land as well.
Why was the USSR concerned about this? Well, Finland had a far right nationalist government at this time. After the war, when defending its actions in WW2 as a Nazi Ally, various Finnish politicians stated (to paraphrase), "Finland was stuck between Hitler and Stalin, and eventually we would have to choose a side". The USSR understood the reality then, that Finland would eventually choose Germany, because they were both far right nationalist governments. This is why the USSR attempted to buy, or lease land from Finland to bolster their defenses. They knew it was a matter of time until Finland and Germany formed an alliance, and Finland became a staging point for the eventual Nazi invasion of the USSR.
Finland was of course within their rights to tell the USSR to kick rocks, which is what they did. However, the gravity of the situation was such that, the USSR had decided it WAS going to have that land. Either by diplomacy, or by force. Germany at the time of the M-R pact, believed the USSR to be stronger than it was, so they signed off on the Soviets enforcing their security concerns on Finland. Of course, it was the performance of the Red Army in achieving those goals that likely prompted Hitler to attack as soon as he did.
Kotkin?
OK, then😂......
People in cold climates have a hard life. Its not surprising that when war starts they are very much prepared for a hard fight. That just looks like a higher level of bravery.
@@Hrotiberhtaz The fact that you are prepared for a hard slog in life, whatever comes your way, doesn't mean you will be motivated to fight. People with hard lives can't just throw resources at something with a weak potential payoff. That's the kind of sloppy behaviour only the resource rich can afford and still survive the winter. Its does, however, mean that with appropriate motivation they can be a juggernaut.
@@Hrotiberhtaz Of course there are other major factors in human behaviour affecting the outcome. There are numerous accounts of people inspecting the aftermath of a major battle who found only a small percentage of the guns laying there were actually fired. Most people, however initially motivated to fight find it hard to kill another human being when they can see them down the barrel of their gun. This is one of the reasons why the military loves the idea of remote warfare. They say it keeps their people safe, and only risks machines. Much more than that, most people don't really give a shit about someone the can't see, so its much easier for them to kill.
@@Hrotiberhtaz Perhaps, but I think we are seeing a lot of evidence at the other end of the spectrum. Western militaries are finding it difficult to recruit enough people who meet their standards of fitness and ruggedness, so they are lowering standards. Soft lives have created too many soft people. I can't see that ending well in a battle.
"The stone cannot know why the chisel cleaves it; the iron cannot know why the fire scorches it. When thy life is cleft and scorched, when death and despair leap at thee, beat not thy breast and curse thy evil fate, but thank The Builder for the trials that shape thee." - The Hammer Book of Tenets
@@Hrotiberhtaz That quote was created by the human beings and thinkers that created the work of art that the game is.
If these ideas don't ring true to you then I have to wonder what kind of life you have lived. Have you never exercised and become stronger because of it? Have you never sacrificed instant gratification and skipped social events so that you could study in the library and become smarter and get better grades on your way to a successful career?
I want some of what you're smoking if you think that such ideas come from a mere video game and not from centuries of human experience.
Biggest what if for me is if Hitler never invaded the Soviets. Would Stalin of eventually invaded? Would Hitler have taken England? Would the US have nuked Germany? Would Stalin have remained neutral?
From the books I’ve read on Stalin, he was preparing for war, but it doesn’t seem like actually wanted to invade, but I could be wrong
Stalin was in no shape to invade and he knew it. His officers were in their 40s because of the great purge. Axis officers were 50s, 60s,70s . Stalin had no experienced officers after the great purge.
Well, noone needs a better tactician than Zhukov. @@bsaintnyc
@@gaborrajnai6213 Zhukov learned during the invasion . Pressure turns coal into diamonds
Talk about Stalin “invading” Europe is as hilarious as talks about Putin “invading” Europe. In both cases Russia is 10x weaker economically, 10x less population and has exactly 0 reasons to expand westwards. While Europe has many reasons to expand eastwards (hint - resources). All these propaganda are simply to prepare for the next attack on Russia, Europe did it on average every 50-100 years in the past, and looking at current ukra8nian events is keen on repeating the same mistake forever.
Not "eventually". On Sunday, July 6, 1941. That's why the major forces of the Red Army were hiding in the forests near the border.
just be thankful that Russia didt give up and saved the world from Hitler. Nobody sacrificed so much as Russia !
8:42 I think it DOES fit your argument because it’s clear the Russian army was not fully committed in WW1. I’ve never felt the Russian soldiers had their heart fully into the war but resented the aristocracy throwing them into the conflict. Obviously, history shows that many Russians wanted something different than Czarist rule.
In WW2, their very existence was in jeopardy.
The Soviet Union did not lose the WW1 and didn’t sign Brest treaty with Germany. Bolshevik government did. Because they didn’t control all of Russia and they couldn’t fight both Germany and royalists. So they pulled out of the WW1 since it wasn’t their war. That’s why they sacrificed a bit of land ceding it to Germany, Baltic states, Finland, Poland for a greater purpose. In 1918-1922 Russians defeated royalists and kicked out British, American, Turkish, Japanese, French and several more interventionist armies who tried to take some of Russian territory while the country was going through the turmoil of a civil war. Then the Soviet Union was created and it later took back most of the territories ceded in 1918. Europeans always had their asses whipped when trying to invade Russia with very few small scale exceptions. That’s why they had to make Ukrainians who are not different from Russians fight Russia instigating de facto a civil war between Russians. But the result will be the same as usual.
lost 1921 in poland
Yes, but regained part of the territory back in 1939, took the rest of Poland from Germany in 1944-45 and then reestablished Poland as a state giving it a huge piece of German lands. But it seems that the Polish learn nothing from the history and do whatever they can to guarantee its fourth division.
Да не трясись ты
>That’s why they sacrificed a bit of land ceding it to Germany, Baltic states, Finland, Poland for a greater purpose.
Communists also sacrificed a bit of people (literally millions).
The Wehrmacht was very sceptical with invading Poland, the sudden victory was a surprise. Internal there had be many flaws in the operation. Like Mr Mearsheimer said, also the France invasion was seen very critical. Just after the sudden and fast victory again all critics get silenced and the over optimistic people get the upper hand. When you consider that Mussolini needed German support in the Balkans / Greece campaign and Northern Africa, you have a lack of 1 million troops and a time delay. That lack of troops and time lead to the situation with the early winter and the lack to push into Moscow.
Hitler should have simply told Mussolini to remain neutral until he neutralized Britain, which he didn't. Mussolini had Albania by this point anyway. He didn't need to pick a fight with the Serbians and Greeke while also picking a fight with Great Britain, who destroyed half of Italy's navy in one bombing raid.
@@Banana_Split_Cream_Buns Mussolini didn't want to take part in the war first but after seeing the success of the Wehrmacht he wanted his share too. He then join into the war against France. Driven by that he started his conquest.
It is a least well known fact, but Wehrmacht used all of its forces to invade Poland. French sent in a scout bataillon shortly after the declaration of war, they instantly moved forward by 200 km in the Rhineland, and reported back, that Germany is totally empty, and if the French forces attack now, they can capture Berlin in a few days, but they were ordered back. They thought the Maginot line will defend them.
moscov in 6 weeks
@@albertmaziarz6739 That's what they said. It was close. The delay with Northern Africa, Balkans and Greece took away troops and delayed the attack. Also the different railway systems made the logistics such a hardship. But even if the Wehrmacht take Moscow. It is no guarantee for the collapse of the Soviet Union and didn't take into account the production capability behind the Ural. The whole strategy of one single hard hit to make the enemy collapse is risky. But who knows.
To back up Prof. Mearsheimer's point, when I was a child we knew a Ukrainian lady. She said they originally greeted the Germans as liberators, but the Germans were having none of it and treated them as sub-humans. It was at that point the resistance began.
The West Ukranian nationalists treated Germans as liberators, the more east they pushed the colder the reception got.
This has to be one of my favorite guests Lex has had on.
Logistics is often overlooked key factor. Reihsbahn was in no shape to supply this level of war effort that far from home
Germans did not realized that Russians get more united when danger comes and partisans war another big problem for Germans and Russian BIG land, deeper you get it's more difficult keep supply your troops, shortage of oil for vehicles is #1 and Russian winter another BIG problem.
Lex Friedman was like “why everyone can’t be just friends” 😂
Lex is a juuu! Wake up
He is a moron posing as an intellectual
AH greatly underestimated the enemy. He himself says this to the Finns, not knowing he is being recorded, as can be heard in the video 'Hitler speaks with his normal voice': "if one of my generals had told me that the Russians would produce 45,000 tanks I would have called that general crazy". he was convinced he would win with a lightning war in a couple of months, in fact the troops had autumn supplies and the soldiers instead died of cold
I find it interesting that Napoleon also started his invasion in late June and also thought it would be a 6 week campaign. And he also had to deal with Russia's scorched earth policy. Both Napoleon and Hutler's troops were forced to live off the land, which starved and dehoused the locals and encouraged increasing partisan activity. And neither one had nearly adequate preparation for the winter. 500,000 of Napoleon's Grand Armeé marched in and only about 20,000 came out.
The counter offensive of Ukraine also started in June...they never learn.
What a coincidance or not 🧐 Maybe Napoleon had never exist and his story was the future plan for hitler 🤔
When Napoleon took power in France, Russia knew he would attack, and they started planning
Some factual points on German invasion of Soviet Union:
1) The invasion was not a preventive measure to the possible Soviet invasion as there are no German or Soviet intelligence documents to suggest that. (This point was only raised at Nuremberg to defend the accusations of an unprovoked attack)
2) Germany had fully mobilised its army by the time of the invasion whilst the USSR hadnt. The Red Army was initially outnumbered 3 to 1 on most fronts and subsequently surrounded.
3) German panzer divisions were a knowhow which enabled them to break through the front lines. (Tanks were previously used separately with each infantry division).
4) Stalin and most of Allied high comand did not forsee such a rapid german edvance as they expected a more conventional warfare. He had enough military experience to understand the dire need of army reforms and utilising active defence.
5) Finally, Hitler was not a mad man concerning military strategy, he listened to his comanders and agreed with them more often than not. His main contributions usually concerned the economy aspects of war. Again, the notion that he overulled his more experienced generals and was the sole cause of the failuers on the eastern front was introduced at the trials by the Wehrmacht high command to avoid the responsibility for the losses. The notion was further supported in the memoirs of Wehrmacht comanders who survived the war.
Have you ever read or listened to Viktor Suvorov? He makes the case that the Soviets had plans to attack Westward once the Germans and British had exhausted each other. He argues that a large part of why the Red Army performed so poorly in the early days of Barbarossa was because they were postured for an attack into enemy territory rather than for a defensive war. The element of surprise was due in part to Stalin's belief that winter solvents and sheepskin/wool garments would be stockpiled before any attack. His claims are interesting if nothing else.
@@RubbaDubbaDooskie His claims was horseshit. The Red army was in piss poor shape and needed a decade to reorganize. The great purges had just happened. Without experienced officers training standards were in the toilet. They could not even conquer finland.
@@bsaintnyc Yes but they had airfields right on the border. Not useful in a defensive war. Nor are amphibious tanks, fortress busters, or tanks that were engineered for Western European roads. There were primary sources on record regarding Stalin's intent. Would he really have been above attacking Westward? Was he some sort of Saint?
@@RubbaDubbaDooskie stalin just lost a war to finland. Attacking germany would have been suicide
@@bsaintnycI believe that Finland lost ~10% of its territory. It would've been suicide without improved offensive capability. What piques my interest is the question: were the Soviets building an army that was meant to imitate that of the Finns or the Germans? And why is that?
it is always pleasant to listen to John Mearsheimer
Germans were a bit amazed at how Soviets would fight with tenacity and in many cases to death. Some folks from Soviets considered being prisoners or taken humilations and rather kill as many before the last chance to take one with him by naked knife.
Bullshit
Your statement doesn't match with the amount of Soviet POWs that Germans captured in the summer/fall of 1941.
@@UshankaShow 'some foks from Soviets' are minority that they considered fight to death. Not All of them . . . specifically, more, from Siberian regions. But Soviets in - general - looked more like fanatics to many Germans.
@@symmetry08 I didn't get that impression reading German war memoirs. My grandfather survived WW2 because his whole unit surrended near Smolensk in 1941.
Soviets tried to use as many ethnic minorities as cannon fodder as possible. And, they were shot if they retreated. So, not much (anything) has changed. Normalny, as they like to say.
As in all war since World War Two, logistics wins wars. Fighting motivation is only second.
You always hear how Germany almost succeeded in conquering USSR and Moscow, but never really feel how "almost" it was. Until you visit Moscow, and there is a monument of 3 antitank hedgehogs, and the guide told that this is the closest place where German forces managed to get to. And it is reaaaaly close, like 20-25km to Kremlin, presently within modern city limits. It was just that close to history and modern world being completely different
That's not how it works. They couldn't take Stalingrad, and without Stalingrad and crossing the Volga into the Caucasus, German army had no good supply line for fuel to continue the offensive.The fact that they got close to Moscow is due to the fact that Soviets were playing a stalling game by skirmishing (fighting and retreating upon heavy artillery fire). It was never close. Hitler's generals knew it too, that is why they advised the cancelation of Barbarossa. It's not some war game where you take the capital and win de facto. Moscow's industry was mostly in the Urals at that point.
Napoleon took Moscow and he still lost lol
Yes it was a recon unit that got close to Moscow and at that point the German offensive had ground to a halt as Soviet reinforcements were crashing into their lines.
Napoleon took Moscow and the Russians burned it to the ground, just ignored him as he sat in Moscow.
It go so awkward for him he just left.
I thought Napoleon wanted to transition and began identifying as a cat with ze/zey pronouns. The Russians were not happy with that so he left and went to settle in the US
4:30 - "They (Germans) came terribly close to winning" - ummm, no. Think Monopoly (the game), the Germans needed to roll snake eyes three times in a row. The problem of oil was always nipping at the Germans' heels.
7:00 - "I think in the end the Soviets were going to win no matter what". yup.
Wasn't Germany focusing on the southern parts of the Soviet Unios was to secure the oil fields?. if i'm not mistaking Adolf Hitler wanted Germany to be energy self-sufficient.
"focus"- buzzz ... and thank you for playing.@@waleed8530
Hitler wonted Germany and Rassija to United like Katarina the Greate and Big Power.
@@waleed8530 Yes but the Soviet plugged the oil fields by filling the drilling holes with concrete. Meaning it'd take months of engineering to be able to get it back operational.
I've gone in circles on this.
Everyone says how dumb Hitler was for opening a two front war, but after losing the battle of Britain he was at least 2 years away from either forcing British capitulation or being able to take the island directly. In the mean time Hitler rightfully believed Stalin was gaining strength every month that passed, and that Stalin eventually planned to invade Europe to spread the communist revolution. Had he waited years until Britain was knocked out then it very well have been too late and the Russian bear could have invaded him while German forces were committed in the West.
The Molotov pact was always just both sides buying time to position themselves and gain strength before an ultimate clash.
So in this context it made sense for Hitler to strike as quickly as possible while Soviets were at their weakest. Getting bogged down and delayed in Yugoslavia and Greece in order to bail out Italy may have been detrimental from this point of view.
So if invading the USSR in the summer of '41 was the best gambit, then should he have gone straight for Moscow, finished the encirclement of Kiev (historical choice), blitzed the Caucuses, or something else? Doing any one of these had certain strategic effects, but would also have many strategic drawbacks. Like John I'm not sure Germany was in a winnable position in the summer of '41 under all of the historical circumstances. It very well may have been Hitler's Kobyashi Maru. But fortunately things turned out as they did and we will never need to run that scenario again to find out.
The problem was oil. It was always about oil. The entire purpose was to take the Caucasus oil fields. That means Germany had two options:
1. Take out Moscow to try and collapse the government, then focus on the south; or
2. Take out the south, cut the Soviets off from their own oil supply, and then take Moscow. This would be even better if joined by a Japanese invasion of Vladivostok. The USSR would have no oil and no means of receiving any US lend-lease aid.
The German army was on (1) while Hitler was more focused on (2), since Hitler understood (maybe rightfully) that the economy is what really matters and Germany's economy couldn't function without oil.
Either (1) or (2) could've been a decisive blow, but in they end they stretched themsleves thin by trying both, and they failed at both.
@@schadenfreude000 yup I agree either one could have been decisive, but it's also possible it might not have been or that they could have failed either objective even if they concentrated on one.
They were so close to Moscow historically that had they concentrated on it instead of Kiev it's plausible they could have taken it, but it could have also become another protracted siege like Leningrad and Stalingrad were. And even if they did take it, it certainly would have been strategically powerful as a symbol and as a railway node, but not necessarily a knockout blow if Stalin and his government were able to withdraw in functioning order before the capture.
And the idea of them being able to take the caucuses by winter of '41 with how stretched thin their logistics were as it was, although it's not impossible it would have been very difficult. And even if they did take it the Soviets could have fought on for at least a period of time in 1942 with lend-lease shipments of petroleum products from the US but I'm not sure for how long (historically they received over 2.6 million tons of Petro products over the course of the war).
Anyway, all interesting stuff. Who knows, like I said I'm glad we never have to find out.
I was looking for historical accuracy, and you guys didn't disappoint.
People thinking taking Moscow would mean the end of Stalin/Soviets are wrong imo. They would have just retreated into itself and gathered resources for a counter attack the Nazis couldn't stop (especially if they didn't have the oil fields).
Stalin had moved lots of industrial and military east to avoid delays from bombings. Hitler was right to go for the oil fields. They were desperate for it. Most people don't believe when you tell them the Nazis still heavily relied on horses for their mode of transport.
Is there any specific proof that Stalin was seriously considering attacking Germans after they split Poland?
Well Hitler wasn't the first to make this mistake.
Napoleon, The Ottoman Empire. It seems to be a 'loop' that repeats every 70 years or so where western countries go to war with Russia...
the stupid barbarossa was nothing but a gamble, it was completely unnecessary. Germany, for the amount of money and effforts that it spent on this useless war, could have bought a ton of oil from USSR. This war was nothing more than a war of drug addicted German leadership, with psychiatric problems. We try to come up with some logical explanation. But we can't logically explain a psychosis. This war is a very sad and unnecessary part of the history of this planet. It shows what happens when people use heroin and think they are invincible.
Stalin actually blamed for purges and camps, but in reality, and that is very fascinating to learn, the purges happened before he gained power. There was a person named Ezhov who pretty much started all the atrocities. And when Stalin and Beria came to power the first thing they did were to start releasing the massive number of prisoners and stopping the entire repressions. Of course nobody wants to tell that. Stalin was the savior of USSR and it was a revenge of the fallen Czar Nicolay II because essentially Stalin continued his politics and revived Russian Empire.
Can't quite put my finger on why, but I get the impression that Lex really doesn't like Mearsheimer.
It’s because he keeps presenting facts that go against Lex’s ideological posture.
Lex has a tremendous ego and resents it when anyone pushes back on his lovey dovey tripe
Why? Lex and he agree on everything in this clip.
It felt as if Lex was a step behind on occasions. Mearsheimer had to correct him a couple of times on his assumptions, albeit politely. He has been a professor for a while. The one item that was different in the whole interview, there was very little laughter, which Lex actually engages most of the people on his podcast. There was a distance and eye contact was rather different. It could be my perception due to camera position during the filming. I really enjoy Lex but there was something different in this podcast.
He does not like what he is hearing.
Soviets were fighting on behalf of humanity, right-wing Nazis were fighting against humanity & for Hitler.
The ideological edge couldn't be greater for the left in this matchup.
Sovjets in their idiology where simular to the nazis. They killed more people in desth camps then germany did
I am from Russia and I believe that we need to build normal relations between European countries and forget all previous wars. But unfortunately, our politicians are preventing this .
I may not always agree with Professor John Mearsheimer but I ALWAYS listen to him very carefully.
RS. Canada
The single greatest reason for invading the Soviet Union was Oil. Nothing was more pressing for Nazy Germany heading into 1941.
By the end of 1940 beginning of 1941 the Germans were virtually kings of Europe, Belgium, France, Norway, Greece were all conquered. The remaining European countries were either allied or neutral with the exception of England which was the only holdout. Yet at this height of power the Nazy regime was already feeling the effects of low oil availability. With England able to create a sea embargo of any shipments into our out of mainland Europe and the Germans unable to challenge the British on the seas, Germany was left with little recourse to alleviate the oil situation. In fact by the end of 1940 the Germans had already imposed a rationing of gasoline in virtually all conquered territories. In 1941 one of the major truck suppliers to the german army was forced to halt production because not enough gasoline was available to fill the gasoline tanks of the trucks with just enough fuel in order to test the engines before shipment, a German general had to personally create a request for more gasoline. At the beginning of 1941 the German oil minister said to Hitler that he had heard talks about invading the Soviet Union and that if this was true that it would need to be done in 1941 because by 1942 there would not be enough oil reserves to fuel a major military operation. What people dont understand is that in 1939 when the war started, USA produced 70% of the worlds oil, Norway was not making any oil (their oil is under the sea and the tech to discover let alone extract underwater oil deposities was not there yet.) The middle east was at its infancy of oil discovery and production and it was under British control and so the Germans were left with one realistic target, the oil field in the balkans, under soviet rule. The problem was that while Hitlers aim was a war for economic acquisition, many if not most of his Generals were fighting a war for political acquisition. instead of aiming for the oil field they aimed at major cities and eventually Moscow as a means to defeat the Soviet Union. This was done after being successful in France, capturing major cities and forcing the French to capitulate. The soviets however were perfectly willing to continue the fight and even had plans for evacuate and reestablish their capital behind Moscow should the city fall to Germany. By the time they reached the Balkan oil field they were spread too thin and focused on pointless city attacks such as Stalingrad and Leningrad. If they had been committed to the oil fields from the start, the war could very well have turned out different. Thankfully it didnt.
Great explanation, only since you are talking about the invasion of the Soviet Union it was not the Balkans but the Caucusus.
I heard a German soldier who fought on the Eastern front say they lost because their supply lines couldn’t cope, they were logistically overstretched.
I heard a German soldier who fought on the East front say that the evil Jews resurrected soviet mongloid hordes to defeat the outnumbered racially pure European Aryans.
Why are you using a nazi as a source?
I think it comes down to underestimating your enemy. For a 6 month of less campaign that Hitler planned where your enemy surrenders, the Nazis had a somewhat prepared army and supply chain. But where your enemy doesn’t surrender and keeps fighting it was in no way prepared, ready or capable.
yep. this is especially true when you hear that this motherfuckers received french wine to celebrate x-mas instead of winter cloths and amunition.
that was a least part of the problem. the german army advanced so fast the supply chain couldn´t keep up
1 - Russians did not put all the troops on a border.
2 - It was a 2-nd line of defense. And behind they build a 3-rd
3 - In 1939 russia move front line far from Kiev , Minsk, Smolensk and Leningrad.
4 - Introduce all male mobilization system in 1939
4 - New higher officers core much better then Tuhachevskiy group with napoleon tendencies.
5 - New weapons like T-34 and Katusha. Better then German counterparts.
6 - Rapid movement of industry to the East.
7 - In a end of July 1941 Russians capture German tank division documents about how actually Blizkrieg War on a Tactical level is working
8 - Understanding that this war was about life or death of the nation. Thanks to germans.
9 - Many other things - germans cannot capture northern port base Murmansk, Russian fleet dominance Black Sea, winter equipment and etc.
10 - Guderian can never capture Moscow with one Tank Army. And huge Russian force at his flank
That why after Kiev silent one more, Tank army group North, was concentrated in a Center.
the exhaustion in lex's voice at the opening lmao
I really don't get the appeal. He always sounds super low-key and jaded, and it's not like I've ever heard him offer any great insights
Germany;was fighting the British Empire which controlled 25% of the world's population and land area;the USSR;the world's largest country;the French Empire(Free French) which controlled 20% of the world's population and area AND the US which was an Industrial powerhouse.They(Germany) had no chance.
Hitler's decision to divert the Southern Army group to take Stalingrad was a huge mistake that turned the tide. Their original objective was to cut off the Caspian oil fields from the Soviets and that may have forced further retreats of the Soviets.
Absolutely brilliant questions and even better answers. Enlightening!
The questions were nice, the answers less.
@@voltydequa845 Exactly. Lex was great, but Mearsheimer - not so much, you can clearly feel his own agenda
They forgot to mention that the soviet population also fought to preserve a state that provided them for the first time with education, health and many other services.
World War one was different for the Russians because they had a coup de tat so that is why Russia sued for peace but he also right becase World war 2 and war of 1812 against Napoleon were called Great Patriotic War and not world war.
They had the coup because Russia was doing very bad in wars since the Japanese one of 1905.
@@Hrotiberhtaznobody is denying the non aggression pact. That was to buy time and prepare the Soviets for the inevitable war with Germany. Stalin was doing anything he could to not provoke Germany into conflict. I don’t see how that takes away from seeing it as the Great Patriotic War, since the Soviets were invaded and facing annihilation.
You mean the Soviet union got into a nonagression pact with the Nazis AFTER they all invaded the Soviet Union in a failed intervention to stop bolshevism, yeah even the Brits the French and the Americans were there but they were beaten out by the red army, just they were AFTER the Western powers didnt help the Spanish republicans, AFTER the western powers gave Czechoslovakia, the sole ally of the Soviet Union, to Hitler, and to have a little fun AFTER Poland took its share from the Chzechoslovakian cake. Yeah thats the top, that the Poles stole territories from the Czechs the very same way how the Soviets stole territories from them later on, and the icing on the cake is the thousand of pages of diplomatic cables, where the Poles offered alliance to Hitler to declare war on the Soviets. It was a very realistic hypotesis from the Soviet side that in the case of a nazi agression western powers would side with them, or at least watch it from the sidelines. Of course Stalin didnt trusted "kill the bolshie kiss the Hun" Winston Churchill, noone would do with a sane mind. But I guess they leave it out from your western educational books. Honestly this whole BS about the nonagression pact was invented after the war, noone took it seriously it was that logical move,only the Brits cried a little because of it, which was funny since their conservative government had ice cold relations with the soviets. @@Hrotiberhtaz
@@Hrotiberhtaz yeah and poland participated in the division of chezhoslovakia, yet nobody shoves it to their faces. The very fact that these kind of events even occurred is due to a majority of european powers acting selfish and irresponsible while dealing Hitler. If european powers closed their eyes for more than a decade on the fact that germany is rearming itself, seeing them as a possible counterweight against the soviets, why couldnt ussr get a deal with the germans?
Another fact is that the Soviets were not allied with the Nazis.During the Spanish Civil War, the Soviets fought against the Nazis on different sides.
80% of the Wehrmacht was destroyed on the eastern front fighting the Soviets.
I've seen a lot of historians talk about this subject, and the reasons are, not in any particular order:
1) logistics; the nazis simply couldn't move their logistical lines fast enough to keep up with motorized forces, which were their vanguard when attacking.
2) production; they also had a hard time keeping up with attrition, especially when it came to the most strategic of their forces, such as tanks and airplanes. The panzerwaffe was the spear point of the wehrmacht and without it they simply couldn't break Soviet lines, which employed a huge number of tanks by 1942.
3) fuel; germany couldn't produce enough fuel to fuel all their forces. If i recall correctly, they had 6 months worth of fuel when they started barbarossa. The germans, beyond their air force and army, also had to fuel their navy.
4) the threat of genocide; if your enemy will kill you no matter what, then there's no incentive to surrender, as pointed by the guest, you might as well fight to death.
There are many ways in which these problems compound, and one could probably write an entire book on it, so i tried to be succinct.
Wow! What a learning moment!
Love Mearsheimer’s public speaking and lectures but not as exited by his writing.
This isn’t unusual for academics.
Most can’t do one as well as another.
Any other war historians that you enjoyed reading? I have read and enjoyed the WW2 books of Niall Ferguson (War of The Worlds), All Hell Let Loose (Max Hastings) and The Second World Wars (Victor Davis Hanson). I have loads more I'm yet to start.
@@goodyeoman4534 Ernst Nolte and William Shirer.
The best is of course- Thucydides - also the gossip Suetonius and Tacitus, all not WW2 chroniclers.
You’re aware that Mearsheimer is a political scientist and not a historian per se?
Amazing discussion, Mr. Mearshmeier is very much inteligent not just in terms of knowledge but also in terms of his vocabulary.
The Czarist Army was almost entirely illiterate. The Soviet Army was entirely literate. Communism had provided an ideological framework to fight.
It's worth mentioning two things, many on the Soviet side joined the Germans in fighting Stalin, and the Soviet soldiers fought to avoid being shot by their own side as deserters.
If german solders could quickly reach Moscow in 1941 they would do that, but thanks to brave solders of the Red Army who even being in desperate situations they kept fighting, wearing elite germans troops out, eventually by the fall 1941 the spear head of german army was broken which led to their first lost in that darkest year. If someone says that the Red Army showed poor results in the beginning of the war, I would like to remind, what about allies ( French, England, Belgium) in 1939, Battle of Dunkirk, did they perform any better?
taking 15-1 casualties
Another bullshit, Red Army lost almost 11 million solders, 20 million civilians we killed "thanks" to german invasion, according to western sources Germany lost over 5 million solders ( in reality can be almost 9), even in the best case scenario we get 2:1 ratio. This is the fact not bullshit magical thinking.
Germany absolutely could not win WW2, or conquer the USSR in particular. Not low chance - zero. Things already went as well as they could for Hitler, he had luck many times in incredibly risky, "Russian roulette" style campaigns and operations in 1939 and 1940 where to achieve victory German military had to leave itself terribly exposed and vulnerable, it was a gamble with death. But however good Hitler played his hand, his cards was terrible. Germany was simply in the wrong weight class for taking on all of continental Europe and Russia, let alone the economic monsters of the Commonwealth and the US. Basically Hitler's only plan was that he could win with shock alone - frighten his opponents into either surrendering or backing down, without having the real strength to crush them. Had he the access to the inner courts and the real understanding of the societies he was trying to fight, he would have known that he was absolutely doomed from the start.
I agree.
Yeah, that's why he conquered all of Europe
His successful annexations in 1938-39 were due to European powers letting him do it with no consequence. Aka the strategy of appeasement (something that "realists" such as Mearsheimer suggest we do for dictators today, because it has worked so well in the past).
The invasion of Poland nearly destroyed the Luftwaffe while leaving German industrial heartland left completely open to easy and quick French invasion. But the French, not wanting to escalate, did not do because they thought they could avoid a big war that way.
The invasion of France next year was possible thanks to a desperate gamble that was the push through the Ardennes (French would have easily stopped it if they were proactive). That plan was only approved in 1940, the original invasion plan for France was the exact same one Germany had in WW1, and would lead to the same result.
And so on. Once Germany challenged countries that weren't third-rate powers abandoned by their Western protectors, or countries in terrible political dissaray with many Nazi sympathizers, Hitler's luck ran out very quickly.
His early victories were due to two factors: 1)being irrationally, fanatically bold and aggressive in his attacks, disregarding his nation's survival for a chance at victory
2)appointing very clever generals who made very good use of Germany's very limited resources to catch unaware, sleepy enemies unprepared
Neither of those things could have worked long term, and it didn't.
Lol the commonwealth, as you call it was in tatters, and they dont even get the beating from the Germans but the Japs. They captured Malaysia and Singapore in a mere 2 month, where there were more British soldiers than the expeditionary forces sent to France, bombed Western Australia, and prepped their battlefleet for an allout invasion in the Coral sea, meanwhile taken Burma by suprise, and even break into India, where the locals were quite sympathetic to their cause. The greatest blow what the Germans could do to the commonwealth, if Rommel would be successful, and cut the Suez canal, in that case, the only member of the Commonwealth, which wouldnt be knocked out from the game would be Canada, but here comes the real question, Chuchill based his calculation that if he lose the British isles he could retreat to Canada and continue the war from there, but I dont know the actual appetite for the Canadians to support a fallen empire on their own blood. Doing the normandian landing was in itself a risky venture, which was near the english shores, doing it through the Atlantic without having a base in Europe is almost impossible.
@@ADogNamedElmo
А об СССР сломал зубы. Не лезет в Россию никогда, сломает и зубы и все кости, останется одно мокрое место.
Lex Friedman needs to interview TIK.
who?
An expert historian on the WWII eastern front.@@Torgo1969
While Tik has some good work on the Eastern Front, he has far too many problematic points of view on other issues to be mainstreamed. He also isn't doing any original work. He collates the work of actual historians. It would be like talking to someone who writes about David Glantz, rather than talking to David Glantz himself.
@@mercb3ast What is Tik's education? I've never heard him say.
I respect and admire prof Mearsheimer's work. However, I disagree at some points.
- The Wehrmacht was excellently shaped for war in 1941, that's true - but only for relatively short ones. Neither German economy, nor material resources, nor supply of recruits were not able to keep up with long war of attrition.
- Operation Barbarossa was derailed as early as September of 1941 (not December). The SU didn't collapse, and the resistance didn't decrease. General Halder was dismissed and the war goals were re-planned. Germans simply didn't count on such strong Red Army nor such political stability, nor such desperate fighting will from the soviet side.
- Not even further pressing forward the Caucasus in Autumn '41 won the war for the Germans, since the infrastructure of the southern part of the Soviet Union was lesser developed and the overextended,strained supply lines wouldn't have been able to handle the demands.
- The fall of Moscow -in theory- wouldn't reversed the course of the history either. At a ceremonial event of 7th Nov '41 Soviet general Timoshenko openly told that they can accept it if they fail to defend Moscow, but they would go to extreme lengths to keep the Germans away from soviet oil.
- Of course, there were some defectors for anti-bolshevik reasons, but not too much. All who wanted to switch sides, did it in the first months. It is not true that soviet resistance was strong because of german violance and mass killings of POWs and civilians. Soviet soldiers and people were indoctrinated and flooded with propaganda; discipline was high and resistance was fierce from the first day of the attack. Anyway, poor organization and low quality of the officer corps rendered the relentless defense to be not effective enough in the first months - but it contributed to wear down the Wehrmacht.
- It is hard to imagine that there could have been better decisions that would have helped the Germans to win the war. It is simply not easy, if at all possible to defeat a country with more population, more resources, more military industry, strong handed leadership and virtually infinite land to retreat and recover. Maybe they could prolong the war some.
Yes, it was nothing more than a perfect example of hubris. The Germans were banking on their blitzkrieg strategy to overpower and overcome the Russians early, but their intelligence was incredibly bad. They had no idea of the nearly 40 divisions sitting in eastern Siberia (even though they were there to potentially confront the Japanese) nor of their ability to raise almost 100 new divisions once the confrontation dragged on. Poor logistics, and the combinations of the 3 Generals; General Mud, General Winter, and General Distance, killed off their vision
The average soviet citizen born during the 20s had grown up to the horror stories of the terrible conditions of being a serf under the landlords, and had seen a huge increase in standard of living, education, culture and so on, even if at the cost of political repression. The enemy they were facing was going to genocide them all. And in their ideology, if they succeeded, they would achieve communism by the time they were old. And so under such conditions, not much motivation is needed, and with the Soviet focus on collectivism and so on, the readiness to lay down one's life for one's country was arguably larger for the average Soviet soldier than even the Japanese. The Germans did respect them as adversaries, because Russians never gave up and would always fight to the bitter end. And for very good reason: to them, it was extermination or the hope for a society free of oppression
A very strange argument, given the fact that serfdom was completely abolished in 1861
Germany had unprecedented successes in the beginning of the war, and they still lost. It went about as well as it could have gone. The Soviet resistance was just too fierce and determined to overcome.
The difference between having something to fight for. A metaphysical death cult can only hold the people for so long. The Soviets were fighting to exist.
general winter stopped germany, noone can know what would have happened if the winter would have been mild.
@@weisthor0815 If you read books by John Erickson or David Glantz you will see the Soviets fought fiercely from the get-go and inflicted a high cost on the Germans, the battle of Smolensk for instance, and then by the time the drive for Moscow came, the Germans were totally battered and depleted, and matched by the Soviets.
@@archyology might be part of it, but hitler also set wrong priorities. he should have concentrated on the causasus oil fields instead of stalingrad for example. also when germany entered ukraine they were greeted as liberators from the soviets, but the death squads pretty quickly changed that. there was a pretty good chance for germany to get a lot of willing and motivated fighting men in ukraine, but it was ruined by ideology.
@@weisthor0815 The Caucasus is really big, and far away, if you look on a map, to conquer that region is a major difficulty. Indeed the entire ideology of Nazis was to murder the Russians and Ukrainians, which spurred on massive resistance. No war has ever been fought like that, totally genocidal.
I could listen to this all day
I would love to see Mearsheimer move to Russia to live and give interviews from there with his Putin talking points.
It seems anyone who doesn't agree with you has putins talking points huh@@Cryptantha
AH decided to go for the oil fields in 1942. He got distracted by Stalingrad.
Adolf wanted to go for the Oil Fields of the Caucasus from the get go. He planned to have the majority of his armored divisions to be in Army Group South but Franz Halder thought there should be more of an emphasis towards Moscow. Hitler didn’t realize his forces were more concentrated in Army Group Centre until it was too late. Hence why he diverted Guderians Panzer divisions to Army Group South during the Battle of Kiev
Germany lost the war because of arrogance and lack of oil.
@@heaven-is-realhappy that happened!😂
Nah, they couldn't reach the oil fields for logistics reasons and settled with stalingrad for temporary political wins
@@heaven-is-realalso incompetent Allie’s
Invasion is a finite battle, Defending homeland is an infinite battle, in any war the infinite always wins in the long run
Mearsheimer is brilliant as usual. However, is he right when he says there was little opposition from the Wehrmacht generals to Operation Barbarossa?
The following is an extract from Ian Kershaw’s biography of Hitler (p. 619):
“On 14 June Hitler held his last major military conference before the start of ‘Barbarossa’ … Most of the generals had concerns about opening up the two-front war, the avoidance of which had been a premiss of military planning. But they did not voice any objections. Brauchitsch and Halder did not speak a word.”
What he doesn’t mention is that Germany had zero reserves 75 % of men ideal aged were already on the front line in 1939. After Moscow the German army was already defeated as IT’s second army was far weaker.
Source? I am curious. I've read a lot on WW2 and never heard that.
Kotkin talks about this in depth and he’s no way a fan of the SU.
@@kilogolfbravo9567 My understanding is Kotkin did not say that but mentioned that the two front-war after 1939 closer to 1942 early 1943 had depleted German reserves. There was well over 2-3 million troops from a combination of nations helping the German war effort (Romania, Croatia, Ukrainian volunteers (SS division) Italian Belgian & Vichy French forces)
The Russian army in WWI practically single handedly wiped out Austria Hungary
On top of that there was Russian troops fighting in the Western front in WW1 Russian Expeditionary Force who fought well into 1918 until Germany surrendered
Germany was relatively big back then. 80 million was significant in 1939. They conscripted over 18 million soldiers during WW2 (many of them boys under 18 by the end).... lost over 4,300,000 dead some estimates go higher
Approximate populations when the war broke out in 1939:
Germany (after Anschluss & Munich) = 79 million
France: 40 million
UK: 47 million
USSR: 170 million
Germans used the whole Europe for the production and rised militia from half of the Europe. So these numbers don't tell us much.
There was also the massive task of moving their factories Eastwards.
Which must have been an incredible feat.
The Russians moved machines by train from cities just ahead of the advancing Germans, and set the machines along the tracks some miles from the city, and went back for more machines. The Germans came close to capturing Russia's machinery, but a miss is as good as a mile.
one opinion, the NAZI invasion failed because Mussolini invaded Greece and got his butt kicked, Hitler postponed operation Barbarossa one month to bail out Mussolini, Russian winter caught up with the German troops.
sound maine
I’m not sure the Poles where that high on the hit list. I’m not saying they lined them but my dad grew up in Berlin in the Hitler Youth. He was in a high school anti aircraft unit and in the Battle of Berlin. His mom was Polish and his dad was from Posen originally. They spoke Polish at home. I don’t too many people cared that much and it was no secret.
In any case, Poland's POWs enjoyed a good international status, while the Soviet POWs for the lack of Geneva Convention acceptance by Soviet Union were murdered.
What was the truth behind germans being slaughtered in Danzig? Was that just an excuse to go into Poland and reclaim territory or was it a legitimate concern? Thanks.
@@michaelfern4079 I seriously doubt in any German pretexts of that era. There was a bogus Poles-in-uniforms attack on German prescient near Gliwitze in 1939, with shooting and dead, but all done by Hitler.
I think the Germans would've been prepared to assimilate many of the Poles just as they were preparing to do so with the Czechs. The reason is that Germans lived side-by-side with the Poles for over a century, just as they (or the Austrians more specifically) did with the Czechs.
But they had genocidal intent as far as the Russians went.
Finally. Hitler announced blood-thirsty plans against Poles in 1939, for Lebensraum (killed nearly 2 million during occupation for this specific reason). A few years later in a letter to Himmler he assessed Poles as the brightest people under German occupation, very inventive and intelligent - so change of heart must be registered.
As an Iranian living in Germany for more than a decade now, I am so thankful for how friendly and open Germans are today.
Don’t forget that Germany is still a conquered territory. It’s constitution was designed by the Americans to keep it down for a long time. Germany doesn’t have an independent foreign or domestic policy. Imagine if DDR had taken over GDR, and Soviet Union still had its largest foreign military base stationed there, wouldn’t have you said that DDR is a puppet of the USSR?
Happy to hear that, from a fellow German guy. Actually, Germany in the 19th century was one of the most liberal places in Europe, especially Prussia, the most influential German state. Prussia gave asylum to the persecuted French protestants and equal rights to the Jews. You hear a lot about Prussian militarism but in fact they fought much less than the Brits and French and Germany didn't partake in the colonial race for a very long time until they feared coming short against the other powers in Europe. Remember, the UK and France had already taken half of the world, Belgium was killing millions in Congo and Russia was constantly expanding to the east. The historic fate of the Germans had been their location in the middle of Europe - either Germans feared their neighbors or their neighbors feared them. It finally ended in WWI which led to some kind of deadly mass psychosis namely national socialism. And the results of this dark turn are well known. A tragic case for millions of people. European unification has been such a blessing and almost a miracle.
That is simply wrong@@martinand1664
@@minoruhaginoya2249 Prussia was indeed more liberal than much of continental Europe, Bismarck still banned the SPD meaning Prussia and the German Empire were not even British level Constitutional Monarchy with Parliamentary democracy.
The Lower House of the Prussia did not operate on a "one vote; one value" principle until after 1918.
Instead of allowing social democrats to participate in democracy, they were oppressed by the state.
This is why Marx called for the violent overthrow of the state because violence was being used against social democrats, whereas Marx supported social democrats in the UK to attempt to gain election via Parliamentary democracy.
If Prussia and the German Empire had true liberal democracy, all that the Marxist movement would've turned out to be is like UK Labor Fabianism, or what the SPD came to be _after_ democracy was implemented.
This is even moreso the case with even less liberal Russia and the Bolsheviks.
The violence of the state was met by violence of social democrats, socialists and anarchists.
In contrast if these groups were allowed to freely and participate in a legitimate liberal democracy, thete would've been none of the problems we had with World Wars, extermination camps, tyrannical states (right or left) and gulags.
John Mearsheimer deserves more respect i feel. he really is just laying it to you or anyone rather - how it is and more importantly how it was. today we see history really being twisted to validate the Russophobia
Both Nazis and Communist were genocidal nations. One has almost completely disappeared these days, while other still remains visible.
Mearsheimer should move to Russia and defend Putin from there.
What a lame response "mOve tO ruSsiA", "mOVe to ChiNA", dude just give us a break @@Cryptantha
The reason why Operation Barbarossa failed was partly because of the lend-lease deal between US and Soviet, and also because Britain wanted to eliminate Germany as a peer competitor. That being said, Germany fought a full front war.
4:39 honestly, I make that argument and it is easy to see why. The Soviets just had way too many strategic reserves to just plug the gaps by 1941. They were also already massively outproducing the Germans by late 1941 (before lend lease was material). The Germans were quite worn out when they got to Moscow. Glantz and House put it nicely. There is a reason why the Germans did not replicate their massive encirclements in Case Blue.
The movie Come and See is the closest actual portrayal of what he's describing.
Russia is loosing badly… I think I have heard this sometime before 😂
CNN?
I've heard it before as well, wasn't true then isn't true now
This whole podcast showed us, how fast Lex can crumble when facts go againt his ideology.
Bingo.
I can’t stand this pretentious fake guy. How he managed to sell himself as some big time intellectual is beyond me.
Hitler made a huge mistake attacking before the British capitulated. He never even really wanted to conquer England anyway. He saw the Anglo-Saxons as being very similar to the German people as well as them being a trade Empire, the East was always his real goal, he just wanted to shore up his West flank. He really thought they were out of the war. It’s one of the reasons Stalin refused to believe he was being attacked despite all the reports coming it. Stalin just couldn’t believe Hitler would attack him while the British were still in the war. If Hitler had waited til the English capitulated, perhaps things would have gone differently for him.
In ten minutes of a TH-cam talk it would be impossible to give a thorough and accurate analysis of the WWII outcome, but perhaps either of the participants should have mentioned a few "smaller" factors that contributed to the eventual failure of Plan Barbarossa. Off the top of my head:
1. Hitler hadn't planned to fight the Allies in North Africa, and in general on having to "help" Mussolini with his geopolitically irrelevant vanity wars
2. Finland could have very easily cut off the supply line for the war materiel and other lend-lease good from the US that kept pouring into the USSR through the Murmansk port
3. Hitler had expected Japan to join the war and attack the USSR from east, but Japan was not interested
4. The armies of the European allies of the Nazi Germany, notably the Hungarians and Romanians, proved to be a liability rather than an asset on the Eastern Front
As they say, with allies like these, who needs adversaries>
I think Lex was out of his depth here. Great guest, much more learned than the host
Not so much out his depth more that he has a distaste for what he is hearing.
He was out of depth the whole time during this interview in my opinion. Mearsheimer was a sweetheart who was wonderful and patient throughout. He was able to steer the interview into good conversation. Still a very good interview that I enjoyed
The host doesn't have to know everything and he just has to ask deep stimulating questions that will attract viewers!
@@SmilfordMearsheimer is a Putin toady, as is Jeffrey Sachs.
It's not hard to see Lex wants to believe his heritage is more brave. It's kinda transparent. And it's immature. Russians are no more brave than any other countries. They've always throwed bodies at the problem and they either get killed by the enemy in front of them, or their own behind them. It,s not bravery.
When Napoleon invaded, except for the battle of Borodino, where they were slapped around quite a bit, the Russians never fully faced Napoleon. They harassed his column during his retreat and burned down Moscow to aviod direct confrontation with Napoleon. Not exactly bravery either.
Most of nations who display 'bravery', or steadiness in combat if you will, have highly trained troops. That is how Britain won at Trafalgar for instance or managed to hold at Waterloo. It's not DNA. It's context of the battle at hand and training.
For instance, France's mentality under Napoleon was offense, offense, offense. Napoleon was a proponent of marching his troops as fast as he could. He didn't do so out of DNA, btu because he had to defeat his enemies one by one before they joined up. Then came WW1 and France's population was decimated. Military leaders were more keen to be on the defense. Despite that, the french built the Maginot line, not to be on the defense (that is myth peopel continue to believe) but to funnel the germans into the Low Countries. And there they would meet them and defeat them with the combined BEF and best french forces. What they did not anticipate was the Ardennes and their best forces were trapped. Then France fell like a house of card, they lost 300k men in a few weeks and fighting was simply impossible3 at this point, so they folded. They didN,t surrender how of lack of courage but out of necessity.
Russia has so much land that it could move its war industry to the East and keep throwing bodies at the Germans, with their own barbaric military leadership.
Anyway, long story short, Lex wants to believe his ancestors are courageous and that's cringy af for anyone with an intellect.
Ahh yea, the old blocking detachment myth. It's a myth. Deal with it, or continue to spew cold war era propaganda. Your choice.
Once a Russian - always a Russian. He tries so hard to prove his heritage makes him “special”. Insecure little fraud he is
yeah, because we all know all people, individually and collectively, show same level of courage (???)
Stalin executed under 1m Soviet citizens. He arguably starved 3-5m Soviet citizens to death intentionally/recklessly/needlessly. He imprisoned 18m people over 30 years in the Gulag, 2-3m of whom died before release. He engaged in massive transfers of ethnic groups that caused great hardship. The arbitrariness of his repression probably caused more terror to the average Soviet citizen than Hitler did to the average German citizen.
Stalin also turned a country that had lost wars to Japan and Germany and which was left in ruins by civil war into an industrialised global superpower that defeated the Nazis and challenged the USA. He doubled life expectancy and increased the size of the population by 50%, and put in place programmes that gave the world the first civil nuclear power plant, the first satellite and first human in space.
the bolsheviks weren't really russian but the were from estonia latvia lithuania belarus ukraine georgia armenia moldova azerbaibjan and the stans
I do not agree with first paragraph. Not a single reliable source of such numbers, yet people keep saying it, despite being complete lie.
@@user-baev The numbers come from Timothy Snyder, who got them from Soviet records. You need some pretty strong evidence to conclude they're "a complete lie".
well the informations are off... some 700 000 (less) people were executed during Stalin years (mostly murderers etc), additional 1 200 000 died because of being in gulag (gulac is an abbreviation so gulag=prison), those ethnicities moved, well moving Volga Germans before Wehrmacht could get to them was wise, wasn't it??
Very interesting brief interview, and spot-on analysis. My own reading of this history is similar, so I'd say the major reasons the Nazis failed in the USSR -
1. The German Army only had enough fuel for a few months of effective operation in the USSR. Most of that fuel was oil purchased from the USSR prior to the invasion; obviously the USSR sent no more oil to the Nazis once they were invaded.
2, As per the first point, the German Army needed to capture the oil fields of the Caucasus and use that fuel to continue. Though the Nazis did capture some of the USSR oil fields, these had been deliberately damaged by the Soviets and would have taken nearly a year to be fully operational. So a long holding action would have been necessary.
3. As stated in the interview, Hitler's generals favored a northern USSR strategy, even though most of the economic value (Ukraine wheatfields, Donets Basin minerals and industry, Caucasus oil fields) was in the southern USSR. So a more full and effective southern push was compromised.
4. The vastness of the USSR overwhelmed the Nazis and spread them thin, as well as taking them too far from their supply lines. Even when the Nazis invaded France, they had supply problems and outran their lines. The European part of the USSR was many, many times larger than the part of France they'd successfully invaded.
5. The weather of the USSR was unfavorable to invasion, with the bitter winters, as well as periods where all off-road activity would encounter deep mud.
6. Related to points 4 and 5, the USSR had a very limited network of rail and good-quality roads (i.e. roads that wouldn't turn to mud during the rainy seasons). Furthermore, the USSR's rail network used a wider gauge (distance between rails) and supported heavier trains than the Germans (and the rest of Europe) used. The Germans tried to use their European trains on the Soviet rail network by moving the rails closer together, but they still had to adapt to using smaller trains that weren't designed to handle extremely cold weather. A very high percentage of the German trains had freeze ups during the bitter Soviet winters.
7. Related to 4, 5, 6 - the Germans had a massive supply problem. The "lack of winter clothing" in front of Moscow wasn't actually due to the non-availability of winter clothing - it was due to an inability to move it from German to where it was needed in the USSR. And along a similar line, even as many German soldiers were fed into the battle for Stalingrad in 1942 and it wasn't quite enough, it would have been difficult to send even more troops and keep them supplied. So supply was an issue all its own, even if the Germans could have found more manpower to fight.
8. The manpower of the USSR seemed nearly as vast as the land. The Germans eliminated (via death or capture) essentially the entire Soviet Army as it existed in June 1941. Yet behind that the Soviets brought in an army more than twice the size of what had been eliminated. The Germans were not prepared to fight so many Soviet units.
9. The Germans might have gotten vast numbers of people from the Baltic states, Ukraine, perhaps the Caucasus, and even ethnic Russians to fight for them - if they hadn't treated everyone so horribly. Those people did not like being ruled by Russians, did not like the Soviet economy, and - especially the Ukrainians - had been treated terribly by Stalin. Yet the Nazis didn't act as the "liberators" they might have become, and while they did promise the Cossacks some autonomy and thus gained significant Cossack manpower, in general they did not try to or get large numbers of USSR men to fight for them.
10. Related to point 9, and as mentioned in the video, once the people of the USSR realized that they were slated for either removal or complete elimination, they fought as if their lives depended on it - because there lives did depend on it. Soviet troops also came to realize that survival after being captured was not high, so they became unlikely to surrender under any circumstances. This was not the German army of WWI, which was not bent on extermination like the Nazis.
11. Eventually the Soviet military leadership learned from their early mistakes, and became much better at directing the war effort. This was obviously not possible for the French, as their war was over so quickly.
12. Lend-lease from the UK and US was very helpful in supplying food, fuel, trucks, and other equipment to the Soviets. The food meant that more troops could be fielded rather than raising their own crops and livestock. The fuel and trucks gave the Soviets a much greater mechanized capability to their military. This impact was felt much more in 1943-45 than the first two years, but it was still a large factor in the Soviets driving the Germans out of the USSR.
13. And finally, related to point 12, the USA, UK/Commonwealth, and allies bombed Germany relentlessly and eventually fought them on the European continent. The bombing greatly suppressed German war production, they hit the Romanian oil fields too. The Allied invasion of Europe drew troops away that could have been used on the Eastern Front.
This myth that Germany was solely responsible for this war is so pervasive its insane, they had a legitimate claim to the territory they wanted back from Poland (Danzig, a region full of ethnic Germans split away due to the change of ethnic borders from the Treaty of Versailles after WW1). Hitler made generous terms to the poles, one of which was an alliance against the Soviet Union, but that Danzig was to be reunified with the Reich, the Poles refused this offer. Then, when Germany invades, the UK and France declare war and reject every peace offer Hitler made to end the war peacefully, so who in their right mind would blame the Germans for starting the war? Even if they did, they certainly tried to stop it, one could argue that the UK's refusal to agree to peace terms is what caused such unnecessary loss of life and destruction.
People like lex bank on everyone not understanding what you have just pointed out.
“b-b-but they had to guarantee Polish independence!” is usually the go-to response which just begs the question, why didn’t they declare on the USSR?
@@chrisporter9397why do you use the stuttering and sniveling voice?
The uk declared war as they guaranteed polish sovereignty
@@vhufeosqap Then why didnt they declare on the USSR when they invaded Poland just 16 days after Germany did?
@@chrisporter9397
Yes...
Our Country should have never attacked Poland
I've been reading a lot about this subject this Fall/Winter. It seems that the Kiev pocket was the high-point of Barbarossa for the Germans. At that point, via multiple envelopments, the Wehrmacht had killed/captured 3.5 million Soviet soldiers, a majority of their aircraft and armor were destroyed, and the Germans thought they were going to be home by Christmas. What the Germans did not count on was that the Soviets had moved most of their military production to the far East out of German range, and that the US would back the Soviets with more production than the Germans could muster until Soviet production had rebounded. At one point in 1941 the Germans had produced 110,000 vehicles for Barbarossa (Trucks, cars, etc. for moving men/materials). The US had given the Soviet Union 425,000 vehicles during the same period! By 1943 the German officers appear to have known that they would lose because they didn't have the numbers of men and vehicles to compete with the Soviets anymore. But imagine those numbers of killed/captured and LOSING.
US help hadn't reach Soviets by end of 1941, not by a long shot.