[Barbarossa] Just a Stupid Idea or not? An Analysis
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ม.ค. 2016
- NEW HIGHLY UPDATED VERSION HERE: • Invading the Soviet Un...
Many people claim that it was extremely stupid for Germany/Hitler to attack the Soviet Union in World War 2, but is this claim just typical hindsight-thinking or based on information that was available in 1940? In this video I take a look at the information prior to Operation Barbarossa. Most notably the experience from the First World War, the Battle of France, the Invasion of Poland, Operation Weserübung and the Winter War.
» HOW YOU CAN SUPPORT MILITARY HISTORY VISUALIZED «
(A) You can support my channel on Patreon: / mhv
(B) You can also buy "Spoils of War" (merchandise) in the online shop: www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
» SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS «
facebook: / milhistoryvisualized
twitter: / milhivisualized
tumblr: / militaryhistoryvisualized
Sources:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasio...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_W...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern...)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%...
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 4 // 100T vs GEN | G2 vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UkTGSxdCUQw/mqdefault.jpg)
For a FAR improved Version go here: th-cam.com/video/FQdjGJJktfk/w-d-xo.html
@military history Visualized Given English tank export to Soviet Union and Soviet tank production was this the reason for England to be concerned with protecting resources from Russia since previous eras of English resource exploitation in Russia by Cecil Rhodes had entrenched the economical links or was it for ideological reasons because of Soviet occupational pressure in Russia on former English owned resources. The behavior of the English Arms industry is strange in that they sold tanks to Soviets whilst not recognising the Soviet government until after mussolini did first in 1934. This builds to hitlers talk with Finnish General Faulkenheim in the rail car near Helsinki that if he hitler had been told Soviet tanks numbered more than the 34000 destroyed by the Germans he would of considered the Intel crazy. The point and question I am making is that give a alliance between Germany and England would this of avoided babarosa or would Soviet tank production as in the cold War because of Soviet ideological doctrine have made an attack on Allies or axis inevitable. Did English tank exports to the Soviets create this situation via technology transfer in a similar way to the chrystizes design from us advancing Soviet designs towards t34?
Because they lost, it was dumb.
If they had won, it would have been brilliant.
basically this.
That rule actually applies to so many battles and wars...
Ricardo 73 and everything else in life. You succeed at something you're a visionary, smart, wise man etc you lose your an idiot who shouldve seen it all along, only results matter.
Retarded statement. It's obvious that if they had won it would've been a briliant campaign, because it would be proven to be successful
Dlobo Cause this is the internet and everybody has to blabber their opinion away.
Napoleon captured Moscow. And the Russians said, "So what? Do you think we're playing chess?"
LoL
JustAsPlanned1 We'll see ...
Gonginah of the egrograsian brotherhood shame you deleted your comment /got deleted that comment was f***ing funny
Blitz Krieg These slavs be salty tonight.
swarm tactics are fairly efficient tbh, and huge manpower is never a bad thing, although all men are equal
"Made them pay for every snowflake they stepped on" what a badass statement.
What a shitty statement
+pikkulanittaja
think ur right lol XD
Nationalist we?
Agree
Simo Häyhä aka "the white death" certainly made them pay for it
This is one of the first times I have heard mention of how close the Russians came to inflicting unbridled destruction on the German state at the beginning of WW1. German refugees by the thousands fleeing the advancing Russian armies. Germany was able to twart the onslaught with difficulty but stunning success because of superior leadership and disciple that was born of desperation vs a Russian general staff that hated each other to the point of non-cooperation. That event was not lost on what the Soviets could do on the Eastern front if it ever opened up again. No one in Germany was delusional enough to think that Stalin would stand by idle if a good opportunity presented itself. He believed his own idealism that Capitalism would bleed itself white and the Soviets would have an easy walk over the ruins of the Western non-Communist governments. He just had to wait. Hitler was absolutely right that the Soviets were just sharpening their claws waiting for the prey to look weak/injured. Dictators know Dictators.
Right
One group of people in the German Army back then probably knew what could and could not be achieved if you invade the Soviet Union: the logisticians. Here are the things they knew: a) The Wehrmacht was woefully under mechanized. Even in France, which they took in weeks, most of the infantry walked. The bulk of supplies were carried by horse-drawn carts, not trucks. Panzer spearheads have to pause often to wait for the infantry to catch up. b) Russian train gauge was different from German train gauge, meaning the supplies will flow even slower, as it need to be unload, then load. Trains were the most important method of supplies to armies, even today. c) I believe they did estimated that German forces could only advance around 700 miles before the need to stop, refit, build new railroads, etc .. before they can bound again.
And lastly d) have to seen the size of Germany, France and the Soviet Union, just on a map? Russia was humongous.
+Xuan Vinh To yeah, I will address those issues in a special video. But about the logistics, well I only know how it was treated in the Luftwaffe and well, someone pointed out: this is basically a how to NOT do logistics: th-cam.com/video/ZgGXRJg-NNU/w-d-xo.html Their military intelligence was crap and they knew it. They totally underestimated the Soviet Army in resolve and regeneration, furthermore they had a tremendous win-streak, thus they started to believe their own bullshit.
Do you have a source for c)?
about b), a found something that was even worse: they had a lack of trains even for their own gauges! d) they just assumed that the Soviet Union would fall apart, which is an assumption that is optimistic but not utterly stupid, considering the trials, famine, how easily France broke, the performance in the Winter War, etc. Even hard to tell if a proper military intelligence could have predicted that resolve.
+Military History Some British intel officers estimated that the USSR would fall in 10 days. The general concensus in Britain was 1,5 months. The USA was the most generous, estimating that the Germans would take 3 months to capture Russia.
So yeah, no one really expected Russia to resist effectively, let alone that they were able to outlast the Germans.
+Xuan Vinh To thx, sorry for the late response, youtube marked this comment as "likely spam", thus I didn't see it at first.
No time to watch the video. Hitler & his generals was an "interesting" combination, it is very complicated. I will do my research than I can give a clearer picture.
I know that they estimated a certain number of divisions, but could only locate about a part of that. Furthermore, they didn't know how the personnel in the top command structure.
Military History
I would also say that Hitler's timing for the invasion was probably the best it could ever be. It should be noted that the Red Army was not woefully under-prepared for a modern mechanized warfare. Theories and practice for maneuver warfare with tanks were already in place. People like Mikhail Tukhachevsky has already published works on Deep Operations, the ideas of which will be evident in 1943-1945. Unfortunately, Stalin decided to purge his officer corps and the Red Army command structure was in a horrible state at the start of Barbarossa. If Hitler invaded prior t the Purge, he might run into stiffer resistance and failed.
Even after the Purge, a number of high ranking officer who studied Deep Operation survived, mostly in Siberia, had already started to rebuild the shatter officer corps. People like Georgy Zhukov who proved the idea of maneuver warfare with tanks at battle of Khalkhin Gol in 1939. Zhukov was a student of Tukhachevsky, and later became one of the most influential commander for the Red Army. He planned Operation Uranus that encircled and destroyed the Sixth Army at Stalingrad. If Hitler invaded a few year later, he would run into even stiffer resistance.
But a few more points you can explore: at the start of Barbarossa, Germany do not have that many reservists to begin with. Combat loss on Eastern Front were barely replaced. The Red Army had ample replacements, both in reservists and newly trained. One of the particular example is the 13th Guards Rifle division. It suffered over 50% casualties in Battle of Kharkov in May 1942. It was withdrew for refit and replenish only to be sent back into Stalingrad with very green, under-equipped men. It entered Stalingrad on 14th of September, and exited on the 15th. 10000 men went in, most accounts stated about 300 men went out. The division was refitted, again, and survived to 1980s.
So really, it does not matter so much whether you can or can not locate some divisions. You can nearly liquidated a Red's division and a few months later, you will fight them again.
+Xuan Vinh To yeah, having no reserves was one of the major blunders, I already have that on my list.
about the locating of the divisions, it was about prior to Barbarossa and the fact that the Germans knew that their military intelligence on the Soviet Union had many problems.
Stalin also had his Great Purge which decimated the Russian officer corps. Many senior officers were killed, which would have lead the Germans to believe that would be facing mostly inexperienced and junior officers.
I'm not sure if that information went public about the execution and imprisonment of Soviet officers.But yes,the Red Army did loose a lot of men and teritory early in the war because most of their officers were inexperienced and incompetent.
hoi4
Corruption in the ranks, and occasional Paranoia from Stalin.. He tried to remove all the different factions within the Soviet Union and form a single front.. Many of the original conspirators of the revolution were later killed because they had a different picture of how it should be run.. And political enemies were rounded up..
Just anyone who was a threat to Stalin his influence or his personal circle, he saw people as tools which were easily replaceable.. And death by a fire squad was usally the first punishment and second option were sending them to work camps.
Dont forget The winter war with finland.Russias bad showing in that war allso hlped htler into thinking russia was weaker than it actually was.
To be fair, his paranoia was somewhat justified. It's tough to imagine from a cold war or post-cold war lens, but the USSR was on very shaky grounds internally. Stalin was over zealous but did solidify leadership enabling a relatively stable USSR due to the infrastructure he had set up.
This doesn't change the fact that he murdered literally tons of people.
Decent analysis, however you come to wrong conclusions.
Germany didn't BEAT Russia in ww1, Russia just said "we give up". When Hitler announced Barbarossa, his generals were horrified, especially Guderian. He could not believe it until Hitler told him to his face. From the start, at the planning level, things started to go wrong. I quote:
" Shortly after Molotov's visit my new Chief of Staff, lieutenant-colonel Freiherr von Liebenstein, and my first general staff officer Major Bayerlein, were summoned to a conference by the Chief of the Army General Staff; there they heard for the first time about the proposed campaign against Soviet Russia, Operation Barbarossa. They returned from this conference and reported to me: when they spread out a map of Russia before me I could scarcely believe my eyes. Was something which I had held to be utterly impossible now to become a fact? [...]
I made no attempt to conceal my disappointment and disgust. My two staff officers, who had been entirely convinced by the arguments put forth by the OKH, were surprised by the vehemence of my language. " - Heinz Guderian
No clear objectives were established, kinda like what U.S.A. did in Vietnam war. Furthermore, they dispersed their strike force along 3 lines of attack, weakening each one. Panzers 4's were still in very limited quantities and panzers 3 were NOT upgraded with the high velocity 50mm gun that the Fuhrer wanted, due to supply dickering, so they went into Russia with short barrel 50 mm.
Guderian describes in his book, Panzer Leader all the shortcomings and misgivings generals had before Barbarossa. Yes they had success in opening phase, but quickly things started to go to hell.
So yes, people are right when say Hitler did a big mistake, his own generals thought so even before operation started, but they didn't have the guts to tell him so, he was high on his victory in France. With proper preparation, another 1-2 years of tank development AND secure back by knocking out U.K. out of the war, Russia could have been conquered.
actually, the Germans in WW2 assumed that the Soviet Union would crumble. But on Friday more details, I will release a video on the blunders surrounding Barbarrossa.
then germany just give up in ww1 too , if germany wanted they could have beaten russia very hard becasue it was very weak during and after the revolution took place and it was just logical to end this war for both because the germans had to focus on the western front , and russia wasn't able to continue the fight and also germany brought Lenin into russia with some supplies
***** russia is big yes but most it's most importan parts are in europe and it wasn't really industrialized
***** germany wasn't in the first wave becuase it did not existed then
***** True that , but germany not only not existed but also was heavely divided , fighting wars against each other
i do not know any other place i world where there were so many small states
Another funny thing is that the Japanese stopped fighting the Soviets in the East petty much just before the Germans started fighting them in the West.
Russian lost the war in 1904 and 1905 to Japan:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War
But fared much better in border skirmishes with Japan before the start of ww2. This is even where they found their successful grand commander (Georgy Zhukov) of their army who later relieved moscow:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
The Japanese were always edging their bets for or against Germany, they were quite sneaky people.
That’s because they lost so decisively.
I remember reading Hans von Luck's account of the war. He stated "as we drove towards Moscow, we thought we had destroyed the Russian army several times, only to encounter new resistance down the road".
I think that quote is quite telling. Nazi Germany had no clue the T-34 existed. Nazi Germany had no clue how large the Red Army actually was. Nazi Germany had no clue how bad Russian roads were. Nazi Germany tried to invade Russia with dozens of different kinds of truck because they hadn't prepared for a long war and used trucks captured from Poland and France.
Hitler was dumbfounded when he was told by his generals they had destroyed 35000 tanks and said it was crazy that a nation could have some many tanks. The Germans had expected the soviets to have an army of similar size to theirs, 3 million.
@@Blankskeen the soviets only was able to produce that many tanks was due to lend leased materials, equipment
The Soviet purge (Great Purge) of 1936-1938 was a huge reason, with the dismal performance of the Soviets in the Winter War of 1939-1940 being confirmation. Stalin was ruthless and imprisoned the best the Soviets had to offer; even the Sputnik satellite was only capable after freeing an imprisoned genius (Korolev). The Nazi invasion was completely understandable but needed to be executed near flawlessly with a bit of luck, which simply didn't happen.
Spot on.
it do not need to be flawless, it just need to be a bit less incompetence.
i like your comment. if they'd have kept their eyes on important stuff - south russia and caucasus, and on moscow, then it'd have been fine.
also, if they'd have treated the Ukrainians a bit wiser, they'd get more than a million willing ukrainian fighters against the soviets.
Actually many historians dispute this. The Purge only killed and imprisoned a small percentage of Red Army officers, mainly those in the Moscow Military District, and those of high Communist Party rank. Red Army's poor performance in Finland was mainly due to rushed planning and overconfidence, and it's poor performance in 1941 was due mainly to Stalin refusing to prepare his forces to meet an imminent German invasion despite a mountain of intelligence confirming this.
you fuckin talking about how to invade my country? YOU FUCK YOUR SO FUCKIN DEAD WHEN ww3 BREAKS OUT I HOPE YOU CAN DEFEND YOUR FUCKIN CHILDREN FUCKFACE
"Every General fights the last war."
Genius.
The French were; while the Germans basically developed new tactics to prevent the last war from occurring.
and yet he used prior (and incomplete) analysis as well. Dumb video. Disagrees with Glantz, Citino and other American military historians specializing in this.
And it simply IGNORES geography as if it doesn't exist. As dumb as the accent. FAIL
Eww a feminist.
So after I learned that the first minute of class(every one class)What is next say for example Iran today?Just for fun ?
@@engared The majority of the German generals had WW1 thinking. Only a few mavericks like Guderian and Manstein had next gen thinking. What happened was blind luck as Hitler, who was a dictator with total power, decided on gut instinct to follow the plans of Guderian and Manstein, against the wishes of all the rest of the German general Staff who thought them crazy. This can only happen in a dictatorship because in most military bureaucracies, guys like Guderian & Manstein do not get listened to, more senior people get listened to. Hitler was not only a dictator but an artist, he never studied war in an academy, he was more moved by the artistic and creative vision of war rather than technical arguments. Hence why Guderian convinced him. But on the whole, the German military thinking was very conservative. It only evolved fast when 1939-1940 showed how amazing blitzkrieg tactics worked.
While starting Hearts of Iron 4, these two quotes occasionally appear on the loading screen,
"Just kick it in the door (i.e. Soviet Russia) and the whole rotten structure will come falling down" -Hitler
"The vastness of Russia devours us" - a German Marshall
Speaks enough about how there were differences in opinion on this matter depending on who and when was approached within the German Army.
However, when i played as Germany, i made sure i had as few enemies as possible and i won it easily. After puppeting all the Allies, i finally turned to Norway(for metal), Iraq (for oil) and Netherlands for it's coveted rubber.
Now, after the Soviets declared war on Japan, I'm in a much better position to finish them and I'm winning rapidly using pincer movements, engaging them not only in the east, but also from the South after taking control of the resources there.
Still can't beat USA on their soil for sure despite the British Empire(my puppet) providing me with naval supremacy. They're too strong.
Hitler just had the belief that most military thinkers have.
Fight major battles and quickly demolish the enemy Army, and he will surrender quickly.
This is exactly US Army doctrine and how they beat Iraq for instance. Quick blitzkrieg and rest of country quickly collapses.
Russia is an exception because back then it was authoritarian state willing to do anormal things to keep fighting, like use of slave labor, moving entire industries further east, disregard for human losses, etc. Russians didn't even evacuate cities and didn't give a fuck about anything except beating the enemy somehow. 99% of countries don't think like that, most countries surrender when their armies are demolished and civilians are bombed.
I'm surprised you didn't mention that the Soviets were attacking Poland at the same time as the Germans.
Barbarossa was very effective initially, and if Hitler had trusted his generals and allowed them to do their jobs, it might have succeeded. Also, if he could have talked the Japanese into attacking the Soviets instead of the US things would have gone down much differently.
The stupidity was pointed out by Hitler in Mein Kampf. Don't get into a two-front war, and don't try to fight in Russia during the winter. His timing sucked.
Bart Bols The Army was in favor of going after Russia. The Navy had a history of doing quite well against the Russians. The Soviets were Regicides. There were possibilities.
That's may be because Soviets weren't attacking Poland at the same time as Germans. Soviets sent in their troops after Polish army was defeated, the government fled the country, and Poland pretty much seized existence as a sovereign state. After and only after that did USSR send in their troops and seized territories that Poland occupied from Soviet Russia in the 20's. You are right about the Japanese though, they urged Germany to start the war against USSR in 1939 on two fronts, but Soviet diplomacy managed to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany which pretty much thrown Japan out of the upcoming war and gave USSR two extremely important years to prepare for the invasion. As for the high effectiveness of Barbarossa, it turned into a grind right from the get go. Germans lost more troops in the 6 months of 1941 in the eastern front (that were mostly warm non-winter months) than they did over the entire war in the western front, including after D-Day.
@Mocsk - BS. 1 September 1939 - Poland was attacked by Germany and Slovakia. 17 September 1939 - by Russia. In this hopeless situation the Polish government ordered all troops to retreat.
Alvarezpl In this hopeless situation Polish government was already in Romania for over a day. They started transporting documents and gold there since 9th of September. You should be absolutely sure you know all the facts before you use words like "BS" in conversations with people you don't know.
I am absolutely sure that you know your russian version of history. I'll stick with mine.
I love the abstract, unemotional descriptions of what happened.The German accent is easy to understand and pleasant to listen to. War has always fascinated me. It is such a big and important part of history, yet I can't help wondering, why do people do that? From an individual point of view, going to war always seems like it would be a lose-lose proposition. Yet millions of people have done it and hundreds of thousands still do. Odd.
Loving this channel! This along with "The great war" channel for sure are my favorites for nice informative videos about both world wars.
One factor not mentioned here is logistics. The Germans may have had a low opinion of the Red Army, but they should have done their math. Russia was a huge country with a very poor road system, virtually non-existent by Western European standards. Also the Russian railway system used a different gauge (width between rails) than the European system, so the Germans had to re-lay the railway lines in order to use their own locomotives and rolling stock on it. The German Army relied heavily on wheeled trucks and horse-drawn carts, so moving long distances over poor or nonexistent roads presented a serious problem, involving severe delays in movement compared to France and also much higher fuel consumption.
Basically the German forces had much further to travel than in France, and they couldn’t travel as fast, no matter how poor the Soviet Army performed. Capturing the whole of European Russia up to the Ural Mountains in 10 weeks was logistically impossible for the Germans - the country was just too big and too underdeveloped.
The Germans failed to understand this, and they failed to prepare for the Russian winter even though their army would at least have to occupy Russia in winter. Both mistakes are unrelated to the performance of the Soviet Army, so the Germans have no excuse for making them. The staff officers didn’t do their sums - an inexcusable error for German officers.
Tim Smith if the gauges would’ve been the same we would’ve been speaking english
The Germans never could have guessed the USA could give Russia thousands of trucks and millions of cans of spam. The Russians became more mobile than the Germans.
The main purpose of Barbarossa wasn’t the occupation of Russia in the first phase but to destroy their military infrastructure and industry. Logistics only become a problem if the campaign stretches too long. By 1941 the Russians haven’t relocated their industry further east and if the industrial capacities near Moscow could have been captured or destroyed the follow up campaign in 1942 would have been much easier for the Germans. The plan was very risky like Operation Yellow but possible if all the major goals could been achieved before the start of the winter season. The staff officers haven’t had a bad plan but the timing was even more crucial than in the previous campaign. The first major problem was that the start of the campaign had to be delayed by several weeks due to the catastrophic performance of the Italians in Africa and more importantly the campaign in the Balkans and Greece. Although the Germans managed to finished this campaign very quickly, they lost crucial time and had to delay the start of Barbarossa until end of June. Another problem was the none existing coordination with Japan that would have had a significant impact on the campaign against Russia. So in summary I would say that Barbarossa wasn’t a bad plan in terms of logistics but the preparations, timetables and coordination were deeply flawed already before the operation started.
@@1987ZerO : Hitler expected the Soviet government to completely implode and collapse after the Soviet border armies were destroyed. So he was counting on a political victory so absolute that it would make a military victory superfluous. He was wrong.
@Karl Quetzacoatl : That's what Hitler said. But, it's interesting that Germany managed to fight on for 3 more years *without* the Caucasus oilfields... so her need for them was important but not absolutely critical.
This shows once again that it isn't what you don't know that kills you, it is what you know that isn't so.
Hitler and his general staff knew that Soviet Union's army was incompetent, ineffective, and could not be made competent and effective in time to save the Soviet Union.
Just as the WWI German Imperial General staff knew that Britain's small army could not be moved to France in time to prevent Germany from beating France.
Just as the WWI German Imperial General Staff knew the US could not expand their very small army and ship it to Europe in time to be effective.
Based on information available in 1940, it was a great idea, it still was his biggest mistake, but hell, the guy needed resources, and Russia had it all. Without resources, there is no war.
No actually it wasn't at all. The most important battle of Barbarossa wasn't between Russia and Germany. It happened early in the war before Barb between Japan and Russia. In one bigger battle and a series of smaller battles Russia absolutely crushed the Japanese. The Japanese withdrew and this allowed the Russians to have a huge eastern reserve to use in a counter offensive later ...Moscow to be exact. The video also doesn't discuss the major losses the Luftwaffe suffered especially during the Battle of Britain. It also completely ignores the terrible logistics system the German had. The main form of transportation was horses. The video also ignores the Germans own equipment limitations. The Germans were the masters of great & complex military equipment but in war that is a double edged sword. If you can't repair or replace equipment quickly eventually it doesn't matter how good it is if you can't use it. The Germans never mass produced solid reliable, easy to fix tanks, transports or planes. It hampered them big time. When a tank broke down it took far longer to fix & toss in long, long logistical lines and little wonder they stalled. Russians by contrast had a tank that wasn't as good as German tanks but it could be mass produced, fixed easily and replaced fast.
jesse murray I didnt watch the video yet, I can only based my opinions on the 20 plus year of study on World War II, particularly, the Eastern front, that I have under my belt.
I dont need to go into an argument over this, its a simple matter of opinion.
No it isn't at all. Unless you think it is opinion that the Russians beat the Japanese at Khalkin Gol and it didn't have any impact. Unless you believe Germany didn't have major logistical issues. Unless you believe German tanks were easy to fix and could be mass produced. Unless you believe the Germans loss of hundreds of experienced pilots during the Battle of Britain wasn't a big issue. None of that is opinion it is simple hard facts.
jesse murray Your transforming the conversation into something else.
A disadvantaged army is not one that will absolutely fail. Operation Barbarossa was not a stupid idea. You think it was, those are two opinion.
I see so critical thinking isn't allowed. Funny that sounds an awful lot like German strategy in WW2. How ironic.
I've seen videos that show the Wermacht high command were in favour of the Eastern front, but the logistics guys thought it was impossible. Germany lost that war on logisitics. Not enough winter clothes could be delivered in time, not enough fuel, not enough anything. At the end of the war Germany was outproducing the Soviets even with mass bombing, it just came too late
nevermind824 The logistics guys did indeed believe they could only guarantee supplies up to about 500 miles - taking them roughly to Smolensk, the Dnieper and Leningrad. Supplies to AGN were expected to be easier being able to use ports and the baltic states had decent railways. This proved to be largely accurate. Logistics beyond these points were far below what was required given spartan railways and even more spartan roads.
I never heard that Germany outproduced the Soviets. Where do you get that "fact" from?
No? It’s not logistics that lost Germany the war, it’s the lack of resources
@@SoloTravelBlog probably the fact germany made 100% of their own quality equipment, yet the Soviets needed the west for their quality equipment, trucks, food, fuel, etc etc
Worth noting that Prussian way of warfare and academies denigrated logistics.
It was all about manoeuvers, offensives, and above all speed.
Who would win:
An entire army of well equipped soviet soldiers attempting to take Finland.
Or
A short, Finnish farmer with a gun
TenGauge Gaming obviously the shirt Finnish farmer
Finland is Russia’s only enemy that could stand her winters
The soviets won lol
Yes, they take all land they want, the Finland was forced to accept all that soviets wanted from them. 128k soldiers for soviets is nothing + they make all the nesesery war lessons (USSR could have lost the war vs Hitlers Europe if not prepare after Winter war).
Btw, Mannerheim said (before the war) that Fins should accept the territory swap from USSR.
Juan Pablo Garay The plan was to get into Helsinki in a few weeks. They absolutely underperformed for their size.
Robert Hymes Finnish winter is awesome. Slush on Christmas and snow on easter.
As a strategic goal Barbarossa was in fact a blunder, not perhaps militarily but certainly on any humane consideration. It united the Russians completely and strengthened the resolve of other enemies of Hitler.
Miliarty Conqust Class 101: NEVER EVER INVADE RUSSIA, IF YOU HAVE A PEACEFUL BORDER WITH THEM! Unless you have other pined your enemys down to the point of ruin and them under your flag, or you complely destroyed them/ wippe the the floor with there faces, only than can you invade Russia.
Thing is,the border was anything but peaceful...
***** Perhaps we should simply refer to the USSR instead of the various SSR members.
The soviets not the russians!
Fatso Currywurst That is not a fact.
Great Vid, you got all the major bits. You should've mentioned the Great Purge and it's affect on the military.
Well thought out and professionally presented. It is rare and nice to encounter quality on TH-cam.
thank you, well, I improved a bit ;) you may like my follow up video on the Errors and Blunders (fresh out of the box): th-cam.com/video/A_3R-Rkn_98/w-d-xo.html
Wow! This is an awesome documentary! Love this data focused approach over typical anecdotes so common in documentaries. Subscribing!
"The Finnish made [the soviets] pay for every snowflake they crossed". That has to be the most poetic description of the Finn's resistance to soviet occupation. :)
Excellent video. Your English is fantastic by the way, I'm very impressed.
As usual, your explanations are clear and concise. Kudos to you for doing them in a foreign language. I appreciate the amount of time and effort you put into your work. I have subscribed!
I enjoy your videos. Very informative, fact filled, and respectful of all sides.
Excellent review, well researched, and detailed. It is also interesting to have the opinion of a native who has the knowledge, the education, the access to original research material and also very importantly, the "German" mentality (i.e. culture) to assemble all this information in the right context. I have spent 13 years overseas in a 28 year military career and it amazed me how a culture influenced fellow officers who were my equal in education, training, and specialty (Naval Aviation). Thank you again for your great lectures, Ciao, L
There is also the Russo-Japanese War to consider. Russia was beaten by - at that time - a backwater nation.
The Russian empire was considered a backwater nation as well.And that war was in 1905,almost a decade before the first world war.
@Niko exactly!
I know when the war took place, and yes, a few western countries considered Russia backstage, but they all thought that Russia would win against Japan. It is just a long line of defeats, and that why I mention the Russo-Japanese War. In Hitler's eyes, the Russians couldn't even defeat Asians.
A decade isn't that long a time. Germans still prized themselves for winning the wras against Austria and France in the late nineteenth century at the beginning of WW1.
ok in the finland war the sovjets fight in - 50 , 2 m snow and have problems that means sovjets are crap and fins are gods of war.
germans fight for moscow in -50 and, 2 m snow and thats general winter who beats the germans and not thee sovjets .
Then why they did not take Moscow in the spring? Or do you imagine Russia land of eternal winter, where even in summer there is a snowfall? War on USSR territory lasted 3 years.
Really informative and insightful analysis! Thanks :D
This is a great channel. You can tell by the many thumbsups how many people are interested in the topic. I subscribed.
Weiter so, Kamerad!
These are great, please keep making them.
+Montgomery G. thank you, I will.
+Montgomery G. Hey, Monty, good to see you on TH-cam as well, kind sir. I tip my hat to you.
The will of the Queen, mate, God save her. ;)
People say "you never start a land war with Russia" also because of what happened to Napoleon.
Even though Napoleon turned his brain off and just walked in a straight line to Moscow, assuming the Russians would capitulate
Land wars have been fought in Russia and have ended in Russian defeat, were it not for allied assistance the soviets would’ve fallen, there’s no arguing that the aid weapons bullets vehicles provided by the Americans and the intelligence provided by the british were not necessary to the Soviet’s survival
SUPERB perspective, and insightful video. Thanks.
Going back through your old videos, I'll probably watch them all.
Very nice and simple. I like it. Please make more :)
Subscribed.
+TitaniumX thank you! I will ;)
"Mein Fuehrer, I present two options, one of which we can accomplish:
One, defeat Great Britain, or
Two, defeat Russia.
Your decision?"
******
"Three: Defeat Great Britain, Russia, and the United States!"
this video made me sub to you. great video, and I will definitely watch some more! keep it up!
Wonderful channel man
Don't conveniently forget the most important: Russia was notoriously weak in WW1 and industrialzed before WW2. Everyone knew it wouldn't be the same Russia as in WW1, it wasn't a secret that it became a great power by the beginning of WW2.
@menckencynic This. Most people don't know that Poland has saved Europe from the Soviets. Also Stalin's ego played a big role in that.
If Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union, the Soviets would have steamrolled Europe.
100% false. On paper the soviet Union WAS NOT a great world power. Habing lost wars to: Poland, finalnd, estonia, Japan. Tell me one piece of evisence that points to the former.
4:21, that situation is a perfect example of a Professional Army Ready for war (Wehrmacht), and professional armies (everybody else) Not ready for war.
Pretty simple really.
A well reasoned explanation. Thanks for taking the time to produce an intelligent, but also accessible historical view.
ok
Despite the peanut fight that seems to have ensued below, I think your points and rationale are well made.
thank you for another thought provoking video.
What you don't take into account is the battles of Khalkhyn Gol (June-August 1939), indeed little known in Europe and Germany by the time, which slightly alters the perspective on USSR capacity of combat.
Barbarossa may have been a stupid idea, but it is not even 1% as stupid as the belief that the Soviets were not preparing for an invasion of Western Europe, or that the odds of winning a war against them would be any more in your favour 5 or 10 years later...
So, what is your source for the Soviets wanting to attack W. Europe?
Vladimir Rezun (pen name, Viktor Suvorov), a defected Soviet military intelligence officer.
www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/exposing-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/
meme
I don't believe that what Vladimir Rezun wrote and said are proof of that. Besides, USSR pleaded other countries (like France, UK, etc) to work together and smash fascism while it was weak and prevent the destruction that the Nazis would bring in Europe. None answered it's calls, so the only thing left to do to protect it's own people, was to make a pact of non-aggression with the Germans, in order to win time and get prepared for the Nazi invasion. It wasn't USSR's fault. It gave the west many opportunities to fight the Nazis together, while they were weak.
I believe a better source is the US ambassador Joseph E. Davies, who was definitely not a communist, but wanted to find the truth about the Soviet Union and it's intentions.
My source is a Russian who lived under the Soviet Union and worked in the military for decades in their intelligence services. Your source is an American diplomat whose whole job was to foster positive relations with the communist regime, and wrote a pro-Soviet book/film that can only be described as barefaced propaganda. You can believe what you want, even if you want to believe in someone who thought that the Moscow Trials were fair, objective and justified.
meme
Yes, a capitalist that wanted to make communist propaganda. Makes sense. Any way, if what Rezun said was true, why did the Soviets try to approach the west in order to defeat fascism. Why didn't they make the non-agression pact right away and let the Nazis loose in the west, before trying to unite the forces of Europe against the common threat?
Also, Americans didn't exactly want to have nice relationships with the USSR. They only gave a hand against the war, at the last moment. If all the forces of the west listened to the USSR and acted right away, there wouldn't be so many victims in the WWII.
About the trials, yes they was justified. There were people that sabotaged their factories with explosions that killed many workers and made secret agreements with the fascists. On the other hand, it's hard to believe that Trotsky was behind all this (even though I don't agree with Trotsky). It's possible that they framed him.
I don't believe what I want to believe, I just don't see the USSR as evil as our rotten system want us to believe it was, but I acknowledge that a lot of things they did were wrong. It's not black, or white.
Lol you've come a long way, baby! Well done on your channel's success
Great video. Subscribed.
everyone here is acting like a smartass like they knew germany was going to lose ever since the beginning but only know because it already happened. at the time the ussr was purging its officers and couldn't even beat Finland. Germany looked on top of the world by quickly defeating france and locking down the brits. A victory in the east didn't seem all that far fetched. A problem with the german army was that it wasn't motorised enough so while they were executing encirclements,like at minsk, they allowed a bunch of Soviet soldier to escape since infantry couldn't catch up with their tanks. If Germany had focused on getting an effective vehicle for carrying soldiers (they were capable as they had advanced rockets and tanks) and focused on destroying more soviet soldiers instead of only capturing a few economic areas (like kiev) then a *quick* victory would have been more likely. But since they let a bunch of soviets escape and repair germany would have to attack in 1942, 1943....
By Autumn 1941 Soviet Union basically lost *all of it's pre-war armies* (in the Western part of USSR). It's the insane speed of mobilising new troops, as well as mass military production, has won a war. So this thesis about encirclements is wrong.
How would you fuel your motorised army without oil?
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
*If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.*
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
Excellent presentation! Suddenly it all makes sense.
You need to sound proof the room where you are recording this, there is an echo. Thanks for the videos, they're super interesting.
The other factor was that initially Ukrainians and even Russians did not like Soviet life, and provided assistance to Germany. It was only when Nazis anti Slavic policies became apparent (mass killing, disregard for the Geneva convention) that the masses backed the Soviet government. This is why anti Nazis themes and accusations of Nazis infiltration of western democracies played such a big role in Soviet propaganda.
"anti-slavic" policys
SS Galicia
Russian Liberation Army
I was referring to logistical support (ie. providing food and info), and only in the early months of the war. Indeed, they did fight more for the Soviets for most of the war.
My point was that the Soviet Union was unpopular, and would have been easy to defeat by anyone offering a real alternative. The Nazis were as evil as the Soviets, so they were not that alternative.
Nazis were quite worse then Soviets, mainly because of the Soviet staff interfering far more into affairs of the average soldier like rape is forbidden while the German staff didnt care and needed all men they could muster. Ofcourse the soldiers from all sides committed atrocities but the Soviets didn't aim at bombing civilians (stalin forbade bombarding prague to root out germans) while western allies and germany bombed cities aimed at population. In war no one is good, Soviets were an inch better because they were defending and killed less civilians IMO
I'd say the democracies were a lot better than the Soviets, and rapes did happen in Germany at Russian hands. But, indeed the Nazis were worse, and this was strong in Russian minds (as can be seen by how they were shown in Soviet propaganda).
Arguably, the Soviet Union was Russian time of industrialisation that killed alot of Russians, The western countries industrialised during colonialism, UK killed most civilians of all nations, I even think they killed more then Germany. Basicly all world powers did bad things.
This was an interesting analysis, though it seems overly general for it to carry much weight. I feel that there is a lot more to think about concerning the question of whether Germany's invasion of the USSR was feasible from the information the German military commanders had available to them at the time.
Cool video man, never thought about it like that before.
thank you, btw. just released the blunders video... with about 5 months delay ;) th-cam.com/video/A_3R-Rkn_98/w-d-xo.html
dude your video is extremely interesting and I loved your analytical approach a lot. but man your accent is terrific :) and please use some visual adds like photos and videos to improve the effectiveness of your videos, tnx
8 russians died for every german and germany lost... crazy sauce.
+HalbyStarcraft was considerably worse for the USSR in 1941 and 1942. Heck you can argue all way into late 1943 as well. During Barbarossa itself It's an embarrassment to Russian military history. Then again Russian Military history is full of huge embarrassments. Why do we make fun of the French so much when I think about it when Russia is renown for horrific defeats. lol
+Kameraden But compared to the french, the Russians never give up nor surrender.
Nathan M Honestly, there was nothing wrong with that. Look at the end result. France came out of the war with hardly any infrastructure damage when compared to a lot of countries which fought in the war. French Civilian deaths are very mild as well, I think the estimate the Nazis were directly responsible for only around 30,000 French Civilian deaths, when in Russia it is many many times that time. France suffered most of the damage it suffered during the war when the Allies tried to liberate it. Sometimes cooperation isn't as horrible as you may think. It was obvious the Nazis didn't plan on indefinite occupation of France so cooperation was a safer, and likely better option than fighting to the death and seeing their nation BURN. Also, if you look at the invasion of France, and the fighting that went on, the French did literally all the fighting, and all the dying when the Germans invaded in 1940. While the British honestly, ran around like headless chickens when their battle plan fell a part, with no back up, or any real idea how to deal with the German Breakthrough. By the dawn of 1942 the British literally retreated from almost every major campaign. France, Norway, Greece, North Africa and Indonesia literally in most of those cases hardly firing a shot. If anyone from WWII should be embarrassed, treated like cowards running away all the time personally should be the British. They suffered some major humiliations in those early years often because of Incompetent military leadership, something Britain is renowned for.
When compared to the British for example, the French Fought... and died. Some of the hardest fighting on the western front, from the entire war on the west were fought in 1940 by desperate French forces trying to halt the German break through while the French/British Army tried to reorganize and come up with a way to counter it. The French town of Stonne for example the Germans and French traded hands 17 time as the French Desperately tried to stall the German advance. Scenes comparable to Micheal Wittmann's attack on Villers Bocage with attacks lead by Char 1B Heavy Tanks are just heart breakingly desperate and earns the French so much respect by me. I shred too many tears reading about the Battle of France, and even the later Betrayal by the British which only ensured France's capitulation.
Nathan M I doubt you'd be speaking German as a primary language. Maybe a replacement for "English" which is the defecto trade language of the world. Almost all of Western Europe, most of Scandinavia, and literally all of the Balkans, Germany had little to no interest in long term occupation. Nazi didn't even want the Balkan's involved in the war. Thanks to Italy and Britain though. I think the whole conquer all of Europe, replace it with Aryans is complete propaganda and pure BS, it's unpractical and silly. The most likely scenario would be the installment of pro German friendly regimes. Politically it was what they were actually doing as well. Even Poland still officially existed and was under the control of a Pro German puppet Government for example give it the nation was considerably smaller. Czech was renamed Bohemia and was under German Military Stewardship as a Protectorate. France was under the control of a pro Nationalist French regime lead by Petain. Belgium was split into two, ethnic French South and Ethnic Dutch north to make Politicians which wanted partition for decades happy during the German occupation. etc etc etc Yugoslavia is another great example, most of the nations the Germans split Yugoslavia into during occupation to insure cooperation actually almost exist today, but only again after a very very bloody civil war which might of been avoided if we let those independent states exist after the war ended instead of forcing them back into a country few of them wanted to be a part of.
It's ironic because if you look at what the Germans were doing with the installment of friendly regimes it's exactly what a lot of countries do today to nations they do not want to occupy long term. Conquest doesn't mean the creation of new regimes/states. The Fact the Nazis created a lot of new regimes and states was a clear sign they didn't plan to indefinitely occupy those countries.
***** I see your point, but I highly doubt they would't have 're-educated the captured countries. As you say, what they did resembles what nations like the United States are doing right now with the current "terrorism" overthrowing nations and satellite states emerging. They are rewriting the world's map.
It doesn't matter who runs a country, all that matters is who controls those that run a country. If the Germans had toppled Russia, every occupied nation, with a friendly regime or not, would have their original language and German as a second language.
At least, that is what I think :)
Thanks to all the people commenting your version of history, your opinion is appriciated.
I'm only at the beginning but you demonstrate some really good analysis when claiming we should look at the conditions from 1941 to assess the situation.
Sorry to post again but I watched your video again paying more attention to detail.
I'm curious about whether or not there had been any discussion or vetting of the performance of the Red Army at Khalkhin Gol during Barbarossa planning. I've not seen any reference to this happening in my sources. There were some indications, I would argue, that the Soviet military wasn't going to be the pushover everyone thought it was . . . but groupthink is a real thing.
well, in the phd thesis it is mentioned that the Germans missed the T-34 being used in Khalkhin Gol and that the Soviets didn't use it intentionally in the Winter War. Also I remember that one of my professors noted that Hitler basically "arianized" the Japanese and that parts in "Mein Kampf" had to be rewritten for that. Another thing was the world is extremely euro-centric back then, the Japanese were disregarded by everyone even after 1941 as far as I know. Also the Soviets were underestimated, like the French plans to attack the Soviet Union because it provided resources to Germany. Not to mention that everyone consider France the Major Power in Europe and got beaten by 6 weeks.
in short: I doubt anyone gave a rats ass about Khalkhin Gol back then and even if someone would have brought it up, it would have been dismissed.
The Germans helped the Military of the Chinese, I guess looking there someone could find more about the German attitude towards Asia I assume.
Military History Visualized That sounds close to what I would have guessed. It's correct that euro-centric racism was an enormous factor in 1940-41, and even significant tactical victories would have been ignored or discounted by the General Staff planners, in the same way that the British IGS totally discounted Japanese capabilities prior to December 8th. I recall reading about a discussion being held in the weeks prior to the war in Singapore, where some British officers were talking about the risk of Japanese air attacks if war started. One of them said something to the effect that all of the Japanese aircraft were "second-rate, at best." No record of this individual's comments after the POW and Repulse were sunk.
I've also had discussions on YT about the capabilities of the Red Army, in which many people tend to imagine that the huge advances made by the Wehrmacht in 1941 and mid-1942 somehow prove that the Red Army was grossly under-equipped and badly trained. These people of course ignore that the French Army was neither of these things, and roughly equivalent to the German in terms of numbers, and defeated in 6 weeks. It was the tactical and organizational superiority of the Wehrmacht at the time which drove the tactical results - since these were most closely aligned with the objective technical and logistical capabilities of the era.
Incidentally did you get HOI4? ;)
yeah, I got HOI4 for free actually (see my HOI 4 discount video for further info), I guess those are the perks of being a youtuber.
+Military History Visualized Hey you mentioned the Chinese! Would you consider doing a video on the Sino-German Cooperation in the future? Hans von Seeckt's modernization program for the Chinese army etc. The Chinese military was heavily influenced by Germany until around 1940. It's an interesting topic indeed, kinda ironic that Germany was helping its ally's enemy to fight against its ally.
I mean who can say for sure but my (limited) understanding is that if the Wehrmact had the proper equipment for winter they would have been able at the least to reach and attack Moscow. I know that doesn't mean they automatically just win, but it would have struck a huge blow.
In regards to Hitler and the other senior (fanatical) leadership, there were so many factors involved, either bad choices, drugs, preoccupation with non important endeavours, betrayal, internal politics, subordinates following orders as minimally as they could to keep from being killed or imprisoned, etc etc etc. That almost no one single event can be linked to their defeat. At least not specifically. In general terms, if they had convinced Japan to not attack Pearl Harbor, the war would have gone very differently in my opinion.
Smaller is the list of things that if they were accomplished would have meant a victory at least for all of Europe. I'm confident they would not have knocked the Russians out of the war completely. Reduced their capabilities massively yes, but there would have always been partisans.
However if Germany could have convinced Japan to hold off on Pearl Harbor (provided it was not actually a conspiracy by FDR), Rommel would have taken all of Africa and wiped out the British there and then swung Northeast into southern Russia. If Germany had been able to enact operation Sealion successfully, they could have taken Britain, American material support or not. It would have been messy, but doable.
The Nazi policy towards captured civilians and the murders/separation of the Nazi "undesirables", while horrific and wrong, was actually a smart (in an evil way) tactic. Illustrated by the Vicy French. After a year or two of occupation civilians would get the message that it's better for them if they co operate. So with some exceptions, mainly Russia and at least partly Britain , the Nazi's cut down on partisans/insurgents while at the same time building it's pool of manpower from conscripts and industry. Most civilians, we'll say 75% to be safe, would be much more concerned with being alive and working to feed their family, regardless of an occupying force. It happened all over Europe. Although most of the nations I'm referring to did not face the violence of a full scale invasion like that of what happened to Russia.
Some of these thoughts may be incomplete, I sort of was rambling and just spilling thoughts on the keyboards.
Sealion could never happen. The Kriegsmarine was just too weak in regards to the US Navy and the Royal Navy.
Also, the "undesirables" extermination were done in hidden camps and most civillians didn't fully understand what was going on in them.
They would have never been able to win.
Good analysis!
First, ler me congratulate you for this channel, your analysis is very interesting and insightfull in all of your videos. I have a question for you regarding grand strategy in WW2: do you think that if the Germans in 1941 focused theit efforts in North Africa, specially capturing Egypt and the Suez Canal to starve out the British Empire instead of going ahead with Operation Barbarossa, they might have have more success in Europe?
This video isn't entirely accurate. I'll explain why.
While the Winter War did play a factor, Germany knew why the Soviet army performed so badly. Finland has a major geographical advantage. And this didn't apply to mainland Russia at all.
As Adolph Hitler stated "All we will have to do is kick the door in and the entire rotting structure will collapse."
Hitler thought that once he invaded the USSR he would be able to conquer them within a year. He assumed the USSR's economy and infrastructure would collapse.
You're also forgetting the fact that the Axis and Allies alike completely underestimated the USSR's military and industrial capacity. The Axis and Western allies thought the USSR only had a few hundred thousand troops in its military. When in reality they had millions.
The Germans also had no idea of the USSR's tank strength numerically. Hitler also stated. "If I had known they had that many tanks I would have never invaded the Soviet Union." He also didn't know that the USSR was able to field modern tanks such as the T-34 and KV-1. When German forces first encountered these tanks the Germans were completely unable of penetrating their armor without the use of AA Guns.
this video presented only the points and thinking from their part and is basically a counter too: "you can't win a land war against Russia". I also mention that Barbarossa had it's flaws (quite many, have a list with certain parts already scripted).
German military intelligence was BAD, especially concerning the Soviet Union no question about that, but that was not the scope of the video.
3 words - logistics+winter+T-34 any of those missing and Germany might have won. T-34 was fielded 1 month before Barbarossa and was already being produced at scale and very cheaply. Germans had no clue of that. They were also badly surprised by the amount of KV-1 that the USSR already had which were also produced at a scale for a while then.
As it is pointed out in the video they had no reason to expect what they actually met.
Hitler and his team of warmongers did not take (and didn't want to take) into account how Russian society and economy changed since WW1. IMHO the Imperial Russia would collapse from the war and loose while Soviet one prevailed. Not for long though.
Winter is only really as bad as what you are prepared for. The mildest winter in Russia will kill you, without warm clothing.
So really, it's a failure of logistics.
German army actually had pretty revolutionary logistics. But winter and T34, yes
Kyle Eggemeyer Panzer divisions supplied by horse drawn carts. Pretty revolutionary.
Infantry division walked from Warsaw to Smolensk.
+Xuan Vinh To Not really. It's a combination of factors. Before Barbarossa there were no tank to tank battles really. And suddenly USSR pulls out thousands of KV-1 and T-34 tanks. T-34 was really revolutionary(cheap and hard) for it's time and it was produced in substantial quantities even at the beginning of Barbarossa. Germany basically could not push through as they intended. Soviets did many "successful" tank counterattacks which broke German advances, many of those suicidal. This in effect did lead to much slower advance and more difficult longer term logistics and therefore winter. If soviets did not have those large amounts of tough tanks they could not have delayed the German advance so Germans would march in Moscow... now what would that achieve in the grand plan after actually knowing what happened with Napoleon is entirely different matter, but they did plan in an operation scope and did not know of those tanks.
nice sources, very credible analysis and information
I have to admit. You do a much better job on these topics than almost everyone else does. Most of the time I get a headache, trying to figure out how in the hell they come up with their conclusions. Most of the time I think it's just wishful thinking on their part, with no knowledge or logic involved.
Soviet Union also was defeated by Poland in 1920
Eh, Russia was recovering from 2 wars and whites and reds were still fighting. Poland just took the opportunity to retake the Polish provinces controlled by the Russians.
The Ukraine?
During the civil war. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War
Well it was also defeated by Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland just prior to then. Man, revolutions are a convenient time to start additional uprisings!
yea but a weakened SU, revolution, White Army, Red Army, the real win they made when seizing Baku, since oil demand until Black Friday in 1929 was on its rise, numbers of cars in the world increased, testings with aircrafts were made, so having baku from the White Army, was really important...also since Russia had to surrender to germans in 1917 they had no real strong weapons in service, of course no tanks at all, a bit navy, and "oldschool" infantry... only the US/UK/Allies made out of the Red Army in 1941+ a mobile army, in a country like Russia you need it, I do not know how it would have been for soviet transports without the oil, the trucks, the propulsion-wagons (diesel-electric) and the only payload-wagons, thousands wagon to drive, ten thousand normal ones and well... trucks, jeeps (many Katjuscha were put on GAZ soviet trucks but also not few on US trucks), the last 2 categories added with cars for the elite in small number we got into the hundred thousands... Persia through Stalingrad was also the way for Persian ("british oil" back than) oil to the Soviet Union, other were convois first through north of Norway, Barent Sea and so on, and later they build Alaska road..... since at one point Alaska and the Russian crappy area there are really close to each other....
How else should Russia move ten thousands of tanks, supply, gasoline, ammo, food for sometimes many thousand kilometer?! What with Diesel-Electric was no problem to drive through, especially when there was a diesel-tank-wagon installed, with coal it would have needed 3-4 stops or more and on these stop points special locomotives would need to bring the coal there, which would consume further coal -.-
There is a recorded conversation between Hitler and Gustaf Mannerheim here on TH-cam. In it Hitler explains that they had no idea the Soviets had so many tanks, and that if they did know they never would have invaded.
he was trying to bullshit mannerheim to attack leningard.
+IS 2 just google it
Which is complete nonsense. Hitler attacked because Soviets had so many tanks. A tank is an offensive weapon.
Kavetrol Watch it for yourself, moron.
журналист
Just because Hitler said something than it must be true, moron?
Another fascinating video thank you very much
Excellent! Love it! Thank you!
Does anyone else detect the slightly bitter and defensive undertone of the video? As in... "we germans are war geniuses, can't you see that?"
Nope. Just the facts. Also the guy is Austrian, not German.
And so was Hitler Mr. Fanboy. ;)
So we should judge people based soley on their country of origin? Nice racial profiling you got going on there.
I'm sure you understand the difference between race and nationalism. Racial profiling has nothing to do with the point on nationalism I was making. Anyways, good life.
I love the German Accent
This is fascinating. I have seen many battle scenes but I most often wonder about motivation. I earned my living as a statistician - so I always want to see the numbers.
Best military history channel on TH-cam by far, and I include Armchair Historian, Invictus, Epic History TV, and Kings & Generals in that ranking.The only thing that comes close is Liveth Forever More, but they only cover more recent history.
Attacking the USSR before it finished rearming and reorganising its military and whilst it was still reeling from the officer purges, was a sound idea.
Delaying the invasion in order to help the Italians in the Balkans was a bit of a mistake.
Declaring war on the United States to help an ally on the other side of the planet with whom Germany had no real communications... well that was plain dumb retarded.
Attacking Russia with unfinished business in the west was pretty dumb and a well known strategic danger for Germany, preparedness or un-preparedness of Russia notwithstanding - alarm bells should have been shrill but were muted and ignored. Victory disease can do that to the optimistic.
(The attack through the Balkans was small in scale and didn't delay the start of Barbarossa - the spring thaw and sullen rivers dictated the starting date more than another German operations).
germany declared war on the united states thinking the japanese would help them with russia if they were to ceclare war on them.
I think there's a difference between providing materiel and providing hundreds of thousands of troops for the European theatre.
The only benefit I can really envisage stemming from the declaration of war against the US was that it allowed unrestricted submarine warfare.
The winter war - You conveniently omit the fact that it was fought in -35C -40C degrees. It is impossible to conduct offensive operations in that kind of weather. If it was summer 1940, it would be a different story.
that is the same "argument" like of those that state that German Army was stopped by the Russian Winter and not the Red Army, well, in both cases: the High Command should have acted appropriately. Winter in Finland and Russia is cold, wow, I guess that was even known in the 1930ies.
Military History Visualized It is not same 'argument' as German army was stopped by Russian winter. German soviet war lasted for 4 years - through all kinds of weather. Winter War was a month or two of winter.
It 'would' be same argument if we pick one winter month say Dec 1941 in German Soviet war and conclude that German army sucks on basis of that. My point is that Winter War is a bad sample of Soviet ability.
yeah, sorry I forgot that the Winter War was the first time the Soviets experienced Winter...
yeah, you are right it may be a bad example of Soviet ability, but there was also the Polish-Russian War, the Winter War and First World War. The point is, in the video we take the "German point of view" and there is plenty of evidence that the performance of the Red Army wouldn't be too great, of course the assumption that the Soviet Union itself would collapse was wrong, but that is hindsight, because France basically collapsed and the Soviet Union for its part had a history of civil war, wars and purges in the last 20 years.
There is another little detail. Hitler idolized Napoleon and I consider him to be a Napoleon wannabe. It is well known that Napoleon lost his unbeaten army in Russia, and it would give Hitler a hint that Soviets would not surrender, even if Barbarossa achieved the initial objectives.
Im glad you made this video, i always went with details that we had now and never thought of seeing it how the Germans saw it in 1940 +1
Interesting video
Subbed
Despite the fact that a war against the sovjet union was a main part of Hitlers ideology (Lebensraum and extermination of the jews), it was also made to gain the recources for a war against england and the US. The natural recources of russia would have made the Nazi-empire capable of defeating england and make the reich strong enough for a war against the USA.
In the summer of 1941 USSR had a trade treaty with Germany, and the last train loaded with resources passed to Germany on the night of invasion.
It was not craving for resources, which were already available from USSR.
It's just overestimating Wehrmacht strength, underestimating Soviet resources to resist, and forgetting one serious thing: mobile warfare can win you a lightning land war in a small country like Poland or France, but not in a country which has 'strategic depth', like Russia, China or USA.
+Freeliner The Germans could have won a partial victory if they had captured Moscow. The capital city was the center of the entire Soviet communications and transportation network, and its loss would have undermined Soviet logistics in time for winter.
You are wrong that the Germans didn't crave resources from the Soviet Union. Yes it's true that Germany was getting resources from the Soviet's. However they needed more then they were getting and that left Germany completely dependent on the Soviet Union. The situation for Germany in 1941 was very serious, they faced the British Empire, war with America was looming in the near future and the alliance with the Soviets was clearly on shaky ground. So the Nazi's gambled that they could pull off a military victory against the Soviets & ensure German access to vital resources.
on shaky ground? the soviets asked to join the axis which would have solidifyed the alliance.
also they needed recources? oh i wonder were we could get those... maybe help you buddy italy in africa and the middle east to get the rec there and DENIEING the allies acces to them?
and yes the USA was looming over them so wouldnt it be better to make a friend with one of the biggest (not saying anything of the qualety) armys in the world be a better idea than makeing ANOTHER enemy of said army??
Yes the Soviet and Nazi governments were extremely hostile to one another. Their brief cooperation was driven on both sides by expediency to secure temporary leverage. The Soviet Union was trying to avoid a war on 2 fronts between Japan & Germany. As well as hoping for a protracted war in Western Europe to open up opportunities to consolidate power. The Nazi's also wanted to avoid a 2 front war, as well as gain economic and military support as they prepared for war with Poland and the west. There was never going to be a stable partnership between the Axis & the Soviets.
The Middle East and Africa also did not have what the Germans needed & that was food. The German occupied territories were almost all large importers of food including Germany herself.
Finnish line never collapsed, we signed a peace treaty cause it was about to collapse. And if any country would have helped, then we would've won! Only cause of the Norway and Sweden were so pitty about their neutrality we lost.
Soviet Union achieved every single objective it had in this war. The Mannerheim-line was breached. The finish delegation went to Moscow and was ready to sign anything in order to stop the fight. Finland in the end lost any military potential it had before. Loosing a huge lot of it's young male population.
Ew, a soviet fanboy
whom totally isnt biased whatsoever.
The Soviet Union was completely and utterly stomped in the winter war.
Despite having 3x the amount of soldiers, 105x the amount of tanks 29x the amount of planes
and superior technology The finnish only had 70,000 casualties where as the soviets had nearly 400,000
The soviets were absolutely fucking garbage in the winter war and the fact they lost to such a weak nation in comparison is absolutely hilarious and goes to show how absolutely ridiculous stalins leadership was
Fins lost the war :)
finns wouldnt win the war anyway, soviet manpower was so big
"finns wouldnt win"
Except despite have outdated equipment and defenses they killed nearly 4x the amount of soviet soldiers of their own losses in both wars.
The soviets even with every advantage in the book were fucking awful against the finnish
I garuntee you if they had time to prepare an actual defense and weren't using world war 1 weapons the soviets wouldn't be able to do a damn thing.
Let me tell you, honorable sir, no channel in this world had ever taught me so much about the Second World War, your videos helped me understand every aspect and details including the tactics, the logistics and how the war is not as simple as the war games I played on Steam.
Going through many paradigm shifts, I finally know the truth behind the many decisions that the generals made, I thought they were fools that refuse to go with the obvious "solutions", but now you have led me out of my blind and naive mind, you have opened my mind. I thank you for all that you have done to educate others!
You described the subject in a great way! I would of talked about the resources they deeply needed I think
There have been new studies by Victor Suvorov, Mark Solonin, Vladimir Beshanov and others which demonstrated that USSR was preparing to invade Germany by the time Hitler attacked. Hitler had no choice but to attach USSR or else the Russian would have been in Berlin in 1941 and not in 1945. His invading the Soviet Union was not a mistake, in fact it was one of the few sensible decisions Hitler made. The Red Army was prepared for offence and hence it was totally unprepared for defence. This triggered a bit anti-communist uprising which cleared the Germans the way to Moscow.
so speaks a NAZI wanker.
Commander Red Did you even read it? Moron....
so speaks a kremlin troll tosser
Shocked to see how many shameless NAZI supporter still roam around us! Will humanity ever be safe from these abominations?
Your numbers are...uh...incorrect. Union don't use a KV-1 tanks in Winter war and they use just 1.000 tanks (not 2.500 as you say) and 800 planes (not 2.500 as you say). France, Sweden and Britain, during the war, give to the Finland about 275 aeroplanes, 820 cannons, 5.600 machine guns, etc. And how you comparing Winter war with german knowledge about Soviet defence? From Winter war Germans cann't extract anything about Soviet defence, because in that war Soviet army was attacking, not defencing.
Interesting, I wonder if MHV will comment.
Darth Mortus What is that mean?
Steva Stevanovic MHV=Military History Visualized, the channel owner.
Darth Mortus I know who is he. "What if MHV will coment?" What is THAT mean?
Steva Stevanovic
Rekao sam: "Zanimljivo, pitam se da li ce MHV da komentarise [na tvoj komentar]?"
Interesting question! It's maybe best answered with a metaphor:
Once upon a time, there was a village bully who wanted to be the overlord of that village. He had some pretty terrible and inhumane ideas about how the village should be run and also harbored many past grievances and political differences against his fellow villagers. It was clear that nobody would have him as the chieftain, so he decided to take the village by force. First he floored this one farmer guy without too much effort, then he took out this one big guy with a knock-out punch and beat up his friend so bad he had to run behind the fence of his house and try to take some feeble swings from there. All the while he was punching and kicking the smaller and weaker villagers to submission left, right and centre. He also had this little ugly sidekick who wanted to do some scrapping too but wasn't very good at it so occasionally he had to go and beat up some people for him because it wouldn't do to be friends with someone who couldn't fight and got beaten up himself. All the while there was this really big, stupid, slow guy watching suspiciously from the sidelines. (The guy behind the fence also had a real big fella for a friend but he lived on the other side of the village and tended to keep to himself, so he wouldn't appear in the story until later.) Both knew that it would come to blows between them sooner or later (despite their little chat before all the fighting started about leaving each other alone, which both knew to be essentially B.S.)
So, the question is this: Was it a bad idea for the bully to suddenly kick the big guy in the groin, drop everything else and go for him 110%, even though we now know with hindsight that the big guy would eventually get up, learn to fight better and beat this bully guy to a bloody pulp (with a little help from the other big guys of the village) because, due to his size, he could take waay more punishment than the bully and still stay in the fight?
Very nice... well done.
was Babbrosa a stupid idea ?. The scope of the attack was stupid. A 1,700 mile front ?. Even with the luxury of 70 plus years. That was Stupid.
yeah, the plan was definitely not the smartest, also the AA-Line. I will cover all the stupid aspects and blunders in a different video.
I do like your shows. They are pretty damm good. Do you plan on doing a US Navy Task Force ?.
maybe at some point, but not before 2017 I assume.
Military History Visualized I can imagine you have quite a bit subject matter to cover. Just put it in your in basket. Thank you.
June 1941: Hitler and Stalin by John Lukacs would be a good book for this other video. Would have been a good source for this video as well.
I mean, to put it in a nutshell, what you expect Hitler to do at that time? Demobilise? Russia was developing and industrialising fast, if a war is going to happen with the Soviets, it was then or never - according to Hitler....The Nazis would not allow the Russians (Communists) simply to rise and shine! It was a "preventive" invasion!
Well, that is rational thinking..settle for peace.. but that is not typical of fascist thinking..
Hitler could have demobilized, and the men so released would have helped continue the increasing industrialization of Germany.
You can do just about anything with a bayonet except sit on it.
Actually that is a question you can aswer quite easyly...
make a lasting allience with the soviets (if i recall correctly they even asked to join the axis shortly before operation barbarossa) and then... you know FINISH YOUR SHIT AROUND THE WORLD!
they had yet to finish greece, the africa war was ongoing, england was unconcered and USA was mobilizing.
they could have had everything and threw it away.
drizzt7dourden7 Schickelgruber listened to his generals- who looked at USSR vs. Finland, and thought that the Russians would be horribly incompetent, and it would be a walk over.....
Very excellent points.
Good video, you should put some classical music in the background
So you are saying that... Germans bought into their own hype?
Not russians! You must to say soviets! It is very different things!
To be fair it was mostly just Russians. Due to abuses by the USSR and those of the Russian Empire most non-Russians were very eager to fight with the Germans against the Russians to the point where Russians probably would have been better served fighting alone that facing all these traitors.
Though when it became apparent that Germans may likely kill all East Europeans other USSR citizens began to fight in earnest as well.
well, not correct. a lot of people joined nazi during WW2 simply because they wanted to restore old russian government, like it was before the 1917 revolution. the biggest group of nazis from the soviet uniion consisted of ethnic russians, a lot of them fought bolsheviks during civil war in 1918-1920. moreover, soviet authority granted full rights for all ethnic groups of the soviet union (remember that Stalin was a Georgian, his right hand Beria from NKVD was from Georgia as well, Khruschev and Brezhnev were ukranians and the only ethnic russian, who ever ruled USSR, was Gorbachev) so ethnic suppression was not the case. even chruch was more likely to be the reason for joining nazis, because communists were against religion, while nazis were pretty christian and conservative.
There are a lot of other reasons. for example, during Empire era in Russia cossacks could do "pogromi" - anti-jewish raids and that was ok for russian government. communists took a lot of "special rights" from cossacks, so they revolted in 1918 and later joined nazis to fight reds.
As Shkuro (one of the famous cossacks' leader) said: "We can always crush Germans later, but without them we can't destroy communists' regime." (Shkuro was sentenced to death and hanged on the red square in 1947)
Gorbachev is ethnic Ukrainian also.
Jeff Kardos Jr.
putin is mongol..
The Russians were 6 weeks away from collapse and lend lease bailed them out.
+lissa leggs Putin is not a "mongol". He has a epicanthic fold but these are not well developed, unlikely the mongols themselves. I wouldn't say Putin is a "mongol", but he, as pretty much most of the russians, was affected by mongoloid admixture after the mongols invaded Russia.
Intelligent and informative video, thx.
To Military History Visualized- I just saw your book list and was pleasantly surprised to see that you have the "Germany and the Second World War" series, as well as "The Blitzkrieg Legend". Haven't read the Cambridge book yet. "Shattered Sword" is okay; much information on the Imperial Navy, but the author's analysis is a bit questionable. Regardless- great selection. EDIT; Volume VIII is out.
thx, I use the German version, hence all Volumes are out :) but I just got Volume VIII myself a few days ago.
I have the English versions, and they're not cheap. But they're great sources. Volume 10 is not out in English yet, but I have the others. Volume 8s information on Kursk was a real eye opener. Any, take care.
Everything points to it that Hitler attacked Stalin because the latter one was gathering troops on their border. Stalin WAS preparing to attack Europe, but he wasn't ready yet. The reason the Germans were so succesfull in the beginning of Barbarossa, was because the Soviets were ready for offence not defence. The Russian weapon arsenal was full of light amphibious and paradrop tanks, extremely heavy tanks (too heavy for the Russian mud, good for German autobahn) with an overkill of firepower(to destroy fortifications), the airfields were IN FRONT of the troops (to support advancing troops, not to defend the statioed troops) and there were a lot of ill disciplined ill trained and ill armed irregulars behind the profesional soldiers, to keep the population repressed. The troops were ordened in big concentrations, like in several spearheads, not like in defensive warfare. Stalin wanted to overrun Europe after a long hard European war, then he would go and clean up the rest of France and Germany, but he was surprised by the blitzkrieg.
gusjeazer I
It would've been madness to attack Europe back then. USSR was too weak for offensive war.
The Soviet plan was to defend their country by attacking and destroying the potential enemy first. Stalin was planning to attack Germany in summer 1942 at the earliest, and summer 1943 at the latest. Hitler attacked Stalin in summer 1941 - a year before the USSR was ready to fight.
Lulz. The Russians were not even remotely ready for offense. As shown by their counterattacks against the Germans in 41 and most of 42. The Russians weren't ready for defense, either.
They weren't ready for dealing with a competent enemy, even one that they greatly outnumbered. As shown in the Winter War.
SaltyWaffles: The Soviet poor performance in the Winter War was largely due to the very cold weather, and partly due to poor generalship thanks to Stalin’s purge of ‘politically unreliable’ generals. The Soviet troops sent to fight in Finland were mostly from southern Russia and Ukraine, weren’t used to extremely cold winter conditions, and didn’t have proper winter clothing. Also the Soviet T-26 and BT-5 tanks weren’t designed for winter conditions. It was thanks to their painful experience in the Winter War that the Red Army did much better in winter conditions 2 years later in winter 1941-42.
Barbarosa is one of the best military decisions in ww2... however it failed and wasnt called off.
Excellent video. That is exactly how it should be analysed. Thanks.
i really like your work.