They should have listened to what the generals said, Percentage : -70% This plan is considered our disadvantage Inferior enemy : 10% Large river crossing : -10% Some divisions are not in their positions yet : -50% Division still preparing : -20%
The number of times I've seen TH-camrs declare war with their maintenance still at minimum, and only figured out the problem 6 months in after their armies are wrecked. Ah, fun times.
This particular thing is mostly a myth, as this channel states. There would usually be no shortage of rifles, the Soviets even used a much higher portion of SMGs than the Germans, it was the ammunition, communication equipment and often food that were the problem.
Jirka, I agree, the cause for this myth was the situation in Stalingrad which was one of the rare cases where the soviets had plenty of ammunition and not enough guns so everyone had ammunition but only like 80% had guns
Jirka Zalabák that myth was also started in ww1, when russia was not as industrial, so they had to rely on imported firearms, and because people dident like the USSR very much, they believed that the first world War situation applied to this war
@@Crankiebox99 what about zinoviy kolabanov he took out 22/24 panzers in 1941in one/two days (can't remember if it was 22 or 24 or how many days it took)
I've studied Military History for 50+ years. I had 2 grandfathers and 6 or 7 uncles who served during WW2. It still amazes me that the Soviets beat back the Germans after suffering so much during the first year. Sure, I know all the reasons because hindsight is 20/20 but it is still an amazing piece of history. To defeat the Wehrmacht after such stunning losses will amaze historians for centuries.
Well, that's pretty much what does pesky russians do. Get beaten by some small forces like Finns or Mujahadeens(altough those had US support) but grind down and destroy the most formidable warmachines of the history(Sweden, French, Germany, Prussia etc.) Not saying they did not get their assess beated(like in some wars with the Ottomans or WW1). Probably, the most crucial factor in each of these victories is their way to be. They usually seem fast learners, especially under pressure and have a will of steel
Omega Alpha The Rissians and WW2 had UK and US support to with equipment. Stalin had also put many experienced officers in Gulags which he later put them back to fight for him
USSR was the largest country in the world at that time, beside UK. That is where they were from. Also, 'shoving another 1,000,000' was standard practice. Germany did that, UK did that, US did that, Japan did that. The only difference, Germany did not have the population, UK and US did not have to face odds so terrible as the Soviets and Japan did not have the equipment necessary to arm so many people late in the war
To give an insight into where the Soviet got all those bodies to shove into their army, based on what I read, they were basically getting it wherever they can. The vast number of political prisoners, many central Asians, foreigners who happened to be in the country at the time, heck they even raided nearby countries and impressed(kidnapped) over a million men from the border areas into service.
"German successes seem decisive at first Glantz" I already loved this channel for its wealth of well-researched, insightful and easy to understand information but the puns and hidden Easter eggs make it even better! :D
"David M. Glantz (born January 11, 1942 in Port Chester, New York) is an American military historian known for his books on the Red Army during World War II, and the chief editor of the Journal of Slavic Military Studies" says WIkipedia
Look up his book on the Battle of Smolensk, 1941. His version runs counter to pretty much anything else you will find. However, he does back up all his hypothesis with previous top secret documents now released.
TO THE zookeeper in 1978 who replied "I'll tell you when you're older" when I asked him why one of the monkeys stuck its tongue up another one's arse: I'm 46 now and still waiting for that explanation
@PrankCallsHotlineYup, just another pretend historian, trying to make a new angle on virtually everything, where none exists. I wonder if he ever dared to address the murder of all those polish officers in the Katyn forest I think it was, whom for decades kept blaming it on the germans. The germans had the proof all along, but during the war the USA had to pretend to be Stalin's friend, so, obviously, with such limitations you will believe the soviet murderers. The soviets let the germans bomb the Poltava American airbase and then suddenly soviets aren't much for friends anymore.
Check out "When Titans Clashed" by David Glantz, the analisis of the Red Army´s reorganisation and the inteligence failures previous to Barbarossa are spot on, and makes a fair assesment of Stalin as a miltary leader. A breath of fresh air after all the lazy historiography that simply blames Stalin for every mistake and downplays the achievements of the Red Army.
Carlos I I hate It so much when some nazi from reddit tries to tell me that the German army still remains as the worlds best fighting force, they say that the red army was nothing but peasants that were starving, and that they "held off the entire world" like bitch your army got defeated in pitched battle, the second the Germans stopped advancing was the second the Soviet army rose to the rank of "world's strongest army"
Carlos I anyway system of Staline knocked out system of Adolf so saying simply was more effective cause "German" system was different to "Russian" system. war communisme war system was more effective inthe total war
Well the throwing shit on Stalin and thinking of the Red Army as a bunch of human waves is something from the Cold War anti-communism propaganda which came from the US and took hold in Europe as well. But what you see in those movies simply isn't true and is quite contrary to the truth. Luckily we have historians who are shedding light to this and there is a lot of information available if anyone else is interested in the subject for their own research.
@@maciejniedzielski7496 Did you ever try to see it as a math task? How much more efficient must the German system be to overcome not only the Soviet System but the English Empire and the USA at the same time?
yeah, easy to remember 6th of January, which is exactly 6 months before / after D-Day :) Yeah, more than 150 videos, is also quite a substantial output and I started basically with no books and very little knowledge.
Damn! That's a pretty cool date to have started the channel. Right in-between There are very few videos I haven't watched. It is pretty insane to have put out that many videos and still have kept up with the quality and only improved. Speaking of videos there's one thing I've been thinking about. I don't know if its video worthy or not but, how did Germany continue to produce tanks, vehicles and weapons as late as April 1945? We're there underground factories and if there were where were they? By that time the Soviets and Americans had taken most land from the Germans so where could they have been? Not to mention Germany had been bombed to hell. Just something that's been floating in my mind.
that question will be certainly covered, since I have a good source on it. I think I glanced over it and if I remember correctly most was from stocks at that point.
One reason why some of the early KV tank units were successful was that some of the people working with them were from the research arm of the tank development organisations pulled into combat as testing was interrupted. These were tank theorists and engineers who knew a lot about both their tanks and the enemy tanks weak spots. This happened with the British too in the English air war.
There is also the question of who controls the battle field after the battle. Many tanks were stopped in combat, engine damage, tracks broken, stuck in mud or otherwise immobilized but repairable. If you have control of the battle field, you can recover your tanks and put them back into service. If you do not, a tank with a broken track is a total loss, or worse, it is recovered by the enemy and used against you. I do not think that the Soviet Army had spent a lot of time on vehicle recovery and so they lost more tanks to the German Army than they would have otherwise.
Germans today "Talk freely about the second world war". Yes many have received 10 year sentences for "talking freely" about the second world war. It's only okay if you talk about approved subjects like battles, resources and such. If you say "My grandfather was not a criminal" you get 10 years in prison.
@@morrighanwermarn-arnburg7333 well becouse if he served in ss he probably was. and practicali nobody blame soldiers from heer (wermach infanry) so wheres the point?
@@petrsukenik9266 see. Youre already one of them "yeah so IF he was SS then the people you talk about are probably right". So you instantly make assumptions that the people Wich Amber Maynard is talking about are right. Thats exactly his point. You dont even know anything, yet you are here already saying Amber Maynard is probably wrong, essentially confirming his whole point.
@@TheBlackfall234 well it realy depends on that what the granfather does, i dont thing that somebody blame normal soldiers from regular army (yes blame regular recruits is stupid) the members of SS are something diferent, orgaizatin had a nazi ideologi depply in its structure, and every nazi is enemy (for example because if naci ideologi would be practised in modern society i would be dead allready)
It is interesting to realize that it would've been difficult to have found a more opportune time for Germany to strike the Soviet Union then it did. With the purges, radical changes in equipment, vehicles, positions, and organization it is hard to imagine a more vulnerable position for a power like the Soviet Union to be in. Yet despite that, we know what the result of the war ended up being, and I think that is somewhat telling of what the odds of German 'victory' actually were.
That isnt all too sure, without any allied interference in ww2 the soviet union imo would have collapsed at some point of time suffering such heavy losses over years. Against the entire world however germany had clearly no chances whatsoever.
Montzeumas I was going to write up a big post in response to this, but it got too wordy, so heres a much simpler response. Germany had 75% of its military fighting on the Eastern front, and continued this ratio through most of the war. It inevitably had to send troops west and south when the allies began to land in Europe, but the largest portion of the German army was always in the east. This also means that the vast majority of its casualties were also in the east. Yet it was the Germans who had to resort to using children and old men to defend Berlin, against a Red Army that wasn't using children and old men to attack Berlin. The Soviet Union took huge casualties, but Germany had taken casualties that they could not afford to replace, both in terms of manpower and war economy. Even in Barbarossa, they were losing tanks (often to malfunctions from dust and sand, not being shot at) at a rate that in the longterm that would struggle to replace, and that was before these Panzer Divisions started losing a lot of equipment due to the actual combat on top of those malfunctions, and that was before the supply lines got even more strained and there was a lack of supplies including things like fuel and winter equipment.
As english isnt my first language my answer will be rather short. Are you sure that the soviet union could face alone the german war machine. Immagine the entire german Luftwaffe could operate on the eastern theatre and would not be engaged in fights with the allied bomber attacks, therefore dominating the sky and giving constant ground suppport, cuz the soviet aviation without any allied support is simply chanceless as 70% of the luftwaffe was stationed in the west. Furthermore the afrika corps could have participated during operation Barbarossa and a lot of division lateron involved in the fightings in Italy or stationed in France would have been free to join the gigantic slauther. Furthermore the germans didnt actually struggle to replace its losses of tanks and material, for example the lowest number of tanks during the entire war was reached after the years 41 and afterwards the numbers kept on increasing despite the heavy losses. If the germans are able to maintain their 1:3 exchange ratio they are even able on the longterm to outproduce the SU with the entirety of their afv production. And moreover the soviet infantry would have been lucky enough to march around on their foots without any single halftrack or truck, provided by the american war industry including ammunition and fuel. And I am pretty sure the red army had several brigades consisted of women during the defense of Stalingrad, however only for this short period of absolute manpower crisis.
Again, let me be clear, from the start of Barbarosa roughly 75% of the German military is already focused on the Eastern Front, these leaves roughly 25% of its forces elsewhere in Europe such as Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, and North Africa. North Africa was in reality only about 3 divisions, which is about 48,000 men, quite small really. On the Eastern Front in 1941, the Germans have more then 140 divisions, somewhere around 3.3 million men plus allies. So again, to put it into perspective, the majority of the German army was already fighting the USSR from 1941 and onward. In 1941 the USSR has 2.7 million men on the border at the start of Barbarosa and 2.6 million men in the rest of the country, having a total of 5.3 million. So, June 1941 there is a total of 5.3 million Soviet troops. In August of 1941 the Soviet Union has an army of 6.5 million men. Thats with losses considered. So despite the horrible losses from Barbarosa, the Soviet Army is growing, considerably. By December 1941, according to David Glantz the foremost expert on the soviet army during ww2, the new total is around 8 million. Now, obviously, the German army is mobilizing more men as well, but the point being made here is that even with this 1:3 loss ratio you are talking about, the statistics show that the Soviet Union was gaining strength, and at a far faster rate. Talking about tanks, yes, some of the worse losses for Germany's armored divisions were during 1941 in Barbarosa. This was so bad that some Panzer Divisions approaching Moscow only had 7 actual functioning tanks. We can look at some specific production numbers to illustrate how Germany quickly began to lag behind in terms of its production of equipment though, if that interests you. Keeping in mind that Germany is suffering from blockades and air raids to damage its production, but also keeping in mind that Germany is occupying and destroying large amounts of Soviet industry in the western USSR. In 1941, Germany produces roughly 11,700 aircraft. The USSR produces 15,700 aircraft. In 1942, Germany produces 15,400 aircraft. The USSR produces 25,400 aircraft. In 1941, Germany produces 5,200 tanks. The USSR produces 9,200 tanks. In 1942, Germany produces 6,600 tanks. The USSR produces 24,000 tanks. The majority of which are now T-34s and KV-1s and not the old poorer quality tanks from earlier production cycles. We could continue with these, but the short and sweet of it is that the numbers show that Germany is nowhere near outproducing the Soviet Union, in any way at all. In fact it is Germany who from 1941 onwards is being outnumbered and outproduced by the USSR alone. I'll concede to you that lend-lease was extremely helpful in terms of motorizing the USSR, though I would argue this was not as crucial seeing as the USSR was A. Defending home territory, not invading. B. Had a fully functioning rail system leading to the front while the Germans both lacked locomotives and railcars but also had to completely reconstruct Russian railroads as they pushed further into the country. and finally C. Lend-lease gave the USSR an advantage in motorization, not just made it a tie. Remember, the USSR and Germany both heavily relied upon horses for transport, as neither had a large amount of trucks available for motorization, and historically Germany didn't have a lend-lease system to make up for that. So even without Lend-lease, the two powers would've been roughly equal in terms of motor vehicles.
Michael Gäfgen perhaps a collaboration is in order, with soviet womble & Co demonstrating some of operational and strategic shortcomings of military history described in this channel
Watch out with the "no retreat order" or order 227 as it was officially called. The order states that soldiers were to report fellow soldiers who would leave their platoon to fall back without orders. These soldiers wouldn't be shot, but instead they would be sent to penal battalions. Penal battalions were battalions consisting of soldiers reported for cowardice and would be sent to positions where they would expect the fight to be harder. For the rest, the order is mainly focussed on higher ranking officers who would withdraw without orders form their division commander and would face court martial. Panic mongers did face danger to get shot on sight, but regular "cowards" were usually sent to the penal battalions where they would be put to better use. These battalions did often have defensive squads behind them.
@@ericamborsky3230 and most interesting, in the most countries you'll get executed/jailed for desertion, they did the penal batallion. Order 227 was there to stop the executions of deserters, very weird) Makes me sad tho, deserters are getting shot(
The cold factual recitation of military history is exactly what I’m looking for to just play in the background and relax to. You’ve earned a subscription my friend.
Sorry comrade comissar. Our signals officer was sent to gulag, and new one has not been appointed yet. But fear not. FOR STALIN! FOR MOTHERLAND! URAAAAAAAA!
Thanks for making these videos. I'm going to be studying WW2 in my history lessons so it's nice to be able to take nicely organised pieces of ready to use evidence from your videos.
Your pictograms are getting better and better - very unusual and creative! Or maybe you got bored with the old set. ;) Keep up the good work, I enjoy your presentations a lot!
A very superficial view of things and excessive drama in describing the problems faced by all the armies of the world at that moment. Let's ask ourselves: did the Maginot Line help France? And what was valuable in the opinion of the author in the line of Stalin with machine-gun weapons? Could the completed defensive lines on the Molotov Line have had a significant impact? Did the success of the British corps bring a high percentage of radio equipment? In addition, not all parts had problems with equipment and supplies, as shown in the examples. The real reasons for the high human losses are as follows: 1. Pre-emption of the USSR before mobilization. 2. Extremely effective strategic encirclement operations in the first months. 3. Predominance in the air in each combat area. As for technical losses, a huge amount of outdated equipment (T-26, BT-7, etc.) was really abandoned due to breakdowns, lack of spare parts and rapid retirement in battles. The other side of the question is that no one was going to save this scrap metal: the army has already switched to modern models. And most importantly, the Wehrmacht had no less problems - with mechanization (including artillery), disastrous logistics, especially in terms of winter combat operations, miscalculations of intelligence and strategic planning, a complete failure in assessing the mobilization and production potential of the enemy, and much more. Separately, it should be said that not all counterattacks ended in failure: There were many positive examples, but on a global scale, there was a lot of backtracking at first. However, in November 1941, the German troops were stopped near Moscow, which means that the Red Army reached military parity in just 4 months.
I think that the high soviet losses can be attributed to a few key factors. #1 Being that most of the Soviet airforce at the time was destroyed before leaving the ground by the Luftwaffe in the early days of the campaign. The soviets simply where overwhelmed by German air support and it made counterattacks and troop movement for the soviets extermely difficult. #2 Would be the mass encirclements and simply put, the horrible training and lack of equipment Soviet soilders had to deal with when the invasion began. The no retreat orders led to well over a million soilders being surrounded and then captured.(The poor leadership and lack of experianced officers could be iys own point in itself.) #3 Almost all of the Soviet equipment that was lost in high numbers where extremely out of date and simply not comparable to what the whermacht where using, take many of the Soviet light tanks for example. A panzer 3/4 could take out scores of them at a time, and those tanks made up the majority of the Soviet tank cores.
Would be nice to see how much the German allies played a part in the war in the East. Like Romania and Finland, which played a significant role in the conflict. Which I think also a lot of people don't know(the myth that Germany 'alone' did so much). Love the channel :)
Not trying to shit on the German fighting man; they have proven themselves to capable fighters, but the fact of the matter is that the high Soviet losses mainly because of 3 things 1) The Soviets were in a transition period; not prepared for total war on the defensive. 2) They were caught flat-flooted by a surprise attack, the Soviet air arm, large as it was, was mostly destroyed before even leaving the ground 3) The German led coalition of axis forces initially outnumbered the standing Soviet army, nearly by a 2:1 ratio.
Grondorn but by that time Soviets lost the strategic initiative, so it didn't matter that much as the total number of divisions entering battle simultaneously was always on the German side. Which was also due to the fact Soviets had to stretch their defences along the long front line, while Germans could concentrate massively overwhelming numbers in local operations.
+Him Pim the problem this army had was Soviet leadership doing everything possible to make sure there is absolutely no way Hitler can present this war as defensive for him, as some sort of retaliation for Soviet agression. It had to be without the slightest shadow of a doubt an invasion in attempt to conquer Soviet land and enslave Soviet people. Practically no promising officers were eliminated in the so called purge in 1938 - on the contrary, the percentage of officers with proper military education increased significantly. The lack of officers was due to the quick growth of the Soviet military at least 5-fold over 1939-1941, there was simply no way to train enough officers to fill all the new commanding positions. All that "paranoid Stalin killed his best officers" is a silly myth by Goebbels.
The majority of the Red Army's forces were on the border of German territory, poised for an invasion. That's a reason they were routed so fast--they weren't expecting Germany to strike preemptively.
Hey thanks for captioning your videos. When I don't have headphones I can just put the captions on without TH-cam's subpar speech recognition getting in the way of some military history. Love the videos, especially the wwii era tactics and unit comp videos.
The Red Army bled heavily, but did not break. Unlike the German general staff, the Soviet counterpart anticipated a war of attrition and prepared mobilization plans accordingly. So, in 1941, the Soviet Union had the mobilizable pool of 14 million men. According to David M. Glantz, the Soviet general staff concluded that during the heaviest fighting, an army-sized unit will have to be replaced in its entirety within 4-6 months. It turned out that the Soviet general staff had a more realistic strategic assessment. Between June and December 1941, the Soviet Union mobilized over 40 armies! (A Red Army army-sized unit was roughly equivalent to a German army corps.) In 1942, 10 reserve armies were formed and several of them contributed to the eventual Soviet victory over Stalingrad. Another interesting evaluation from Glantz centers around simplifying the command structure of the Red Army in the wake of the German onslaught. The size and the composition of the pre-war Soviet army-sized units were similar to their German counterparts. However, starting in July, the Red Army disbanded its corps-level headquarters, thereby allowing more experienced army commanders to directly control their divisions. Furthermore, the pre-war mechanized corps were also disbanded. New Red Army tank formations consisted of independent tank brigades and batallions. The Red Army motorized rifle divisions were similarly disbanded. This extensive simplification made a perfect sense -- most Red Army commanders lacked experience to command complicated units in the first place, coupled with scarcity of equipments and logistics. However, it helped the Red Army to survive. (A side note: As the Red Army gradually accumulated experience and improved its inventory, it reestablished the corps-level headquarters and rebuilt larger tank and motorized units.) Finally, notice how the Red Army evolved over the course of the war. Although it had the advantage of considerably larger mobilizable pool, it faced increasingly severe manpower shortage due to accumulating horrendous casualties. By 1944, most average Red Army rifle divisions were functionally equivalent to weak Allied regiments -- 2000 men, which was a far cry from 9000-10000 men. However, by 1944, the Red Army created umpteen number of tank, anti-tank artillery, field artillery, mortar, multiple rocket launcher, and other combat and logistical support units.
stalin sent much equipment and armor to the border for invasion,most was lost because hitler caught it in disarray,much was still on trains and in piles,easy targets . the globalist bankers wanted stalin to win so they forced USA to send mountains of replacements, from boots to planes and tanks. and 100's of thousands of trucks. they called it lead/lease to fool the american public, no money was ever paid back. also stalin sent a good portion of this used gear to mao tse tung who used it against us in korea a few years later(i have talked to guys who were there). you will not find this in the fake media. smedley butler(most decorated soldier,in USA) was correct war is a racket. read it.
"Unlike the German general staff, the Soviet counterpart anticipated a war of attrition and prepared mobilization plans accordingly" There's a logical error in that, however. Germany knew it would not win a war of attrition. They were starving for oil, and as soon as it ran out, they knew they'd be in big trouble. Therefore, if they were to fight, they had to win fast. Planning for a war of attrition was planning for certain failure. This may also be a factor in the enormous initial soviet losses: Stalin probably understood the same basic principle. In his position, manpower was cheap; time was valuable. So losing a million men in order to buy a few weeks of time, can then be a good trade.
"anticipated a war of attrition " are you brain damaged ? Even Ctalin it is surprised by the counter strike, they just not believe for 3 days and 3 nights.
"The Wombles are fictional pointy-nosed, furry creatures created by Elisabeth Beresford and originally appearing in a series of children's novels from 1968."...are you challenged intellectually?
Fantastic videos. I considered myself pretty well educated on WWII (compared to the layman) but you changed my understanding of the war quite a bit. Thank you your videos!
This is like Khan's academy for WWII. I've been studying this subject for about 20 years, and never fail to learn something new and insightful from each of these videos. Bravo, and please keep it up. You are a master of the subject, and your research is impeccable.
"In June 1941 Harry Truman was saying, “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible”" Soviets had a logistic problem before the US delivered modern locomotives and many trucks and even some Shermans which could be thrown against the Nazis to win time and and create casualties there, please research the number of diesel-electric build locomotives by the soviets and that delivered by the western allies...without the US locomotives they would have been doomed to use (like Nazi-Germany and Japan) the coal-locomotives, which are much easier to bomb at day if there is no heavy fog, and they are slower and you need much more points on the way to stop and get new coal, which itself already creates a need for additional logistic units... okay the 1-2 persons which had to ship in the coal to the oven would have been no problem for the soviets, but the speed and the coal stations would have made operations like near Kursk more difficult and dangerous, General Motors trucks with good and strong diesel engines also helped to carry heavy cargo, many GAZ trucks had a weaker engine or petrol engines, I think even waggons were delivered, already produced in soviet gauge, large oil transports and fuel transports from the refineries were done by that locomotives, from Baku for example while the sea way was blocked in 1942 and dangerous in the Stalino-Stalingrad area until early 1943...many oil depots in Stalingrad were bombed by the Luftwaffe before the attack began and because Stalin didn't care about civilians it was forbidden to escape to the east, so 40,000 civilians died in these "preparing" air-raids carried out by the Luftwaffe... the city should have been already evacuated, the Wolga and Don were vital for shipment and transports before they build the large pipeline system, the Wolga/Don leads to other rivers and these lead to every important city in European Russia including Moscow and further to Leningrad/St.Petersburg and than into the baltic sea, but also there are rivers which lead to Siberia... that route was closed for a while and the diesel electric locs and trucks were very good, also the delivered aircrafts...its a question WHAT and WHEN they delivered not the total amount in per cent... also trucks were even used for the "Stalinorgel" as the Axis soldiers called them, the "Katjusha" on trucks, most were "GAZ" trucks, but not sooo few were from General Motors. However I like the quote from Truman, they didn't care if Soviets win as long as the US/UK don't miss the party and get influence in the new central and western post-war europe... the Battle of the Bulge (which used the last real reserves from Nazi Germany produced by the last larger number of still working factories which could not work efficient or at all anymore after that offensive, it was not only a heavy expierence for the young and mostly very unexperienced US troops, it also stole time and usually the ground equipment was used against the soviets or their (often forced) "allies" in 87% of the cases, without that desperate offensive which could only work if oil/fuel would be captured on the way the number would be more like 90% and Equipment included Tiger I and Tiger II, Panthers, StuG's and other tanks and vehicles, light to very heavy Artillery and rocket Artillery, many Panzerfausts for the ~250,000 soldiers, last fuel reserves...without that the timing would be more like the Allies wanted it...so the soviets could wait 3 months in front of Warsaw and get supplies and reinforce all the troops for their final offensive...
I enjoyed that explanation a lot. It's easy to criticise and please forgive me for my one minor gripe: "to beg the question" is a very very frequently misused expression. It actually means that someone has given an answer that doesn't add any information - often it is just a restatement of the question. It's a trick that e.g. politicians use to avoid answering. I think you want something more like "which raises the question".
Entertaining job! The German accent is perfect for the narration and the little graphic icons are hilarious-- esp. the 'Worse Yet Get Ambushed' little skull popping out of the jack-in-the-box! Great explanations presented in a compelling and straight-forward manner.
Perhaps you might consider it off topic, but I have had difficulty finding reliable information on the IMPACT of American and British military aid to the Soviet Union. Would you consider speaking on this topic? Thank you. I enjoy your lectures.
and with whom do you compare losses? What losses could the Americans, the British or the French have in their place? could not have such losses because even in Italy they could not defeat 17 German divisions for 2 years. What does it mean to fight against several millions? You cannot compare, because the western front is the front of German old and disabled people with outdated weapons. Only some German units "were a bright spot against a gloomy general background," according to Westphal.
yeah in all major battles the soviets have way more losses than the germans. Both in defensive and offensive battles. The germans put up a decent fight, but got heavily outnumbered.
German civilian losses: 1 million Total civilian losses in Eastern Europe: 30 million. The German army was simply a murdering machine. When it was not fighting, it was wiping out Soviet villages to create Lebensraum.
@@Jinny-Wa well no. Stalin "just" sentenced around 700.000 people to death. The loses were by the German Wehrmacht and SS. They slaughtered the slavic people.
@@f.l.3978 There is also a thing called starvation. Military Deaths 6,329,600 KIA 1,283,200 POW Deaths 550,000 Other 8,160,000 Total Civilian Deaths 7,420,379 Direct Violence 2,164,313 Labor Camps 8,500,000 Famine 18,100,000 Total 26,250,000 Grand Total
Completely unrelated to the Video, but a good job none the less MHV, An Extra Credits video has caught my attention when scrolling through the comments, A video on the D-Day landings, and holy fucking shit do they need to open a history book.
Kudos for the discreet David Glantz pun, I knew most of this from reading him before, but your presentation is as always on point and fun to watch, I might buy Alexander Hill's book, to have the Great Patriotic duo of this and When Titans Clashed, institutional and operational histories of Red Army in WW2.
Great video. I actually knew most of the stuff you covered, but for some reason I still like these WW2 videos of yours the most :P Indeed, the state of the Red Army cca 1941 was terrible. The majority of their tanks were T-26s, which while proved quite capable when used during the Spanish Civil War, were pretty much obsolete by '41. Soviet tanks were also very much lacking radios compared to the Germans (although they weren't as bad as the Japanese). To quote Zaloga: “The Red Army intended to make widespread use of radios, but cost and poor radio technology limited it; for example, in the case of the Soviet T-26 tank, the most widely produced tank of the 1930s, about half the tanks were fitted with radios. After the start of the war in 1941, the Soviet use of radios decreased in 1942-43 due to shortages, rising again in 1944-45 as production capacity improved.” “... of the 7,485 T-26 gun tanks in service in 1941, 3,440 (46 percent) had radios. However, they were often in poor repair, had fragile antennas, and depended on telegraphic communication at longer ranges in an army chronically short of skilled crews. The radio shortcomings had a synergistic effect with the poor command-and-control features of the tank, leading to abysmal tank tactics.”
Strange but soviet tanks already had night visual systems, in 1939. I suppose the German tanks were with radios 100% ! Or just 50%, or they have the same rate, because they establish a ratio of 10% on the same tank schools.
Which is completely untrue. Even the "Black Book of Communism" states over half of former POWs were released without punishment, with about 45% suffering various punishments from being sent to Penal units, forced labour and Gulags. Most other sources cite far lower punishment numbers, stating the large majority were released with no charges. No the Germans were far worse (~60% death rate) to Soviet POWs then Stalin was.
Leonid Sokolov Yep a single interview and Jewish commissars (which would be subhuman to Nazis) clear all that up... not like the interview could be biased or anything... pfftt nonsense
one should have mentioned that approx. 2/3rd of the Wehrmacht were stationed on the Eastern front. Moreover, 85% of heavy armormed units and 100% of death camps were located in the East.
A very interesting analysis of the first days of Operation Barbarossa was published in the Hungarian military periodical "Haditechnika" (Military Technology) around 2006 or so. The author was Major General Ferenc Vegh, former Commander of the Hungarian Defense Force, a tank officer. He analyzed the clashes of the first few weeks in meticulous details, with particular attention to the Soviet units' armament, location and tactical situation. As a conclusion he established that Viktor Suvorov - the main proponent of the preemptive war theory - was indeed right, as all units along the Polish border were in an attack configuration, seemingly being readied for an invasion.
Since psychologist Petersen was quoted, let me mention one factor which is overlooked by many historians: mentality of Red Army personnel and attitude within the ranks. Hundreds of thousands marching in captivity, tons of equipment abandoned without any contact with the enemy (over 6 mln rifles written off as "lost" in 6 months of 1941). Not feet of clay certainly but complex phenomena which is hard to understood without the knowledge of the Soviet history in 1920s-1930s. This topic was studied by few Russian language authors, among them Mark Solonin who once compared summer 1941 situation as a barrel with hoops broken (one of his books was called "Barrel and hoops"). One of the darks secrets of that time which was suppressed for several generations: too many people did not want to fight for their country.
>Hundreds of thousands marching in captivity, tons of equipment abandoned without any contact with the enemy How'd you explain why British, US and French troops surrendered without a fight and abandoned equipment?
Good point. There are testimonies about red army soldiers who taken as prisoners in 1939 asked Poles for weapon, because they wanted fight against Soviet Union.
Actually there was one part wrong. Stalin knew an attack was coming. The knowledge came from the Soviet spy agency, most notably, Richard Sorgei. Numerous reports were flooding in weeks before the war. When news of the reports appeared, Stalin ordered the army to mobilise to "a state of readiness". Stalin attempted to prevent a war one last time diplomatically but failed. Hitler did planned and masked it as "an act if defense" and "a preemptive strike) due to the high amount of Soviet border troops. Hitler only deployed tanks days before the start to conceal their intentions. So, preemptive act is a false. All in all: 1. The purge took out the most experienced of commanders, most notably, Mikhail Tukhachevsky. Most non-purged commanders were in their 40's. 2. Soviets were still "modernising" and expanding. Equipping new weapons (Example of which, the SVT, which was too hard to mass produce, resulting in the return of the Mosin-Nagant) 3. Poor maintenance, supply and logistics. (Numerous tanks broke down along the way and were left due to crews not being trained on simple repairs.) 4. Lack of proper training. (Frontline troops were mostly listening to propaganda and communist doctrines) 5. Poor leadership (the Stavka ordered numerous suicidal assaults resulting in huge losses, along with Order 227) If you want to know more, Star Media's "Soviet Storm" (documentary series) has great detailed stats and explanation from actions on how it escalated to Manchuria in 1945.
>The knowledge came from the Soviet spy agency, most notably, Richard Sorgei Sorge sent "interesting" reports, to be modest. > The purge took out the most experienced of commanders nope >Example of which, the SVT, which was too hard to mass produce that's why it was built in millions - thing, that of other countries only USA managed to do with semiauto rifle >Frontline troops were mostly listening to propaganda and communist doctrines such a bullshit >the Stavka ordered numerous suicidal assaults resulting in huge losses, along with Order 227 yes, it would be better to sit and wait for German tanks to roll over your positions. And you forget that order 227 was issued in 1942. For a reason
kollekzioner5 The Soviets actually destroyed ordnance and materiel most of the time in an organised retreat. Also, because of Order 226, most of the armies from the start were destroyed because the political commissars and Stavka were hesitant to allow a retreat. Also, another failure of the Soviet Army is because of the pressures of the Political Commissars on the army staffs. An example is the commander of the Kerch peninsula forces that were to save Crimea from the Germans and the forces trapped in the city of Sevastopol. The P. Commissar pressured the commander of the Kerch forces to attack and to stop digging trenches. At the last moment, they discovered an attack that was to happen the next day that was to attack them and force them to pull back to the Caucasus.
Could you make a video on Field Marshal Slim? He has a lot to offer but doesn't get the recognition he deserves. You have a large audience and are a great researcher, video maker.
He was only accused, it was never proven. I would like to see a video on his abilities a military commander, not his suitability as a babysitter. Even if he did do those things, it has no impact on his contribution to military history.
I know the whole Lend Lease thing is contentious to sovietaboos but the sheer scale of logistical and industrial equipment provided by the US and UK probably can't be overstated in winning the economic war. Most problems the Germans had logistically would've been shared by the Soviets if not for American and British aid. A major factor that is overlooked in the USSR not falling apart is that logistical equipment that allowed for a mechanized/motorized army. Soviet propaganda said "4%" of the USSR's production was thanks to the Allies, glossing over the fact that they couldn't have even rebuilt without the US and ignoring communication, infrastructure, and transportation support. This isn't to say the average fighting man in the Red Army was bad. It's intended to underline how horribly incompetent centralized economies can be. ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/ and a Russian propaganda outlet admitting the Allies saved the USSR www.rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html
Victor Souvourov could have split his shit on its book, it woul've been the same things. True historians (unlike him) are trying to repair the damages that his book did. It seems that it's not complete yet.
@@Marread English is not my mother tongue and I don't really have the time to spend hours trying to figure out how to write in a perfect english on you tube comment sections. Because I don't care. Still, I should've used spread instead of split, and they are missclicks which made me use wrong letters, you're right to point this out.
@@Marread The source is a biography of Zhukov by Jean Lopez and Lasha Otkhmezuri (a French book, don't know if it has been translated in English). They explain that as Toukhatchevski won against Svietchine, the Red Army doctrin is exclusively an offensive one. They are not supposed to defend. Which explains the deployment of soviet soldiers across the border. Moreover, Zhukov told Stalin that they had to wait untill 1942 before the Red Army really recovers from the purge. The initial success of Barbarossa can be explained by the unreadyness of the Red Army: they're just not ready to wage war. Thus, an army at this level of preparation is not an army which is ready to invade the IIIrd Reich But I have not all my sources at my disposal, sorry.
Many thanks - this is great!!! I am curious though - to what extent were the losses due to the inadequacies you gave here vs. just the initiative being with Germany? Interesting to compare Soviet vs German losses in 1941 vs 1944. Also (unrelated): any ideas on how the medical services compared among Germany vs USSR vs USA? (ie, WIA : KIA ratios, based on good case studies obviously)
Why would you quote Jordan Peterson for this??? He is not an expert in this area plus is a very questionable professional in his area of “expertise” anyway.
To expand on the point of not provoking Germans: there have been numerous border 'incidents' leading up to the summer. As the red army was preparing to attack the Germans under the flag of liberators, orders where given not to react to any provocations from the German side. At first everyone thought it was just another provocation, when it went on for longer than usual, they tried to reach Moscow and awaited further orders. Only the admiral of the fleet realized what's happening and, acting on his own authority, order to open fire on German Luftwaffe in the sky.
"As the red army was preparing to attack the Germans under the flag of liberators" - by hastly building defences and preparing massive industry evacuation to Siberia and Urals. This Rezun crap needs to stop, seriously.
Mocsk those came into action with German attack the hole reason it was vastly is that defense wasn't planned for. Even the airbases were moved very close to the front to have a better reach into enemy territory. However that became the reason why the Red Air Force was decimated in the first months of war.
Industry evacuation plans were started to be laid down at least in 1939, and throughout 1939-41 all necessary infrastructure was being built (factories need electricity, water, solid floors, roads and railroad, etc, machines can't be just dropped into dirt and start working - it takes months of preparation). Defenses were being built even before that. Only a fraction of airfields were built near the border (around 10 km from it) for immediate support of the front line and as advance airfields for cutting of enemy supply lines and for counter-offensives, which were the cornerstone of Soviet defence doctrine at the time. It's a very weak argument that ignores many important issues, constructed by Rezun (suvorov) in his propagandist work. Please don't cite this guy in places where people know something about history, it's bad taste.
+Chidis Skaniukas there's a certain technological process that takes time. It doesn't matter how many people you shoot, it won't make physics work faster. No, factories cannot be moved quickly, especially by threats of getting shot - it's a complex procedure that requires highly professional specialists, intricate planning and great organisational skills from top to bottom of the management chain. You don't achieve that from threatening people with guns, that's not how any of this works. Also, GULag camp inmates had nothing to do with evacuation of industry, the command wouldn't let them a thousand kilometres near anything this strategic. "how much gulag prisoners will die in the cold, starve or be shot to motivate others" - you're confusing Soviet penitentiary system with Nazi concentration camps. That's not how it worked. "12 years old kid could be sentenced to be shot" - that is incorrect, only adults could be sentenced to death. ", if he made a mistake in production line" - that is incorrect, only large scale theft or outright sabotage would grant a death sentence. And we're talking about adults here. 12 year old wouldn't be doing anything remotely important enough to cause any sort of real damage. You have a very distorted view of the Soviet Union, like it's some kind of fantasy land like Mordor. It wasn't. In fact, in terms of it's penitentiary system it wasn't much different from any other country on the planet at the time, including USA or Britain. You should probably adjust your view in accordance with reality instead of reciting Dr Goebbels.
When is the video on the fall of France coming out? And will you do videos on wars not affiliated with, but still related to WW2, like the Chinese-Japanese war, or the Spanish civil war? Maybe a one on The Peru-Bolivian war?
The reason to heavy losses is very simple - red army was not preparing for the defense it was preparing for the offense. It can be tracked from old Russian papers archives (open, not even secret parts) that they did not build any fortification but built a lot of purely offensive models of tanks and airplanes, prepared a lot of paratroopers, and stored a lot of munition almost literally in piles on the ground near the border which you never do if you do not expect to use or transport them very soon. You can occasionally encounter old propaganda clips inside later made soviet movies, and they all have the tone "if the enemy provokes we will win with small blood on their territory" and even showing attacking soviet armada. There are speculations that Hitler was not prepared to start a war either, but he had to start sooner since he understood Stalin will start offensive soon and without access to oil Hitler's armada will be pretty much useless. Anyway, when Hitler attacked, soviet army was unprepared for defense in all the ways - technically,. strategically, morally. And a lot of members of standing army were killed in very first days. Soviets had to throw unskilled recruits in attempts to stop further advancement. Hence all the huge losses.
during the Seige of Leningrad, the air force delivered 600 tons of supplies a week that works out to between 15 and 30 L-2s. In 1943 crossing the Dnepr the Russians delivered 5000 paratroopers, over a period of a day, the L-2s having to make several trips. That would be 200 plane loads, the book said the planes had to make several trips, i would read several as more than 3. sorry i can't come up with any better data
Thankyou for that, i have found similar evidence. of course many people call me names (nazi etc) they likely will do this to you also. i just want to thank you for your clear and accurate post in the face of many fake media induced lies and misinfo. so much has been lied about it .
Why did the Soviets still have high losses in 1944? Did they still not fix their logistical/organizational problems? Can you please do a video on that? Thanks.
There is one fact that so many history pundits overlook. What distinguishes soldiers apart is training, expertise, experience that makes a veteran of war but the difference between a raw recruit, a trained troop, and an experienced veteran. When the Nazis invaded Soviet Russia in 1941, as time went on the German losses were not just in simple numbers of men, but of trained experienced veterans of Poland and France, etc. Loosing these troops we’re irreplaceable to the German war machine. It really showed in the Luftwaffe. Most German aces flew till injuries stopped them or they were dead. Eric Hartman was the all time Ace with 251 kills. American pilots were rotated out, sent back to give raw recruits a hands on teaching of air tactics. When the Germans lost a veteran pilot, they lost irreplaceable experience.
Excellent material. As much as historian and a grand son of a Stalingrad battle survivor(Romanian Army) , I will tell You that "the Wehrmacht" learned that the logistics problems will hit them hard too, in the year to come (1942).
![[Barbarossa] The Major Errors and Blunders - Or why Barbarossa Failed](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A_3R-Rkn_98/mqdefault.jpg)
![เปิดบ้าน นาราเครปกระเทย 1 ไร่ ขายขาดทุนหลัก10ล้าน เอามาใช้หนี้!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jz84VFWVP4/mqdefault.jpg)
They should have listened to what the generals said,
Percentage : -70%
This plan is considered our disadvantage
Inferior enemy : 10%
Large river crossing : -10%
Some divisions are not in their positions yet : -50%
Division still preparing : -20%
Adding to it.
-15% Not enough fuel
-50% It's fucking cold there
Well you guys are forgetting the great purge -50% division organization
Manchukuo really cucked my supply line when I reached mongolia as japan
João Pádua well great patriotic war negates it
also unternehmen barbarossa: %5 attack against ussr %5 defense against ussr
Never put your armies on a rivals border without maximising the maintenance slider, that's what I learned.
:D
The number of times I've seen TH-camrs declare war with their maintenance still at minimum, and only figured out the problem 6 months in after their armies are wrecked. Ah, fun times.
there is a wargame called "youtube" ?
ODDBALL SOK Europa universals 4
Demonde Laplace Unless you have Prussia as a vassal
I went in soviet russia once...now i am a logistical problem
Since when to Soviets care about logistics? Who needs a rifle, take one off a dead man.
Do you know what a Soviet duet sounds like?
A Soviet quartet after a trip abroad.
This particular thing is mostly a myth, as this channel states. There would usually be no shortage of rifles, the Soviets even used a much higher portion of SMGs than the Germans, it was the ammunition, communication equipment and often food that were the problem.
Jirka, I agree, the cause for this myth was the situation in Stalingrad which was one of the rare cases where the soviets had plenty of ammunition and not enough guns so everyone had ammunition but only like 80% had guns
Jirka Zalabák that myth was also started in ww1, when russia was not as industrial, so they had to rely on imported firearms, and because people dident like the USSR very much, they believed that the first world War situation applied to this war
Soviet Womble is apparently the definition of 'Plenty of problems'.
Seems about right.
Womble is a fa--
Nobody Watches Soviet Womble - That is NOT becoming a thing!
@@Crankiebox99 what about zinoviy kolabanov he took out 22/24 panzers in 1941in one/two days (can't remember if it was 22 or 24 or how many days it took)
@@AScottish-AustralianM-84 r/whossh
@@wnightmares2846 damn shame
Red Army Frontline: _“We’re being fired upon, what should we do?”_
Soviet High Command: _”He’s delusional, take him to the infirmary.”_
Sad but True)
Being attacked by 100 divisions.....not great...not terrible....
@@brianjungen4059 equivalent of one chest X-ray...
*smacks chest *
mrsanch1ful dies when German bombs hits his building.....
Trump-a-Tron 6000 more like the equivalent of a small riot.
I've studied Military History for 50+ years. I had 2 grandfathers and 6 or 7 uncles who served during WW2. It still amazes me that the Soviets beat back the Germans after suffering so much during the first year. Sure, I know all the reasons because hindsight is 20/20 but it is still an amazing piece of history. To defeat the Wehrmacht after such stunning losses will amaze historians for centuries.
Well, that's pretty much what does pesky russians do. Get beaten by some small forces like Finns or Mujahadeens(altough those had US support) but grind down and destroy the most formidable warmachines of the history(Sweden, French, Germany, Prussia etc.) Not saying they did not get their assess beated(like in some wars with the Ottomans or WW1). Probably, the most crucial factor in each of these victories is their way to be. They usually seem fast learners, especially under pressure and have a will of steel
Omega Alpha The Rissians and WW2 had UK and US support to with equipment. Stalin had also put many experienced officers in Gulags which he later put them back to fight for him
saddoboxing1 It just had a big affect that is all. I am not saying it is the only factor.
USSR was the largest country in the world at that time, beside UK. That is where they were from. Also, 'shoving another 1,000,000' was standard practice. Germany did that, UK did that, US did that, Japan did that. The only difference, Germany did not have the population, UK and US did not have to face odds so terrible as the Soviets and Japan did not have the equipment necessary to arm so many people late in the war
To give an insight into where the Soviet got all those bodies to shove into their army, based on what I read, they were basically getting it wherever they can. The vast number of political prisoners, many central Asians, foreigners who happened to be in the country at the time, heck they even raided nearby countries and impressed(kidnapped) over a million men from the border areas into service.
"German successes seem decisive at first Glantz"
I already loved this channel for its wealth of well-researched, insightful and easy to understand information but the puns and hidden Easter eggs make it even better! :D
can you elaborate? glantz?
"David M. Glantz (born January 11, 1942 in Port Chester, New York) is an American military historian known for his books on the Red Army during World War II, and the chief editor of the Journal of Slavic Military Studies" says WIkipedia
Look up his book on the Battle of Smolensk, 1941. His version runs counter to pretty much anything else you will find. However, he does back up all his hypothesis with previous top secret documents now released.
TO THE zookeeper in 1978 who replied "I'll tell you when you're older" when I asked him why one of the monkeys stuck its tongue up another one's arse: I'm 46 now and still waiting for that explanation
+Sean Cook. Glantz's book on the Battle of Smolensk that he wrote a few years ago is so gigantic, it's scary. I bought it and it just gathered dust
Sad fact: 80% men, born in USSR in 1923 (1923 - exactly 18 years at the beginning of the war) didn't live to see the victory of WWII
Don't forget Joe Stalin sent many of those men to their early graves!
@@expo7112 this is one of some results of comminist policies
The same in Germany.
@Bob Watters It was the only way to win the war and get back the occupied territory. It was difficult to outsmart the Germans.
@@Nik-jq4tx it sad many young mans souls in Both sides germany and Russia wasted for nothing
"At first Glantz" that made me smile, I'm definitely a ww2 nerd :D
;)
i assumed you had done that on purpose
One more: 'material ' or 'materiel'...
:-)
@PrankCallsHotlineYup, just another pretend historian, trying to make a new angle on virtually everything, where none exists. I wonder if he ever dared to address the murder of all those polish officers in the Katyn forest I think it was, whom for decades kept blaming it on the germans. The germans had the proof all along, but during the war the USA had to pretend to be Stalin's friend, so, obviously, with such limitations you will believe the soviet murderers. The soviets let the germans bomb the Poltava American airbase and then suddenly soviets aren't much for friends anymore.
Charles 22
What is the story behind the attack on the American air base at Poltava ? I never heard of this incident
Check out "When Titans Clashed" by David Glantz, the analisis of the Red Army´s reorganisation and the inteligence failures previous to Barbarossa are spot on, and makes a fair assesment of Stalin as a miltary leader. A breath of fresh air after all the lazy historiography that simply blames Stalin for every mistake and downplays the achievements of the Red Army.
Carlos I I hate It so much when some nazi from reddit tries to tell me that the German army still remains as the worlds best fighting force, they say that the red army was nothing but peasants that were starving, and that they "held off the entire world" like bitch your army got defeated in pitched battle, the second the Germans stopped advancing was the second the Soviet army rose to the rank of "world's strongest army"
Carlos I anyway system of Staline knocked out system of Adolf so saying simply was more effective cause "German" system was different to "Russian" system. war communisme war system was more effective inthe total war
muh human waves
Well the throwing shit on Stalin and thinking of the Red Army as a bunch of human waves is something from the Cold War anti-communism propaganda which came from the US and took hold in Europe as well. But what you see in those movies simply isn't true and is quite contrary to the truth. Luckily we have historians who are shedding light to this and there is a lot of information available if anyone else is interested in the subject for their own research.
@@maciejniedzielski7496 Did you ever try to see it as a math task? How much more efficient must the German system be to overcome not only the Soviet System but the English Empire and the USA at the same time?
It's awesome to see how much better and more detailed your videos have gotten in the past two years.
thanks, especially since this channel only exist for 1.5 years + 14 days ;)
Really? It seems like it's been much longer than that. My point still remains though!
yeah, easy to remember 6th of January, which is exactly 6 months before / after D-Day :) Yeah, more than 150 videos, is also quite a substantial output and I started basically with no books and very little knowledge.
Damn! That's a pretty cool date to have started the channel. Right in-between There are very few videos I haven't watched. It is pretty insane to have put out that many videos and still have kept up with the quality and only improved. Speaking of videos there's one thing I've been thinking about. I don't know if its video worthy or not but, how did Germany continue to produce tanks, vehicles and weapons as late as April 1945? We're there underground factories and if there were where were they? By that time the Soviets and Americans had taken most land from the Germans so where could they have been? Not to mention Germany had been bombed to hell. Just something that's been floating in my mind.
that question will be certainly covered, since I have a good source on it. I think I glanced over it and if I remember correctly most was from stocks at that point.
One reason why some of the early KV tank units were successful was that some of the people working with them were from the research arm of the tank development organisations pulled into combat as testing was interrupted. These were tank theorists and engineers who knew a lot about both their tanks and the enemy tanks weak spots. This happened with the British too in the English air war.
There is also the question of who controls the battle field after the battle. Many tanks were stopped in combat, engine damage, tracks broken, stuck in mud or otherwise immobilized but repairable. If you have control of the battle field, you can recover your tanks and put them back into service. If you do not, a tank with a broken track is a total loss, or worse, it is recovered by the enemy and used against you.
I do not think that the Soviet Army had spent a lot of time on vehicle recovery and so they lost more tanks to the German Army than they would have otherwise.
I'm really happy when I see people in Germany today analyze and talk freely about the second world war.
Most people avoid the topic all together
Germans today "Talk freely about the second world war". Yes many have received 10 year sentences for "talking freely" about the second world war. It's only okay if you talk about approved subjects like battles, resources and such. If you say "My grandfather was not a criminal" you get 10 years in prison.
@@morrighanwermarn-arnburg7333 well becouse if he served in ss he probably was. and practicali nobody blame soldiers from heer (wermach infanry) so wheres the point?
@@petrsukenik9266 see. Youre already one of them "yeah so IF he was SS then the people you talk about are probably right". So you instantly make assumptions that the people Wich Amber Maynard is talking about are right. Thats exactly his point. You dont even know anything, yet you are here already saying Amber Maynard is probably wrong, essentially confirming his whole point.
@@TheBlackfall234 well it realy depends on that what the granfather does, i dont thing that somebody blame normal soldiers from regular army (yes blame regular recruits is stupid)
the members of SS are something diferent, orgaizatin had a nazi ideologi depply in its structure, and every nazi is enemy (for example because if naci ideologi would be practised in modern society i would be dead allready)
He is Austrian
It is interesting to realize that it would've been difficult to have found a more opportune time for Germany to strike the Soviet Union then it did. With the purges, radical changes in equipment, vehicles, positions, and organization it is hard to imagine a more vulnerable position for a power like the Soviet Union to be in. Yet despite that, we know what the result of the war ended up being, and I think that is somewhat telling of what the odds of German 'victory' actually were.
Germany cant win a war of attrition and thats what the war was all about after Barbarossa.
That isnt all too sure, without any allied interference in ww2 the soviet union imo would have collapsed at some point of time suffering such heavy losses over years. Against the entire world however germany had clearly no chances whatsoever.
Montzeumas I was going to write up a big post in response to this, but it got too wordy, so heres a much simpler response. Germany had 75% of its military fighting on the Eastern front, and continued this ratio through most of the war. It inevitably had to send troops west and south when the allies began to land in Europe, but the largest portion of the German army was always in the east. This also means that the vast majority of its casualties were also in the east. Yet it was the Germans who had to resort to using children and old men to defend Berlin, against a Red Army that wasn't using children and old men to attack Berlin.
The Soviet Union took huge casualties, but Germany had taken casualties that they could not afford to replace, both in terms of manpower and war economy. Even in Barbarossa, they were losing tanks (often to malfunctions from dust and sand, not being shot at) at a rate that in the longterm that would struggle to replace, and that was before these Panzer Divisions started losing a lot of equipment due to the actual combat on top of those malfunctions, and that was before the supply lines got even more strained and there was a lack of supplies including things like fuel and winter equipment.
As english isnt my first language my answer will be rather short. Are you sure that the soviet union could face alone the german war machine. Immagine the entire german Luftwaffe could operate on the eastern theatre and would not be engaged in fights with the allied bomber attacks, therefore dominating the sky and giving constant ground suppport, cuz the soviet aviation without any allied support is simply chanceless as 70% of the luftwaffe was stationed in the west. Furthermore the afrika corps could have participated during operation Barbarossa and a lot of division lateron involved in the fightings in Italy or stationed in France would have been free to join the gigantic slauther. Furthermore the germans didnt actually struggle to replace its losses of tanks and material, for example the lowest number of tanks during the entire war was reached after the years 41 and afterwards the numbers kept on increasing despite the heavy losses. If the germans are able to maintain their 1:3 exchange ratio they are even able on the longterm to outproduce the SU with the entirety of their afv production. And moreover the soviet infantry would have been lucky enough to march around on their foots without any single halftrack or truck, provided by the american war industry including ammunition and fuel. And I am pretty sure the red army had several brigades consisted of women during the defense of Stalingrad, however only for this short period of absolute manpower crisis.
Again, let me be clear, from the start of Barbarosa roughly 75% of the German military is already focused on the Eastern Front, these leaves roughly 25% of its forces elsewhere in Europe such as Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, and North Africa. North Africa was in reality only about 3 divisions, which is about 48,000 men, quite small really. On the Eastern Front in 1941, the Germans have more then 140 divisions, somewhere around 3.3 million men plus allies. So again, to put it into perspective, the majority of the German army was already fighting the USSR from 1941 and onward.
In 1941 the USSR has 2.7 million men on the border at the start of Barbarosa and 2.6 million men in the rest of the country, having a total of 5.3 million. So, June 1941 there is a total of 5.3 million Soviet troops. In August of 1941 the Soviet Union has an army of 6.5 million men. Thats with losses considered. So despite the horrible losses from Barbarosa, the Soviet Army is growing, considerably. By December 1941, according to David Glantz the foremost expert on the soviet army during ww2, the new total is around 8 million. Now, obviously, the German army is mobilizing more men as well, but the point being made here is that even with this 1:3 loss ratio you are talking about, the statistics show that the Soviet Union was gaining strength, and at a far faster rate.
Talking about tanks, yes, some of the worse losses for Germany's armored divisions were during 1941 in Barbarosa. This was so bad that some Panzer Divisions approaching Moscow only had 7 actual functioning tanks. We can look at some specific production numbers to illustrate how Germany quickly began to lag behind in terms of its production of equipment though, if that interests you. Keeping in mind that Germany is suffering from blockades and air raids to damage its production, but also keeping in mind that Germany is occupying and destroying large amounts of Soviet industry in the western USSR.
In 1941, Germany produces roughly 11,700 aircraft. The USSR produces 15,700 aircraft.
In 1942, Germany produces 15,400 aircraft. The USSR produces 25,400 aircraft.
In 1941, Germany produces 5,200 tanks. The USSR produces 9,200 tanks.
In 1942, Germany produces 6,600 tanks. The USSR produces 24,000 tanks. The majority of which are now T-34s and KV-1s and not the old poorer quality tanks from earlier production cycles.
We could continue with these, but the short and sweet of it is that the numbers show that Germany is nowhere near outproducing the Soviet Union, in any way at all. In fact it is Germany who from 1941 onwards is being outnumbered and outproduced by the USSR alone.
I'll concede to you that lend-lease was extremely helpful in terms of motorizing the USSR, though I would argue this was not as crucial seeing as the USSR was A. Defending home territory, not invading. B. Had a fully functioning rail system leading to the front while the Germans both lacked locomotives and railcars but also had to completely reconstruct Russian railroads as they pushed further into the country. and finally C. Lend-lease gave the USSR an advantage in motorization, not just made it a tie. Remember, the USSR and Germany both heavily relied upon horses for transport, as neither had a large amount of trucks available for motorization, and historically Germany didn't have a lend-lease system to make up for that. So even without Lend-lease, the two powers would've been roughly equal in terms of motor vehicles.
The logistical problem totally killed me hahah
As it did for quite a many Russians as well.
Seems that everybody has logistical problems in Wasser.
Jordan Peterson advice to Soviet Army: "sort yourselves out, buckos."
Clean up your barracks
How can you go about restructuring the world if you can’t keep your STAVKA clean?
"Cold turkey is the only way to quit drugs, even if you have to be put in a coma"
WASH YOUR PENIS
@@crudboy12 What do you call a meat eater turned vegetable?
Jordan Peterson.
4:37 yay Sovietwomble :D
Michael Gäfgen He even managed to get to this dark corner of the youtube
Michael Gäfgen perhaps a collaboration is in order, with soviet womble & Co demonstrating some of operational and strategic shortcomings of military history described in this channel
yea soviet womble is a problem
PICK UP THE AWP WOMBLE! PICK UP THE FLIPPING AWP!!
**Cyanide Screaming**
First NerdCubed mentioned him yesterday and now MHV! :D
Lovely content! Keep it up!
"Want to know more?" starships troopers reference? XD
3:54 "Radio is like Dark Humor - Not Everybody gets it" -- Stalin.
LMAO. That is brilliant!
Watch out with the "no retreat order" or order 227 as it was officially called. The order states that soldiers were to report fellow soldiers who would leave their platoon to fall back without orders. These soldiers wouldn't be shot, but instead they would be sent to penal battalions. Penal battalions were battalions consisting of soldiers reported for cowardice and would be sent to positions where they would expect the fight to be harder. For the rest, the order is mainly focussed on higher ranking officers who would withdraw without orders form their division commander and would face court martial. Panic mongers did face danger to get shot on sight, but regular "cowards" were usually sent to the penal battalions where they would be put to better use. These battalions did often have defensive squads behind them.
The thing people often like to forget when talking about the Soviet punishments for desertion is that desertion is a punishable offence in every army.
@@ericamborsky3230 and most interesting, in the most countries you'll get executed/jailed for desertion, they did the penal batallion. Order 227 was there to stop the executions of deserters, very weird)
Makes me sad tho, deserters are getting shot(
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Private Eddie Slovik was the only American serviceman who was executed for desertion in WWII.
"At first Glantz" hahaha. Surprising you didn't quote Stumbling Colossus for more juicy pre-war info.
I think this is the best Warfare information Channel I've ever found. to the point fast-talking beautiful
The cold factual recitation of military history is exactly what I’m looking for to just play in the background and relax to. You’ve earned a subscription my friend.
This are not facts, some very important points are missing.
Because Soviet Army lacked lubricants.
That is why Germans are so butthurt.
Thus deep German penentrations were painful.
Taistelukalkkuna German penetrations? What nonsense is that? And why is this not in code?
Sorry comrade comissar. Our signals officer was sent to gulag, and new one has not been appointed yet. But fear not. FOR STALIN! FOR MOTHERLAND! URAAAAAAAA!
Taistelukalkkuna I know this is just a harmless joke. But now I'm sad.
"Radio is like dark humor...." I wasn't ready for that!
Nice channel, subbed, well researched, well presented and very logical. !
Thanks for making these videos. I'm going to be studying WW2 in my history lessons so it's nice to be able to take nicely organised pieces of ready to use evidence from your videos.
Your pictograms are getting better and better - very unusual and creative! Or maybe you got bored with the old set. ;) Keep up the good work, I enjoy your presentations a lot!
A very superficial view of things and excessive drama in describing the problems faced by all the armies of the world at that moment. Let's ask ourselves: did the Maginot Line help France? And what was valuable in the opinion of the author in the line of Stalin with machine-gun weapons? Could the completed defensive lines on the Molotov Line have had a significant impact? Did the success of the British corps bring a high percentage of radio equipment? In addition, not all parts had problems with equipment and supplies, as shown in the examples. The real reasons for the high human losses are as follows: 1. Pre-emption of the USSR before mobilization. 2. Extremely effective strategic encirclement operations in the first months. 3. Predominance in the air in each combat area. As for technical losses, a huge amount of outdated equipment (T-26, BT-7, etc.) was really abandoned due to breakdowns, lack of spare parts and rapid retirement in battles. The other side of the question is that no one was going to save this scrap metal: the army has already switched to modern models. And most importantly, the Wehrmacht had no less problems - with mechanization (including artillery), disastrous logistics, especially in terms of winter combat operations, miscalculations of intelligence and strategic planning, a complete failure in assessing the mobilization and production potential of the enemy, and much more. Separately, it should be said that not all counterattacks ended in failure: There were many positive examples, but on a global scale, there was a lot of backtracking at first. However, in November 1941, the German troops were stopped near Moscow, which means that the Red Army reached military parity in just 4 months.
“Radio is like dark humour; not everyone gets it.”
That made my day!
I think that the high soviet losses can be attributed to a few key factors. #1 Being that most of the Soviet airforce at the time was destroyed before leaving the ground by the Luftwaffe in the early days of the campaign. The soviets simply where overwhelmed by German air support and it made counterattacks and troop movement for the soviets extermely difficult. #2 Would be the mass encirclements and simply put, the horrible training and lack of equipment Soviet soilders had to deal with when the invasion began. The no retreat orders led to well over a million soilders being surrounded and then captured.(The poor leadership and lack of experianced officers could be iys own point in itself.) #3 Almost all of the Soviet equipment that was lost in high numbers where extremely out of date and simply not comparable to what the whermacht where using, take many of the Soviet light tanks for example. A panzer 3/4 could take out scores of them at a time, and those tanks made up the majority of the Soviet tank cores.
Another excellent work. Proud to support you!
3:56 "Radio is like black humor, not everybody gets it" ha killed me LMAO
Dark*
Would be nice to see how much the German allies played a part in the war in the East. Like Romania and Finland, which played a significant role in the conflict. Which I think also a lot of people don't know(the myth that Germany 'alone' did so much).
Love the channel :)
Not trying to shit on the German fighting man; they have proven themselves to capable fighters, but the fact of the matter is that the high Soviet losses mainly because of 3 things
1) The Soviets were in a transition period; not prepared for total war on the defensive.
2) They were caught flat-flooted by a surprise attack, the Soviet air arm, large as it was, was mostly destroyed before even leaving the ground
3) The German led coalition of axis forces initially outnumbered the standing Soviet army, nearly by a 2:1 ratio.
The real ratio in men was 1,3:1
3,200,000 Germans + 600,000 Finns, Romanians and others vs 2,9 soviet troops in the Western districts.
That was only initially, as early as August Soviet troops numbered around 5 million.
Grondorn I said initially didn't I?
Grondorn but by that time Soviets lost the strategic initiative, so it didn't matter that much as the total number of divisions entering battle simultaneously was always on the German side. Which was also due to the fact Soviets had to stretch their defences along the long front line, while Germans could concentrate massively overwhelming numbers in local operations.
+Him Pim the problem this army had was Soviet leadership doing everything possible to make sure there is absolutely no way Hitler can present this war as defensive for him, as some sort of retaliation for Soviet agression. It had to be without the slightest shadow of a doubt an invasion in attempt to conquer Soviet land and enslave Soviet people. Practically no promising officers were eliminated in the so called purge in 1938 - on the contrary, the percentage of officers with proper military education increased significantly. The lack of officers was due to the quick growth of the Soviet military at least 5-fold over 1939-1941, there was simply no way to train enough officers to fill all the new commanding positions. All that "paranoid Stalin killed his best officers" is a silly myth by Goebbels.
The majority of the Red Army's forces were on the border of German territory, poised for an invasion. That's a reason they were routed so fast--they weren't expecting Germany to strike preemptively.
Hey thanks for captioning your videos. When I don't have headphones I can just put the captions on without TH-cam's subpar speech recognition getting in the way of some military history. Love the videos, especially the wwii era tactics and unit comp videos.
suddenly your favourite Austrian youtuber brings up the legendary dragonslaying room cleaning rule giver
The Red Army bled heavily, but did not break. Unlike the German general staff, the Soviet counterpart anticipated a war of attrition and prepared mobilization plans accordingly. So, in 1941, the Soviet Union had the mobilizable pool of 14 million men. According to David M. Glantz, the Soviet general staff concluded that during the heaviest fighting, an army-sized unit will have to be replaced in its entirety within 4-6 months. It turned out that the Soviet general staff had a more realistic strategic assessment. Between June and December 1941, the Soviet Union mobilized over 40 armies! (A Red Army army-sized unit was roughly equivalent to a German army corps.) In 1942, 10 reserve armies were formed and several of them contributed to the eventual Soviet victory over Stalingrad.
Another interesting evaluation from Glantz centers around simplifying the command structure of the Red Army in the wake of the German onslaught. The size and the composition of the pre-war Soviet army-sized units were similar to their German counterparts. However, starting in July, the Red Army disbanded its corps-level headquarters, thereby allowing more experienced army commanders to directly control their divisions. Furthermore, the pre-war mechanized corps were also disbanded. New Red Army tank formations consisted of independent tank brigades and batallions. The Red Army motorized rifle divisions were similarly disbanded. This extensive simplification made a perfect sense -- most Red Army commanders lacked experience to command complicated units in the first place, coupled with scarcity of equipments and logistics. However, it helped the Red Army to survive. (A side note: As the Red Army gradually accumulated experience and improved its inventory, it reestablished the corps-level headquarters and rebuilt larger tank and motorized units.)
Finally, notice how the Red Army evolved over the course of the war. Although it had the advantage of considerably larger mobilizable pool, it faced increasingly severe manpower shortage due to accumulating horrendous casualties. By 1944, most average Red Army rifle divisions were functionally equivalent to weak Allied regiments -- 2000 men, which was a far cry from 9000-10000 men. However, by 1944, the Red Army created umpteen number of tank, anti-tank artillery, field artillery, mortar, multiple rocket launcher, and other combat and logistical support units.
stalin sent much equipment and armor to the border for invasion,most was lost because hitler caught it in disarray,much was still on trains and in piles,easy targets .
the globalist bankers wanted stalin to win so they forced USA to send mountains of replacements, from boots to planes and tanks. and 100's of thousands of trucks. they called it lead/lease to fool the american public, no money was ever paid back. also stalin sent a good portion of this used gear to mao tse tung who used it against us in korea a few years later(i have talked to guys who were there). you will not find this in the fake media.
smedley butler(most decorated soldier,in USA) was correct war is a racket. read it.
Moving the factories far away from the front was also a very smart move.
"Unlike the German general staff, the Soviet counterpart anticipated a war of attrition and prepared mobilization plans accordingly"
There's a logical error in that, however. Germany knew it would not win a war of attrition. They were starving for oil, and as soon as it ran out, they knew they'd be in big trouble. Therefore, if they were to fight, they had to win fast. Planning for a war of attrition was planning for certain failure.
This may also be a factor in the enormous initial soviet losses: Stalin probably understood the same basic principle. In his position, manpower was cheap; time was valuable. So losing a million men in order to buy a few weeks of time, can then be a good trade.
"anticipated a war of attrition " are you brain damaged ? Even Ctalin it is surprised by the counter strike, they just not believe for 3 days and 3 nights.
@@organicdudranch The US wanted Stalin to win so they could turn against the battered USSR without Nazi Germany in their hair.
4:33 Soviet Womble!
"The Wombles are fictional pointy-nosed, furry creatures created by Elisabeth Beresford and originally appearing in a series of children's novels from 1968."...are you challenged intellectually?
@@justashadow2520 True. But when they post "Soviet Womble", maybe they should at least know what a "Womble" is.
@@justashadow2520 True. But when they post "Soviet Womble", maybe they should at least know what a "Womble" is. Now STFU.
@@mattmischnick2926 but it is womble
@@mattmischnick2926 Soviet womble is a youtuber and his logo was shown at that timestamp.
Fantastic videos. I considered myself pretty well educated on WWII (compared to the layman) but you changed my understanding of the war quite a bit. Thank you your videos!
A very thorough & detailed analysis of the Soviet Union's military situation at this point.
"There's lead flying at us from everywhere!"
"You did not see lead BECAUSE IT WASN'T THERE!"
This is like Khan's academy for WWII. I've been studying this subject for about 20 years, and never fail to learn something new and insightful from each of these videos. Bravo, and please keep it up. You are a master of the subject, and your research is impeccable.
"In June 1941 Harry Truman was saying, “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible”"
Soviets had a logistic problem before the US delivered modern locomotives and many trucks and even some Shermans which could be thrown against the Nazis to win time and and create casualties there, please research the number of diesel-electric build locomotives by the soviets and that delivered by the western allies...without the US locomotives they would have been doomed to use (like Nazi-Germany and Japan) the coal-locomotives, which are much easier to bomb at day if there is no heavy fog, and they are slower and you need much more points on the way to stop and get new coal, which itself already creates a need for additional logistic units... okay the 1-2 persons which had to ship in the coal to the oven would have been no problem for the soviets, but the speed and the coal stations would have made operations like near Kursk more difficult and dangerous, General Motors trucks with good and strong diesel engines also helped to carry heavy cargo, many GAZ trucks had a weaker engine or petrol engines, I think even waggons were delivered, already produced in soviet gauge, large oil transports and fuel transports from the refineries were done by that locomotives, from Baku for example while the sea way was blocked in 1942 and dangerous in the Stalino-Stalingrad area until early 1943...many oil depots in Stalingrad were bombed by the Luftwaffe before the attack began and because Stalin didn't care about civilians it was forbidden to escape to the east, so 40,000 civilians died in these "preparing" air-raids carried out by the Luftwaffe...
the city should have been already evacuated, the Wolga and Don were vital for shipment and transports before they build the large pipeline system, the Wolga/Don leads to other rivers and these lead to every important city in European Russia including Moscow and further to Leningrad/St.Petersburg and than into the baltic sea, but also there are rivers which lead to Siberia... that route was closed for a while and the diesel electric locs and trucks were very good, also the delivered aircrafts...its a question WHAT and WHEN they delivered not the total amount in per cent...
also trucks were even used for the "Stalinorgel" as the Axis soldiers called them, the "Katjusha" on trucks, most were "GAZ" trucks, but not sooo few were from General Motors.
However I like the quote from Truman, they didn't care if Soviets win as long as the US/UK don't miss the party and get influence in the new central and western post-war europe... the Battle of the Bulge (which used the last real reserves from Nazi Germany produced by the last larger number of still working factories which could not work efficient or at all anymore after that offensive, it was not only a heavy expierence for the young and mostly very unexperienced US troops, it also stole time and usually the ground equipment was used against the soviets or their (often forced) "allies" in 87% of the cases, without that desperate offensive which could only work if oil/fuel would be captured on the way the number would be more like 90% and Equipment included Tiger I and Tiger II, Panthers, StuG's and other tanks and vehicles, light to very heavy Artillery and rocket Artillery, many Panzerfausts for the ~250,000 soldiers, last fuel reserves...without that the timing would be more like the Allies wanted it...so the soviets could wait 3 months in front of Warsaw and get supplies and reinforce all the troops for their final offensive...
This J.B.Peterson chap sounds very sensible, I wonder is he is wise on other subjects too....
don't bother with the guy.
Indeed! He seems quite the erudite sort. We should consult him upon all manner of issues!
Eralun I suggest you look him up, watch a few of his videos, and decide for yourself
Leader of the resistance in Canada.
Thinly veiled. I like it ;)
I enjoyed that explanation a lot. It's easy to criticise and please forgive me for my one minor gripe: "to beg the question" is a very very frequently misused expression. It actually means that someone has given an answer that doesn't add any information - often it is just a restatement of the question. It's a trick that e.g. politicians use to avoid answering. I think you want something more like "which raises the question".
+Tim Murphy thx!
As always your video is educational and entertaining. Keep up the good work!
Did I see a SovietWomble reference in this video somewhere? :)
Biji Mustard Gas 1988 So?
"Radio is like Dark Humor - Not everybody gets it." xD classic. This is similar to how dark humor is like food, not everybody gets it.
"... seem Decisive at First *Glantz*"
I See What You Did There!
:)
Entertaining job! The German accent is perfect for the narration and the little graphic icons are hilarious-- esp. the 'Worse Yet Get Ambushed' little skull popping out of the jack-in-the-box! Great explanations presented in a compelling and straight-forward manner.
As usual an excellent analysis.
Perhaps you might consider it off topic, but I have had difficulty finding reliable information on the IMPACT of American and British military aid to the Soviet Union. Would you consider speaking on this topic? Thank you. I enjoy your lectures.
definitely coming in 2018, pretty big topic.
"on the IMPACT of American and British military aid to the Soviet Union."
Do you have in mind the contribution of the Allies for their own salvation?
In Soviet Russia, logistics direct you! :D
Punny and true lol.
Heavy sovjet losses continued until the very end of the war. Please look at the losses in the battle of Berlin.
and with whom do you compare losses?
What losses could the Americans, the British or the French have in their place? could not have such losses because even in Italy they could not defeat 17 German divisions for 2 years. What does it mean to fight against several millions? You cannot compare, because the western front is the front of German old and disabled people with outdated weapons. Only some German units "were a bright spot against a gloomy general background," according to Westphal.
yeah in all major battles the soviets have way more losses than the germans. Both in defensive and offensive battles. The germans put up a decent fight, but got heavily outnumbered.
Actually, Soviets suffered some 80k kia and missing, Germans had around 170k dead and ~440k captured during the battle for Berlin.
@@alekviktor7822 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin
@@alekviktor7822 no soviets kia: 350k
Germans: 92k
"... at first Glantz" Very good.
I appreciate the objective approach of your videos.
Well, if your goal with that Peterson quote was to get a bunch of drones to mash the like button out of tribal affiliation, you have succeeded :P
Is there something wrong with Peterson?
Jurgis Neverdauskis he's just saying everyone loves Peterson.
Jurgis Neverdauskis yes
and they should
Peterson is okay, he is a bit to liberal for me to like him though. Does his tribe have a name? Do they have maple leaves on their banners?
German civilian losses: 1 million
Total civilian losses in Eastern Europe: 30 million.
The German army was simply a murdering machine. When it was not fighting, it was wiping out Soviet villages to create Lebensraum.
You know that Stalin was big part on those civilian deaths right? You do i hope lol
@@Jinny-Wa well no. Stalin "just" sentenced around 700.000 people to death. The loses were by the German Wehrmacht and SS. They slaughtered the slavic people.
@@f.l.3978 There is also a thing called starvation.
Military Deaths
6,329,600 KIA
1,283,200 POW Deaths
550,000 Other
8,160,000 Total
Civilian Deaths
7,420,379 Direct Violence
2,164,313 Labor Camps
8,500,000 Famine
18,100,000 Total
26,250,000 Grand Total
Completely unrelated to the Video, but a good job none the less MHV, An Extra Credits video has caught my attention when scrolling through the comments, A video on the D-Day landings, and holy fucking shit do they need to open a history book.
Kudos for the discreet David Glantz pun, I knew most of this from reading him before, but your presentation is as always on point and fun to watch, I might buy Alexander Hill's book, to have the Great Patriotic duo of this and When Titans Clashed, institutional and operational histories of Red Army in WW2.
Can't argue with any of this. I think it is well explained and I really enjoyed it. Thanks great vis.
Great video. I actually knew most of the stuff you covered, but for some reason I still like these WW2 videos of yours the most :P
Indeed, the state of the Red Army cca 1941 was terrible. The majority of their tanks were T-26s, which while proved quite capable when used during the Spanish Civil War, were pretty much obsolete by '41. Soviet tanks were also very much lacking radios compared to the Germans (although they weren't as bad as the Japanese). To quote Zaloga:
“The Red Army intended to make widespread use of radios, but cost and poor radio technology limited it; for example, in the case of the Soviet T-26 tank, the most widely produced tank of the 1930s, about half the tanks were fitted with radios. After the start of the war in 1941, the Soviet use of radios decreased in 1942-43 due to shortages, rising again in 1944-45 as production capacity improved.”
“... of the 7,485 T-26 gun tanks in service in 1941, 3,440 (46 percent) had radios. However, they were often in poor repair, had fragile antennas, and depended on telegraphic communication at longer ranges in an army chronically short of skilled crews. The radio shortcomings had a synergistic effect with the poor command-and-control features of the tank, leading to abysmal tank tactics.”
Strange but soviet tanks already had night visual systems, in 1939. I suppose the German tanks were with radios 100% ! Or just 50%, or they have the same rate, because they establish a ratio of 10% on the same tank schools.
The Germans captured over a million soldiers and killed 500,000 on the boarder, those Russians weren't selling Girl Scout cookies.
Pfsif No, sadly these were the seniors to the Girl Scouts and instead sold cupcakes... hence why the USSR was obviously caught off-guard.
Border. A boarder is someone renting the room above your garage.
And Stalin killed the rest after the war.
Which is completely untrue. Even the "Black Book of Communism" states over half of former POWs were released without punishment, with about 45% suffering various punishments from being sent to Penal units, forced labour and Gulags. Most other sources cite far lower punishment numbers, stating the large majority were released with no charges.
No the Germans were far worse (~60% death rate) to Soviet POWs then Stalin was.
Leonid Sokolov Yep a single interview and Jewish commissars (which would be subhuman to Nazis) clear all that up... not like the interview could be biased or anything... pfftt nonsense
one should have mentioned that approx. 2/3rd of the Wehrmacht were stationed on the Eastern front. Moreover, 85% of heavy armormed units and 100% of death camps were located in the East.
A very interesting analysis of the first days of Operation Barbarossa was published in the Hungarian military periodical "Haditechnika" (Military Technology) around 2006 or so. The author was Major General Ferenc Vegh, former Commander of the Hungarian Defense Force, a tank officer. He analyzed the clashes of the first few weeks in meticulous details, with particular attention to the Soviet units' armament, location and tactical situation. As a conclusion he established that Viktor Suvorov - the main proponent of the preemptive war theory - was indeed right, as all units along the Polish border were in an attack configuration, seemingly being readied for an invasion.
Since psychologist Petersen was quoted, let me mention one factor which is overlooked by many historians: mentality of Red Army personnel and attitude within the ranks. Hundreds of thousands marching in captivity, tons of equipment abandoned without any contact with the enemy (over 6 mln rifles written off as "lost" in 6 months of 1941). Not feet of clay certainly but complex phenomena which is hard to understood without the knowledge of the Soviet history in 1920s-1930s. This topic was studied by few Russian language authors, among them Mark Solonin who once compared summer 1941 situation as a barrel with hoops broken (one of his books was called "Barrel and hoops"). One of the darks secrets of that time which was suppressed for several generations: too many people did not want to fight for their country.
>Hundreds of thousands marching in captivity, tons of equipment abandoned without any contact with the enemy
How'd you explain why British, US and French troops surrendered without a fight and abandoned equipment?
Of course. And you could add German, Italian, etc. But please compare the numbers. And circumstances.
Good point. There are testimonies about red army soldiers who taken as prisoners in 1939 asked Poles for weapon, because they wanted fight against Soviet Union.
Gotta love the soviet russia joke at 3:36 lol Man I fucking love this channel
ugh. Jodan Peterson quotes? Disappointing.
why?
Actually there was one part wrong. Stalin knew an attack was coming. The knowledge came from the Soviet spy agency, most notably, Richard Sorgei. Numerous reports were flooding in weeks before the war. When news of the reports appeared, Stalin ordered the army to mobilise to "a state of readiness". Stalin attempted to prevent a war one last time diplomatically but failed.
Hitler did planned and masked it as "an act if defense" and "a preemptive strike) due to the high amount of Soviet border troops. Hitler only deployed tanks days before the start to conceal their intentions. So, preemptive act is a false.
All in all:
1. The purge took out the most experienced of commanders, most notably, Mikhail Tukhachevsky. Most non-purged commanders were in their 40's.
2. Soviets were still "modernising" and expanding. Equipping new weapons (Example of which, the SVT, which was too hard to mass produce, resulting in the return of the Mosin-Nagant)
3. Poor maintenance, supply and logistics. (Numerous tanks broke down along the way and were left due to crews not being trained on simple repairs.)
4. Lack of proper training. (Frontline troops were mostly listening to propaganda and communist doctrines)
5. Poor leadership (the Stavka ordered numerous suicidal assaults resulting in huge losses, along with Order 227)
If you want to know more, Star Media's "Soviet Storm" (documentary series) has great detailed stats and explanation from actions on how it escalated to Manchuria in 1945.
>The knowledge came from the Soviet spy agency, most notably, Richard Sorgei
Sorge sent "interesting" reports, to be modest.
> The purge took out the most experienced of commanders
nope
>Example of which, the SVT, which was too hard to mass produce
that's why it was built in millions - thing, that of other countries only USA managed to do with semiauto rifle
>Frontline troops were mostly listening to propaganda and communist doctrines
such a bullshit
>the Stavka ordered numerous suicidal assaults resulting in huge losses, along with Order 227
yes, it would be better to sit and wait for German tanks to roll over your positions. And you forget that order 227 was issued in 1942. For a reason
+kollekzioner5
read some good books, will you
kollekzioner5 The Soviets actually destroyed ordnance and materiel most of the time in an organised retreat. Also, because of Order 226, most of the armies from the start were destroyed because the political commissars and Stavka were hesitant to allow a retreat.
Also, another failure of the Soviet Army is because of the pressures of the Political Commissars on the army staffs.
An example is the commander of the Kerch peninsula forces that were to save Crimea from the Germans and the forces trapped in the city of Sevastopol. The P. Commissar pressured the commander of the Kerch forces to attack and to stop digging trenches. At the last moment, they discovered an attack that was to happen the next day that was to attack them and force them to pull back to the Caucasus.
Outstanding video and presentation.
Could you make a video on Field Marshal Slim? He has a lot to offer but doesn't get the recognition he deserves. You have a large audience and are a great researcher, video maker.
He was only accused, it was never proven. I would like to see a video on his abilities a military commander, not his suitability as a babysitter. Even if he did do those things, it has no impact on his contribution to military history.
Indeed.
Jordan B. Peterson is Gwyneth Paltrow for incels.
"clean up you own room"
ifonlyicouldstop get yourself together bucko and fight those nazis.
mpags sorry, too busy slaying the dragon and rescuing my father...I'll get right on it after that.
I know the whole Lend Lease thing is contentious to sovietaboos but the sheer scale of logistical and industrial equipment provided by the US and UK probably can't be overstated in winning the economic war. Most problems the Germans had logistically would've been shared by the Soviets if not for American and British aid. A major factor that is overlooked in the USSR not falling apart is that logistical equipment that allowed for a mechanized/motorized army.
Soviet propaganda said "4%" of the USSR's production was thanks to the Allies, glossing over the fact that they couldn't have even rebuilt without the US and ignoring communication, infrastructure, and transportation support.
This isn't to say the average fighting man in the Red Army was bad. It's intended to underline how horribly incompetent centralized economies can be.
ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/
and a Russian propaganda outlet admitting the Allies saved the USSR
www.rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html
You’re scholarly presentation is excellent.
Excellent video, as always.
Holy crap. You quoted Jordan Peterson. You, sir, have earned my highest level of respect.
Two Canadians quoted in One episode? Aww, you're flattering me :)
A great book on the current topic:The chief culprit stalin's grand design to start world war ii - Viktor Suvorov
Victor Souvourov could have split his shit on its book, it woul've been the same things. True historians (unlike him) are trying to repair the damages that his book did. It seems that it's not complete yet.
@@come7850 Wow, such grammar
@@Marread English is not my mother tongue and I don't really have the time to spend hours trying to figure out how to write in a perfect english on you tube comment sections. Because I don't care. Still, I should've used spread instead of split, and they are missclicks which made me use wrong letters, you're right to point this out.
@@come7850 fair, that makes more sense actually. Care to expand on why Suvorov was so bad? Just some sources will be fine.
@@Marread The source is a biography of Zhukov by Jean Lopez and Lasha Otkhmezuri (a French book, don't know if it has been translated in English).
They explain that as Toukhatchevski won against Svietchine, the Red Army doctrin is exclusively an offensive one. They are not supposed to defend. Which explains the deployment of soviet soldiers across the border. Moreover, Zhukov told Stalin that they had to wait untill 1942 before the Red Army really recovers from the purge. The initial success of Barbarossa can be explained by the unreadyness of the Red Army: they're just not ready to wage war. Thus, an army at this level of preparation is not an army which is ready to invade the IIIrd Reich
But I have not all my sources at my disposal, sorry.
Excellent analysis. Subscribed
Many thanks - this is great!!!
I am curious though - to what extent were the losses due to the inadequacies you gave here vs. just the initiative being with Germany? Interesting to compare Soviet vs German losses in 1941 vs 1944.
Also (unrelated): any ideas on how the medical services compared among Germany vs USSR vs USA? (ie, WIA : KIA ratios, based on good case studies obviously)
Why would you quote Jordan Peterson for this??? He is not an expert in this area plus is a very questionable professional in his area of “expertise” anyway.
To expand on the point of not provoking Germans: there have been numerous border 'incidents' leading up to the summer. As the red army was preparing to attack the Germans under the flag of liberators, orders where given not to react to any provocations from the German side. At first everyone thought it was just another provocation, when it went on for longer than usual, they tried to reach Moscow and awaited further orders. Only the admiral of the fleet realized what's happening and, acting on his own authority, order to open fire on German Luftwaffe in the sky.
"As the red army was preparing to attack the Germans under the flag of liberators" - by hastly building defences and preparing massive industry evacuation to Siberia and Urals. This Rezun crap needs to stop, seriously.
Mocsk those came into action with German attack the hole reason it was vastly is that defense wasn't planned for. Even the airbases were moved very close to the front to have a better reach into enemy territory. However that became the reason why the Red Air Force was decimated in the first months of war.
Industry evacuation plans were started to be laid down at least in 1939, and throughout 1939-41 all necessary infrastructure was being built (factories need electricity, water, solid floors, roads and railroad, etc, machines can't be just dropped into dirt and start working - it takes months of preparation). Defenses were being built even before that. Only a fraction of airfields were built near the border (around 10 km from it) for immediate support of the front line and as advance airfields for cutting of enemy supply lines and for counter-offensives, which were the cornerstone of Soviet defence doctrine at the time. It's a very weak argument that ignores many important issues, constructed by Rezun (suvorov) in his propagandist work. Please don't cite this guy in places where people know something about history, it's bad taste.
+Chidis Skaniukas there's a certain technological process that takes time. It doesn't matter how many people you shoot, it won't make physics work faster. No, factories cannot be moved quickly, especially by threats of getting shot - it's a complex procedure that requires highly professional specialists, intricate planning and great organisational skills from top to bottom of the management chain. You don't achieve that from threatening people with guns, that's not how any of this works. Also, GULag camp inmates had nothing to do with evacuation of industry, the command wouldn't let them a thousand kilometres near anything this strategic.
"how much gulag prisoners will die in the cold, starve or be shot to motivate others" - you're confusing Soviet penitentiary system with Nazi concentration camps. That's not how it worked.
"12 years old kid could be sentenced to be shot" - that is incorrect, only adults could be sentenced to death.
", if he made a mistake in production line" - that is incorrect, only large scale theft or outright sabotage would grant a death sentence. And we're talking about adults here. 12 year old wouldn't be doing anything remotely important enough to cause any sort of real damage.
You have a very distorted view of the Soviet Union, like it's some kind of fantasy land like Mordor. It wasn't. In fact, in terms of it's penitentiary system it wasn't much different from any other country on the planet at the time, including USA or Britain. You should probably adjust your view in accordance with reality instead of reciting Dr Goebbels.
+Chidis Skaniukas "born in Lithuania" - sadly, this explains a lot.
25+ million Soviets died during the war. Insane numbers.
Every other person that died in World War Two was a Russian.
Thanks for this video, always well explained
When is the video on the fall of France coming out? And will you do videos on wars not affiliated with, but still related to WW2, like the Chinese-Japanese war, or the Spanish civil war? Maybe a one on The Peru-Bolivian war?
Schtalin and Schtvka :D
The reason to heavy losses is very simple - red army was not preparing for the defense it was preparing for the offense. It can be tracked from old Russian papers archives (open, not even secret parts) that they did not build any fortification but built a lot of purely offensive models of tanks and airplanes, prepared a lot of paratroopers, and stored a lot of munition almost literally in piles on the ground near the border which you never do if you do not expect to use or transport them very soon. You can occasionally encounter old propaganda clips inside later made soviet movies, and they all have the tone "if the enemy provokes we will win with small blood on their territory" and even showing attacking soviet armada.
There are speculations that Hitler was not prepared to start a war either, but he had to start sooner since he understood Stalin will start offensive soon and without access to oil Hitler's armada will be pretty much useless. Anyway, when Hitler attacked, soviet army was unprepared for defense in all the ways - technically,. strategically, morally. And a lot of members of standing army were killed in very first days. Soviets had to throw unskilled recruits in attempts to stop further advancement. Hence all the huge losses.
standard historical revisionist crap, babbled by whining twits
as late as 1943, the USSR did not have the troop transport to deliver more than a battalion of troops in a single drop
during the Seige of Leningrad, the air force delivered 600 tons of supplies a week that works out to between 15 and 30 L-2s. In 1943 crossing the Dnepr the Russians delivered 5000 paratroopers, over a period of a day, the L-2s having to make several trips. That would be 200 plane loads, the book said the planes had to make several trips, i would read several as more than 3. sorry i can't come up with any better data
Thankyou for that, i have found similar evidence. of course many people call me names (nazi etc) they likely will do this to you also. i just want to thank you for your clear and accurate post in the face of many fake media induced lies and misinfo. so much has been lied about it .
The Jordan B. Peterson Reference was Cringe and Bluepilled.
It wasn’t a reference it was a direct quote. Even if you don’t like the guy the statement is not really controversial so get over it
Why did the Soviets still have high losses in 1944? Did they still not fix their logistical/organizational problems? Can you please do a video on that? Thanks.
There is one fact that so many history pundits overlook. What distinguishes soldiers apart is training, expertise, experience that makes a veteran of war but the difference between a raw recruit, a trained troop, and an experienced veteran. When the Nazis invaded Soviet Russia in 1941, as time went on the German losses were not just in simple numbers of men, but of trained experienced veterans of Poland and France, etc. Loosing these troops we’re irreplaceable to the German war machine. It really showed in the Luftwaffe. Most German aces flew till injuries stopped them or they were dead. Eric Hartman was the all time Ace with 251 kills. American pilots were rotated out, sent back to give raw recruits a hands on teaching of air tactics. When the Germans lost a veteran pilot, they lost irreplaceable experience.
Erich Hartmann- 352 aerial victories, not 251............
"Jordan B. Peterson."
Yikes.
sovietwomble singlehandedly won stalingrad
Jordan Peterson reference FTW
Abrodolf Lincler jfy
I like the pun, intentional or unintentional, "Decisive at first Glantz".
Excellent material. As much as historian and a grand son of a Stalingrad battle survivor(Romanian Army) , I will tell You that "the Wehrmacht" learned that the logistics problems will hit them hard too, in the year to come (1942).
Yes, the lack of lubricants was terrible. Ask Eastern European women.
Also the reason why deep penetrations by the Germans caused so much damage.
damn... :D
We could say the same for Germans mothers you know?
Tyler Durden edgy
Klobi for President and german women later xd