Great video, but... The lend-lease issue is that without it the USSR would still win but with greater losses and time. Also, something very important is the fact that it wasn't free, everything was paid back. The difficult terrain was chosen to be traversed. Special units were there to create reads through the swamps for the tanks in order to send as many tanks as possible through the rear of the army group center. Maybe this is something stored for the next video. The allies at that time, 1944, were supporting each other, not competing. It was planned for D day to begin first, in support, the operation Bagration began which was also planned to take place. To avoid leaks, only the timetable was set and tactical operations would be secret even to allies on both sides. Otherwise, it was very informative.
lend-lease was virtually free as the terms were very very favorable to the borrowers. Even during the war, the payments were deferred until the war effort finished. The point of the video and the comparison with Germany is to show that it was not sustainable without lend-lease. What you are referring to (about the Swamps) is the 1st Belorussian army coming out of the Pripyat marshes. Yes it will eventually be mentioned. And yes, the allies were working together, but that was a rebuttal to frequent criticisms mentioned by slavoboos.
@@BlitzOfTheReich it wasn't "virtually free", it was at an extremely good price. Which is a good thing for allies fighting a common enemy. Personally, I think that all this talk of who wouldn't be able to hold on without someone else degrades the memories of those who fought in this rare collaboration of nations against realistic danger. Many people in the USSR were hoping that after the war along with the brothers from the west will ensure peace. Great many were surprised then Chirchil declared the cold war.
Yeah, lend lease significantly increased in 1943 and onwards, but don't forget about the reasons behind this. Although, the tide has already turned that year, Stalin was aware of Allied plans of possible attack on Soviet Union (Operations Pike and Unthinkable) thanks to his spies in the UK, and wanted to acquire as much equipment as possible for the upcoming war.
I would recommend not having the patreon plug followed by an ad in the middle. I almost closed the tab, given that a patreon plug followed by a UA-cam ad signals the end of the video in basically the entire genre of historical youtube. The only reason I didn't was how short the video was up to that point.
I was trying to mimic what TIK does just to experiment. I will need more data to see if it is affecting the view count. Thank you for mentioning it though.
@@huntermad5668 yes because I don’t sacrifice quality for quantity. Plus I dont earn much from this channel. If you want to make a difference then please consider donating.
Incredible work! It truly is satisfying to see actual effort and research done into properly understanding the Red Army’s offensive operations instead of just buying into the same old dumb stereotypes. Can’t wait for the next episode(;
@@901Sherman I've read all three that you have cited, but the only one that I have truly read from end to end is Glantz. I have read Soviet General Staff Reports + Mark Harrison + William Connor a lot more than the other two you mentioned.
Yeah exactly this dummy has no actual understanding of the planned economy of the Soviet Union and how Marxist principles and the planned economy were what made rhd Soviet Union better rank design and superior economic output. These facts make him uncomfortable so he doesn’t like to talk about them all thd research in the world can’t fix capitalist brainwashing
@@BlitzOfTheReich no you don’t if you did you would understand that deep battle theory is based on Marxist principles it is literally outlined in the papers for the deep battle theory when it was written. Dumbasss
@@BlitzOfTheReich naturally. It wasn't a complaint. But you managed to include two cliffhangers in one episode. waiting for the next episode. Love the detail.
Funny that Rokossowski is wearing a Marshal of Poland uniform in a video about a Soviet military operation of 1944. He was appointed the 5th Marshal of Poland and the Polish Minister of Defence in 1949.
@@BlitzOfTheReich I am sure there are many public domain photos of Rokossowski in Soviet uniforms and decorations. The thing is that the Marshal's postwar political career as the Minister of Defense and Head Officer of the Polish People's Army is much less heroic and quite controversial, to say the least. Suffice it to say that the post-Stalin's Thaw resulted in him being politely asked to resign from the post and return to Moscow, never again to return to Poland, leaving his beloved sister behind.
@@SzalonyKucharz I am well aware of the controversy surrounding his tenure in Poland. Again, finding public domain photographs of him is harder than you think. Most of them come from the Polish archives because they have a condition of releasing things to the public domain. The Russian ministry of defense does not.
The Lend-Lease trucks were never representing "well over half" of the Soviet fleet of trucks and jeeps. On January 1, 1943, there was 22,100 imported trucks out of 404,500 in the Red Army (5.4%). On January 1, 1944, there was 94,100 imported trucks out of 496,000 in the Red Army (19,0%). On January 1, 1945, there was 191,300 imported trucks out of 621,200 in the Red Army (30,4%). Also, could you shortly explain how Harrison came up to that Net import was 17% (and 18%) of the Soviet national income in 1943-44?
@@BlitzOfTheReich There is no problem in the quantities of deliveries at all. There are no differences between the Soviet and the US Lend Lease data. The problem is you're quoting Sakwa who pulled this out of his a.. Why didn't you quote him about the locomotives and wagons from the same sentence, to make it even more funny? At least the railroad transport was the most important for the operation ( 400,000 wagons vs 50,000 trucks). And no comment on Harrison?
@@simplicius11 I only used Sakwa for the total cost of foreign aid at $11 billion. I mean, he has truck data, but I supported this with primary sources to show that he wasn't lying. The actual truck data comes directly from US congressional reports in 1945. Sakwa's figures include shipping costs (probably) as the US figures were $9 billion or so. Harrison must have simply taken the GDP of the Soviet Union which was the national income (as most of the GDP was by the residents of the country) and simply tracked the inflows of imports due to lend-lease. You are way too dismissive of historians without actually analyzing their work. Also, you are way way too accepting of Soviet sources without really verifying them. In this documentary, I gave nuance and treated both with caution.
@@BlitzOfTheReich "I only used Sakwa for the total cost of foreign aid at $11 billion" No you didn't, if you did that everything would be fine. 2:53 "...most importantly of all, over half of the Soviet light vehicles were supplied by LL." "Harrison must have simply taken the GDP of the Soviet Union" No, he didn't. With this you're showing that you are not familiar with Harrison's work. But anyway, i figured it out myself. You are using his outdated work "Resources..." (1988) and he corrected his data in his more recent work "Accounting for war..."(1996). imgur.com/3cjAwzs imgur.com/5WOEn88 So, your graph is wrong and outdated. It should be 5% (1942) and 10%(1943, 1944). Quite a difference. And just to add, if you'd understand on how many approximations and estimates is his, even recent work based on, you'd realize how inaccurate his (even recent) estimates could be. Unfortunately, I'm not aware that anyone else is doing anything in this field, so his work could be used as some kind of a step holder for future (But not his outdated work).
@@simplicius11 I used Sakwa for raw lend-lease figures and yes for trucks, but it was simply supplementary data that was complementing the original source. I know what you mean, that you take issue with 'over half', but your data contradicts the amount that Sakwa + the US government states that it supplied to the Soviets (I mean, my 425k figure for light vehicles is still over half). You didn't offer a source. Regarding Harrison, I am familiar with most of his works, but I admit that I didn't realize resource mobilization was from 1988. However, I do know what GNI is. What I meant is that it is GDP +/ trade flows. That's why I stated that it is based on the residents because GNI is basically the measure of income by the nationals of the country. I studied political economy I know the basics of national accounts. 'Gross national income (GNI) is defined as gross domestic product, plus net receipts from abroad of compensation of employees, property income and net taxes less subsidies on production.' OECD Also, those were 'alternative measures that he posted' in which he divides net imports with GDP. In the 1988 version, he subtracts the utilization of total resources for war from domestic financing of the war effort. That gives you the differential. He uses Bergson for the above source as well as in the book you cited. The source he uses to calculate the net imports is from Bergson in 1961 p276. Also the most important concern is that the pictures that you sent me do not factor in depreciation which may be factored in in 'Resource mobilization'. The depreciation would reduce the national product as seen in page23 of your book. As an accountant in training, there are many ways of calculating depreciation. Even Harrison voices his concern in the below paragraph: "As far as the latter is concerned, the lack of information about depreciation outside industry and transport left little choice but to keep the input/output table on a gross basis; but it was important to know the rate and distribution of depreciation costs among the industrial processing sectors, and these are shown in table" p238 This shows that the answer is much more complicated because the depreciation would increase the net imports by 1 per cent (11% in 1943/44 and 5% in 1942). If his depreciation figures are even off by a bit, then a figure between yours and mine could be possible. However, the GNP figure is the floor, so to speak. Perhaps I can leave a disclaimer as this is quite a complicated calculation.
Edit: 2:52 Harrison has provided more recent estimates on net imports that lower the % of national income to around 10%; however, this does not factor depreciation. With depreciation, it would be at 11%.
Hey Blitz of the Reich, I love your videos! Would you mind if you uploaded the script in a document file in the newer videos you produce? I really appreciate the respect you have for history and your attempt at removing ideological narrative from the facts. I'd just really appreciate the scripts you produce because what you say comes across as better in written form and your videos are essentially tl;drs of books. Anyway thank you for all that you do, you make great videos and I hope you get the viewership you deserve!
This simply isn't a military history channel that gives a very dry day-by-day talk through the corresponding battles. In order to understand Bagration fully, we need to understand the context. All of this has to do with Bagration and is very important to understanding why it developed the way it did.
It was Konstantin Rokossovsky who masterminded Bagration down to the smallest detail. He had to convince Stallin three times before Stalin would agree to it.
Completely unlikely. Antonov, Shtemenko and their staff in the Operations Directorate were heavily involved in planning the details of operations of this scale. And, most of the Marshals (Rokossovsky, Zhukov, Vassilevsky, Konev, etc.) acknowledged that Antonov was the one who was able to sell these plans to Stalin.
Have you played steel division 2 and do you think It bagration portrays relatively accurate. The campaign is supposed to be fun so inaccuracy are expected for gameplay and functionality.
@@BlitzOfTheReich cool. A video Idea off mine is if you did a review of how that game is good or bad. Of course after this series is done. Still love the content 😀❤️
Thank you for this video. Deep battle and its initiative, deception, deployment, and exploitation is an awesome strategy. Bitzkrieg was so tactical and old fashioned! The better strategy won in the end:). I have one issue though. You say that operation Bagration was the most decisive operation of World War Two. I might disagree with that, and I will explain why. But before I do I want to say I love your work and keep them comin'. If Operation Bagration was the most decisive operation of the war, then why was there more fighting after the Soviet deep battle? The Red Army continued suffering heavy cuasalties reaching Vistula and then Oder rivers. And the Berlin operation cost between 70-80,000 Soviet lives. Imagine fighting in the 62nd army at Stalingrad under Chuikov, and then dying with the 8th Guards Army in Berlin. That is sad. Plus contrary to popular belief after the Kursk debacle, the Germans still one major initiative in their arsenal and they launched a powerful offense in the Ardennes region. So the Germans were still gamed. Plus if Operation Bagration was so decisive in World War Two, howdid effect the Japanese? We know the Germans were still pretty gamed and dangerous, but it was another Soviet deep battle offensive called Operation August Storm launched against the Japanese Kwantung Army in Manchuria that froced the Japanese to surrender. It was not the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that forced Japan to surrender, but the presence of 1 million + Red Army soldiers acorss the small sea between Japan and mainland Asia that finally forced Japan to surrender. To me it is August Storm, the 100 days offensive of World War One, and the Tet Offense of Vietnam War that can be described as decisive. Keep up the great work. I love your videos. My name is Arber Gega and I graduated from Birkbeck and UCL with degrees from political science. And like you military history is close to my heart. Generals, weapons, amd tactics all fascinate me:).
I think you contradict yourself when you state that Bagration was not decisive because the war continued for quite a while with Russia continuing to sustain heavy losses, yet you state that Tet was decisive. Tet was decisive only in a political sense. Tet was not a military or strategic success at all. It would be another 6 years until U.S. withdrew all combat troups, and another year until NVA captured Saigon.
Bagration is the most decisive operation because it is the culmination of the allied war effort: the perfection of Soviet theory + allied production via lend-lease. It also solidified the success of Operation August Storm. I would also say that August Storm alone wouldn't have forced the Japanese to surrender. The Atomic bombings did play their role.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Thank you so much for the reply:). I have reached the conclusion watching this documentary (ua-cam.com/video/LBuMDG2TvcY/v-deo.html). It was made on the late 1990s. If you were Japan and you were fighting the British on the Burma, and Americans in the Pacific and now the Red Army appeared on your doorstep, frocing you to make a tough decision and surrender. Plus how many more nuclear bombs the Americans had. Ketsugo or the Japanese defense of their country would have heavily compromised if 1 million Red Army soldiers invaded Japan as well as the many houndreds of thousands of US troops. Again I love your videos and keep them comin'.
@@rudolphguarnacci197 Excellent point:). The difference is that in America you can be a crazy, stupid, and unpatriotic and you burn the American flag. In Nazi Germany you get executed. So the political ideology matters here. Tet Offensive was a major blow to US morale and since America was a democracy that anger can be magnified. Typhoon, Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration, Battle fo Bulge defeats did not get the same level of unpatriotic response from the Germans for two reasons. Firstly as stated the ideology was more dictatorial and you can get executed, and second the country was getting invaded. COntext is key here. Thank you:).
Great job, just watched this series and wanted to give you some explanation to Maskirovka element (concealment), it's execution and effect was simply astonishing. They managed to prepare greatest operation and be so sneaky about it, that even the commander of the Center Army Group has left to vacation 3 days before it's start. ua-cam.com/video/ppCUHPgugiE/v-deo.html - you can see it's brief explanation by the timecode i given on the documental film about the operation, English subtitles available. And to add, also Soviet partisans made a great role in it with their "Rail War". They received orders from high command to not attack railroad and German trains/communications headed South, who took the bait of false intel of operation starting there and started moving forces there. They let them pass as much as possible away from the Belarus, and when the time comes, when the operation starts, when Germans in haste started pulling all forces back in Belarus - blow up railroads, disrupt communication, cease help, win timing for the frontlines. Also how constantly ongoing engineering preparations of the Red Army proved itself not only in defensive, but on the offensive side, as the Bagration shown - they re-arranged whole swamped area to give ability to it's tanks and infantry cannons move through there by makeshift bridges placed on engineeringly scouted areas. Germans were in shock as during the fighting they never anticipated the coming of tank forces from a different direction of completely impossible-to-pass-through locations. It was simply logical and a right thing to not expect tanks from there thus weakening defenses on that direction, but you do not fight Red Army by using a common sense. Also add: "All orders to the unit commanders were given PERSONALLY by the army commanders; telephone conversations concerning preparation for the offensive, even in coded form, were strictly prohibited. The fronts preparing for the operation went into radio silence. At the forefront, active engineering works were carried out to simulate deep defense preparations. The minefields were not removed completely, so as not to alarm the enemy by the fact of their removal, the sappers were limited to screwing fuses off the mines right after operation start. Concentration of troops and regrouping were carried out mainly at night. Dedicated General Staff officers patrolled the area on recon airplanes to monitor compliance with camouflage measures of moving troops. Lighting lamps of the vehicles were removed completely and put away in storage, so they could be retrieved after the signed permission from the high command officers themselves."
Are you more interested in the Western Front of "The Great War" (Battle of Mulhouse, Battle of Verdun, Meusse-Argonne Campaign) or the Fronts of the Russian Empire (Ober Ost, Caucasus, Galitzia)??? Keep in mind the Germans suffered more losses against the French than against the Tzars, the Brits, etc
By late 1941 ~25% russsian medium tanks were western (mostly Valentine and Matilda, armed with 37mm). By 1945, some Red Army armoured units were standardized to depend primarily on lend lease (instead of theT-34) eg. 1st Guards Mechanized Corps, the 3rd Guards Mechanized Corps and the 9th Guards Mechanized Corps. The Sherman was held in high regard (just over 1/2 supplied had the 76mm). US Trucks were ubiquitous. Propaganda (understandably) avoided photographing them.
The Soviets did not necessarily rely on finding vulnerabilities like the Germans. The fortified areas just corresponded to the areas of highest interest ie the flanks.
@@BlitzOfTheReich ok thanks for the response. so when you talked about attacking the most fortified those areas were the highest priority target. I am i understanding this right?
@@jadencornelius6013 Yes, they were. the 1st Belorussian Front was attacking the Bobruisk sector whilst the 3rd Belorussian Front and the 1st Baltic Front attacked the Vitebsk/Orsha area.
Interesting shirt... not many people on the left or right want to recognize the commonality of Adam Smith and Marx. Have you read Theory of Moral Sentiments? In its day, it was seen as a radical attempt to define morality based entirely on Smith’s proto-sociology and without regard for religion. It’s an interesting read, because American liberalism went in a very different direction, inheriting the spiritual individualism of the Transcendentalists (which you can see in everything from the 60’s counter-culture to self help books today). Smith was of course a liberal, but he focused on the interaction between people rather than the radical individualist, navel-gazing liberalism we ended up with.
I have not read theory of moral sentiments. I've barely even read wealth of nations, but I am familiar with the commonalities between the two thinkers especially when comparing alienation with Smith's mental mutilation. Your take on it is quite fascinating. I studied philosophy in University, but for whatever reason I was more interested in the analytical school and presocratics. Thank you for your insight.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Right, there’s a lot of commonality. I think Marx said his work would have been impossible without the foundation of the Scottish Enlightenment. The Theory of Moral Sentiments is more of an intellectual dead end, but it’s actually a pretty good read... highly recommended.
You have grossly overrated the impact of the Land Lease by the West to the Soviet Union on the success of Operation Bagration. It has to be underlined that almost half of all the Western aid to the Soviet Union from the Northern route was being destroyed by the German U Boats' or Wolf Packs. So while aid from the West was welcome, it did not help the Soviet Union much militarily. Operation Bagration was planned 6 months before the invasion of Normandy by the Western Allies. The Soviet Union employed a strategy of diversion to the utmost by making the Germans think that they would attack from the South by moving armor and tanks in full view of the Germans to the South while hiding much larger movements of troops to the center through camouflage and by strictly carrying out such movements at night. This helped in maintaining the element of surprise till the launch of the Soviet offensive which took the Germans completely off guard.
If the Allies had a preponderance of armaments why didnt they invade France in 1943. The Allies didn't do the fighting against Germany during Bagration. They didnt supply any divisions. Their weakness is why they were able to supply the Soviets for their efforts. To claim that without this aid the Soviets couldn't have still beat Germany is ridiculous because the Soviets have been doing that since 1941 ...far before the allies were able to produce substantial armaments themselves ...which they could most certainly do because of course the US had no invading Germans on their soil ...easy to ramp up production them and invade France only when they were good and ready ....big deal .....
The Soviet economy would of collapsed by 42 without lend lease. Even if it did t collapse the the USA was sending planes, trains, trucks and tanks to help the soviet army become mobile and help them fight the type of war the Germans were fighting in 41. The Soviets weren’t beating the Germans in 41 either they were being pasted everywhere until late 42 early 43 where they encircled the German 6th army.
@@thevettegetsitwett False...the Soviets were NOT getting "pasted" everywhere. You are not informed of the Eastern Front. You just reflect the typical uninformed bias or pure Cold was revisionism. If you read Guderian's accounts alone it will be clear the Germans were struggling a few weeks into Barbarossa. Hitlers defeat ( his first strategic defeat). was on 5th December 1941. When Barbarossa failed. With it Germany's hopes of breaking their dependence on raw materials. THAT'S WHEN WW2 WAS LOST TO THE GERMANS ..... ● you do not understand the scale of the conflict on the EF. Aid was a fraction of the material needs. You have a lot of reading to do. :-) ● There were no weapons the Allies had that were better than what the Russians had. If you had read the EF you would know that. German accounts alone would make that clear. 3000 P39 would not make an impact? The Soviets produced 46000 IL 2 alone ? ● A reading of the meetings between Churchill and Stalin would be clear as to who dominated the relationship. That wouldn't have happened if the Allied Aid had been vital to Russia.5% of what the Russians produced themselves. Their T34 was the most produced tank and their IL 2 -worlds first armoured dive bomber - the most produced aircraft of WW2. A stupendous performance given the US sat on its ass till 1944 before it was able to take on the Nazis. Was it a coincidence they attacked only after the Red Army destroyed the German tank armies and reserves in 1943? ● One attack on the Allied convoy PQ38 if I recall..and Churchill canceled all convoys for 1942?.if the Soviets had depended on Allied Aid they would have collapsed when the Convoys were canceled? ● The Allies struggled against the nazis in France. If not for Operation Bagration the Allies would not have been able to proceed with Cobra. The Allies NEVER surrounded and crushed the Nazis like the Red Army was capable. ● no allied contemporary news or account ever denied the dominant contribution of the Red Army in defeating Germany. Churchill gifted the Sword of Stalingrad and FDR gave a plaque acknowledging this contribution. It was only after July 1945 that the Allies suddenly got balls to face the Soviets and force them to adapt the western agenda in Eastern Europe. What a dastardly stab in the back by the so-called allies to the country that did the most to defeat Hitler. Well ...what do you expect from the words largest colonial power fighting to subjugate its colonies ..helped by a rising economic power enslaving Blacks in the Jim Crow south, segregating its soldiers as it fought Hitler for racial justice ? The USSRs economy never collapsed ..as Hitler wrote Stalin had done a great job preparing the country for war. We will never know know if their economy would have worked because if it was defunct why did the Allies have to embargo the USSR? The West may claim socialism does not work but it reacted with fear as if does work? Why the contradiction. China is now the world's largest economy ...that doesn't say much for the US and its policy of sanctioning countries for economic gain. Belies the principle of competition.
@@stef1896 Ah okay, I thought it was the inverse which I am quite happy about. The memes are simply filler because editing is quite boring. The music is to file the monotone background, which is very monotone. I try to tone it down though. I'm feeding you so much information. I expect viewers to pause in order to reflect. Think of the videos are wikipedia pages.
beforw u say land lesse 400.000 trucks. look at germany takong of almost entire Europe industry...the frwnch the polish etd all put in servise for germany
Pronunciation of the name Bagration (name of russian XIX century general and hero) is awful ! Should be: Bagh - rat - Yohn (accent on Y) Google translator pronounces correctly. Otherwise great job!
I watched a couple of your videos and they are good info. And I am big history. But what do you mean by commonalities with Liberalism and Marxism being the same? Liberalism is freedom of expression. Individual empowerment, expressing yourselves. (Gays, trans, female, other races have all been allowed under "liberal" countries because the Individual comes before the group or the state. Marxism is the group first which is always run by a dictator. You will be a slave to the group and not allowed to express yourself or start a business and a youtube channel under Marxism. Just look it up, I have been to the eastern bloc and they all hate Communism cause of what it did to them and there families. Its a lie the young and naive western kids keep believing. ("But they never implemented true Marxism".... After 100 times of trying and it always turning into a despotic dictator taking over, its not a good system. True liberalism has checks and balances in Government which protects the people from psychopaths and Dictators taking over. Its a protection to keep from infringing on others rights. I pray to God and all the higher powers that we are not this stupid to continue to fall for this.
Welcome to my channel. If you were to analyze it further, you'd see that I am an ardent anti-communist and critic of the Soviet Union. That being said, that statement was based on objective written facts when comparing the works of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Look up Smith's concept of mental mutilation in regard to manufacturing jobs and compare it to workers alienation of Marx. My point is that in this regard and many others, both thinkers held similar views. They just disagreed on the solutions.
Thank you for civilian economy exposition. This is always omitted.
The civilian economy, to me, is the most important.
Great video, but...
The lend-lease issue is that without it the USSR would still win but with greater losses and time. Also, something very important is the fact that it wasn't free, everything was paid back.
The difficult terrain was chosen to be traversed. Special units were there to create reads through the swamps for the tanks in order to send as many tanks as possible through the rear of the army group center. Maybe this is something stored for the next video.
The allies at that time, 1944, were supporting each other, not competing. It was planned for D day to begin first, in support, the operation Bagration began which was also planned to take place. To avoid leaks, only the timetable was set and tactical operations would be secret even to allies on both sides.
Otherwise, it was very informative.
lend-lease was virtually free as the terms were very very favorable to the borrowers. Even during the war, the payments were deferred until the war effort finished. The point of the video and the comparison with Germany is to show that it was not sustainable without lend-lease.
What you are referring to (about the Swamps) is the 1st Belorussian army coming out of the Pripyat marshes. Yes it will eventually be mentioned.
And yes, the allies were working together, but that was a rebuttal to frequent criticisms mentioned by slavoboos.
@@BlitzOfTheReich it wasn't "virtually free", it was at an extremely good price. Which is a good thing for allies fighting a common enemy. Personally, I think that all this talk of who wouldn't be able to hold on without someone else degrades the memories of those who fought in this rare collaboration of nations against realistic danger.
Many people in the USSR were hoping that after the war along with the brothers from the west will ensure peace. Great many were surprised then Chirchil declared the cold war.
Yeah, lend lease significantly increased in 1943 and onwards, but don't forget about the reasons behind this. Although, the tide has already turned that year, Stalin was aware of Allied plans of possible attack on Soviet Union (Operations Pike and Unthinkable) thanks to his spies in the UK, and wanted to acquire as much equipment as possible for the upcoming war.
I don't think the tide had already turned. The Soviet economy nearly collapsed in 1942.
I would recommend not having the patreon plug followed by an ad in the middle. I almost closed the tab, given that a patreon plug followed by a UA-cam ad signals the end of the video in basically the entire genre of historical youtube. The only reason I didn't was how short the video was up to that point.
I was trying to mimic what TIK does just to experiment. I will need more data to see if it is affecting the view count. Thank you for mentioning it though.
@Redsand I wasn't mimicking him in that regard.
Great series on a very interesting topic! Keep it up
Such an underrated channel, I thought you would’ve had 500,000 subs! Keep it up bud
Haha well, I'm trying, but it takes a lot of effort and dedication. Thanks!
The schedule is kinda loose so...
@@huntermad5668 yes because I don’t sacrifice quality for quantity. Plus I dont earn much from this channel. If you want to make a difference then please consider donating.
Incredible work! It truly is satisfying to see actual effort and research done into properly understanding the Red Army’s offensive operations instead of just buying into the same old dumb stereotypes. Can’t wait for the next episode(;
I'll admit that I bought into those stereotypes long ago, but I really appreciate Soviet military theory now.
Haha same with me my, friend. Though I admit, they did motivate me ti read lots of great books on the subject by Glantz, Zaloga, Forzyck, etc.
@@901Sherman I've read all three that you have cited, but the only one that I have truly read from end to end is Glantz. I have read Soviet General Staff Reports + Mark Harrison + William Connor a lot more than the other two you mentioned.
Yeah exactly this dummy has no actual understanding of the planned economy of the Soviet Union and how Marxist principles and the planned economy were what made rhd Soviet Union better rank design and superior economic output. These facts make him uncomfortable so he doesn’t like to talk about them all thd research in the world can’t fix capitalist brainwashing
@@BlitzOfTheReich no you don’t if you did you would understand that deep battle theory is based on Marxist principles it is literally outlined in the papers for the deep battle theory when it was written. Dumbasss
Great series, thank you
thank you for watching!
Thank you for these videos!
Thank you for watching!
4:59 "Huh, that was short... wait, no."
haha it was a trick.
@@BlitzOfTheReich still have ended with a cliffhanger.
@@webkeeper because an Operation of this size simply cannot be covered in a 10-minute video without tremendously oversimplifying it.
@@BlitzOfTheReich naturally. It wasn't a complaint. But you managed to include two cliffhangers in one episode.
waiting for the next episode. Love the detail.
The best soldiers are the friends we made along the way
No it's the spec ops obviously
Love the quality !
Thanks my dude!
such an underrated channel, you deserve way more subs
Share this with your friends then. :)
Great stufff, subbed.
welcome home!
Funny that Rokossowski is wearing a Marshal of Poland uniform in a video about a Soviet military operation of 1944. He was appointed the 5th Marshal of Poland and the Polish Minister of Defence in 1949.
Listen here bud. Public domain footage/pictures are hard to come by. I know it is Polish, but I don't care.
@@BlitzOfTheReich I am sure there are many public domain photos of Rokossowski in Soviet uniforms and decorations. The thing is that the Marshal's postwar political career as the Minister of Defense and Head Officer of the Polish People's Army is much less heroic and quite controversial, to say the least. Suffice it to say that the post-Stalin's Thaw resulted in him being politely asked to resign from the post and return to Moscow, never again to return to Poland, leaving his beloved sister behind.
@@SzalonyKucharz I am well aware of the controversy surrounding his tenure in Poland. Again, finding public domain photographs of him is harder than you think. Most of them come from the Polish archives because they have a condition of releasing things to the public domain. The Russian ministry of defense does not.
The Lend-Lease trucks were never representing "well over half" of the Soviet fleet of trucks and jeeps.
On January 1, 1943, there was 22,100 imported trucks out of 404,500 in the Red Army (5.4%).
On January 1, 1944, there was 94,100 imported trucks out of 496,000 in the Red Army (19,0%).
On January 1, 1945, there was 191,300 imported trucks out of 621,200 in the Red Army (30,4%).
Also, could you shortly explain how Harrison came up to that Net import was 17% (and 18%) of the Soviet national income in 1943-44?
I am sorry but the data comes directly from U.S. government reports on deliveries. How are you going to fudge them this time?
@@BlitzOfTheReich There is no problem in the quantities of deliveries at all. There are no differences between the Soviet and the US Lend Lease data.
The problem is you're quoting Sakwa who pulled this out of his a..
Why didn't you quote him about the locomotives and wagons from the same sentence, to make it even more funny?
At least the railroad transport was the most important for the operation ( 400,000 wagons vs 50,000 trucks).
And no comment on Harrison?
@@simplicius11 I only used Sakwa for the total cost of foreign aid at $11 billion. I mean, he has truck data, but I supported this with primary sources to show that he wasn't lying. The actual truck data comes directly from US congressional reports in 1945. Sakwa's figures include shipping costs (probably) as the US figures were $9 billion or so.
Harrison must have simply taken the GDP of the Soviet Union which was the national income (as most of the GDP was by the residents of the country) and simply tracked the inflows of imports due to lend-lease.
You are way too dismissive of historians without actually analyzing their work. Also, you are way way too accepting of Soviet sources without really verifying them. In this documentary, I gave nuance and treated both with caution.
@@BlitzOfTheReich "I only used Sakwa for the total cost of foreign aid at $11 billion"
No you didn't, if you did that everything would be fine.
2:53 "...most importantly of all, over half of the Soviet light vehicles were supplied by LL."
"Harrison must have simply taken the GDP of the Soviet Union"
No, he didn't. With this you're showing that you are not familiar with Harrison's work.
But anyway, i figured it out myself. You are using his outdated work "Resources..." (1988) and he corrected his data in his more recent work "Accounting for war..."(1996).
imgur.com/3cjAwzs
imgur.com/5WOEn88
So, your graph is wrong and outdated. It should be 5% (1942) and 10%(1943, 1944). Quite a difference.
And just to add, if you'd understand on how many approximations and estimates is his, even recent work based on, you'd realize how inaccurate his (even recent) estimates could be.
Unfortunately, I'm not aware that anyone else is doing anything in this field, so his work could be used as some kind of a step holder for future (But not his outdated work).
@@simplicius11 I used Sakwa for raw lend-lease figures and yes for trucks, but it was simply supplementary data that was complementing the original source.
I know what you mean, that you take issue with 'over half', but your data contradicts the amount that Sakwa + the US government states that it supplied to the Soviets (I mean, my 425k figure for light vehicles is still over half). You didn't offer a source.
Regarding Harrison, I am familiar with most of his works, but I admit that I didn't realize resource mobilization was from 1988. However, I do know what GNI is. What I meant is that it is GDP +/ trade flows. That's why I stated that it is based on the residents because GNI is basically the measure of income by the nationals of the country. I studied political economy I know the basics of national accounts.
'Gross national income (GNI) is defined as gross domestic product, plus net receipts from abroad of compensation of employees, property income and net taxes less subsidies on production.' OECD
Also, those were 'alternative measures that he posted' in which he divides net imports with GDP. In the 1988 version, he subtracts the utilization of total resources for war from domestic financing of the war effort. That gives you the differential.
He uses Bergson for the above source as well as in the book you cited. The source he uses to calculate the net imports is from Bergson in 1961 p276. Also the most important concern is that the pictures that you sent me do not factor in depreciation which may be factored in in 'Resource mobilization'. The depreciation would reduce the national product as seen in page23 of your book. As an accountant in training, there are many ways of calculating depreciation. Even Harrison voices his concern in the below paragraph:
"As far as the latter is concerned, the
lack of information about depreciation outside industry and transport
left little choice but to keep the input/output table on a gross basis; but
it was important to know the rate and distribution of depreciation costs
among the industrial processing sectors, and these are shown in table" p238
This shows that the answer is much more complicated because the depreciation would increase the net imports by 1 per cent (11% in 1943/44 and 5% in 1942). If his depreciation figures are even off by a bit, then a figure between yours and mine could be possible. However, the GNP figure is the floor, so to speak.
Perhaps I can leave a disclaimer as this is quite a complicated calculation.
Just got to your channel. Good stuff. Keep it up!
Thanks! How did you come about it? Was it just recommended?
Edit: 2:52 Harrison has provided more recent estimates on net imports that lower the % of national income to around 10%; however, this does not factor depreciation. With depreciation, it would be at 11%.
Really like the civilian economic analysis
Hey Blitz of the Reich, I love your videos! Would you mind if you uploaded the script in a document file in the newer videos you produce? I really appreciate the respect you have for history and your attempt at removing ideological narrative from the facts. I'd just really appreciate the scripts you produce because what you say comes across as better in written form and your videos are essentially tl;drs of books. Anyway thank you for all that you do, you make great videos and I hope you get the viewership you deserve!
Haha thank you. I am taking a slight break. I would say my videos are tldr, but I do add my own analysis. :)
I am re-replying to this comment. I will most likely release the Bagration script.
Hello there, who were the "Best soldiers" of The Kaiseliche Heer (The German Empire) during Early WW1??
@Redsand ok
Your videos are fucking great. Contratz!
thanks for watching. :)
The few times the Stavka was being realistic.
Yep, their battle reports are still biased as hell, but there is a semblance of sanity there.
I’ve never heard of operation bagration
@@inclusiveschool9224 Wow. You certainly missed a lot. It was not the final nail but it was definitely the biggest one by a wide margin.
I thought the collosal " Success " Of operation market garden was the pivotal point of ww2....
2:05 Were the allies really shipping lend-lease supplies over the Pacific Ocean so close to Japan?
Yes, they mainly sent supplies via the Northern Pacific. The ocean is too big for the Japanese to cover it all.
@@BlitzOfTheReich
Did they happen to see any of the bodies Hilary dumped there whilst making these milk runs?
The japanese alse purposfully did not target amy covoys headed for the soviet union to avoid provocating the ussr
The ships were reflagged as belonging to the soviet union. If the Japanese attacked them, it would have gone VERY badly for them.
Love this channel but its part 3 and we still havent got to the main attacks
This simply isn't a military history channel that gives a very dry day-by-day talk through the corresponding battles. In order to understand Bagration fully, we need to understand the context. All of this has to do with Bagration and is very important to understanding why it developed the way it did.
It was Konstantin Rokossovsky who masterminded Bagration down to the smallest detail.
He had to convince Stallin three times before Stalin would agree to it.
Completely unlikely. Antonov, Shtemenko and their staff in the Operations Directorate were heavily involved in planning the details of operations of this scale. And, most of the Marshals (Rokossovsky, Zhukov, Vassilevsky, Konev, etc.) acknowledged that Antonov was the one who was able to sell these plans to Stalin.
Wonderful presentation.
RS. Canada
Can you do a video on Rokossovsky ?? He most certainly deserves one.
did homeboy say the similarities of liberalism and marxism??
Excellent
4th episode please
I haven't had time sadly. :(
Finally!!!
Rockin' Softly with Rokossovsky
Slowly but surely.
Have you played steel division 2 and do you think It bagration portrays relatively accurate. The campaign is supposed to be fun so inaccuracy are expected for gameplay and functionality.
I know of the game, but I have never played it before.
@@BlitzOfTheReich ooh you should try it. Would recommend
@@drox3992 I've just been waiting for it to be on sale.
@@BlitzOfTheReich cool. A video Idea off mine is if you did a review of how that game is good or bad. Of course after this series is done. Still love the content 😀❤️
basically the war in Russia ,, the only hope the German army had after Stalingrad was to delay the inevitable for as long as possible.
I just saw a video by Military History Visualized. The Germans lost way more soldiers in mid-1944 than in Stalingrad.
Emm isn't Bagration supposed to be pronounced forvo.com/word/багратион/ ?
Sure, but I speak English and find my way to be more natural due to the -ion suffix.
Hi, Who were the "Best Soldiers" France had in early WW1?
Je n'ai aucune idée
Funny how you pronounce Bagration the English way xDDD
Technically the Romance way.
How does the economic support of the Soviet Union in WW2 compare to current support of Ukraine by the US/NATO forces?
that would actually be a very interesting idea to research!
deep analysis of deep battle. very good, brother (read with russian accent)
Thank you for this video. Deep battle and its initiative, deception, deployment, and exploitation is an awesome strategy. Bitzkrieg was so tactical and old fashioned! The better strategy won in the end:).
I have one issue though. You say that operation Bagration was the most decisive operation of World War Two. I might disagree with that, and I will explain why. But before I do I want to say I love your work and keep them comin'. If Operation Bagration was the most decisive operation of the war, then why was there more fighting after the Soviet deep battle? The Red Army continued suffering heavy cuasalties reaching Vistula and then Oder rivers. And the Berlin operation cost between 70-80,000 Soviet lives. Imagine fighting in the 62nd army at Stalingrad under Chuikov, and then dying with the 8th Guards Army in Berlin. That is sad. Plus contrary to popular belief after the Kursk debacle, the Germans still one major initiative in their arsenal and they launched a powerful offense in the Ardennes region. So the Germans were still gamed. Plus if Operation Bagration was so decisive in World War Two, howdid effect the Japanese? We know the Germans were still pretty gamed and dangerous, but it was another Soviet deep battle offensive called Operation August Storm launched against the Japanese Kwantung Army in Manchuria that froced the Japanese to surrender. It was not the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that forced Japan to surrender, but the presence of 1 million + Red Army soldiers acorss the small sea between Japan and mainland Asia that finally forced Japan to surrender.
To me it is August Storm, the 100 days offensive of World War One, and the Tet Offense of Vietnam War that can be described as decisive.
Keep up the great work. I love your videos. My name is Arber Gega and I graduated from Birkbeck and UCL with degrees from political science. And like you military history is close to my heart. Generals, weapons, amd tactics all fascinate me:).
I think you contradict yourself when you state that Bagration was not decisive because the war continued for quite a while with Russia continuing to sustain heavy losses, yet you state that Tet was decisive. Tet was decisive only in a political sense. Tet was not a military or strategic success at all. It would be another 6 years until U.S. withdrew all combat troups, and another year until NVA captured Saigon.
Bagration is the most decisive operation because it is the culmination of the allied war effort: the perfection of Soviet theory + allied production via lend-lease. It also solidified the success of Operation August Storm. I would also say that August Storm alone wouldn't have forced the Japanese to surrender. The Atomic bombings did play their role.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Thank you so much for the reply:). I have reached the conclusion watching this documentary (ua-cam.com/video/LBuMDG2TvcY/v-deo.html). It was made on the late 1990s. If you were Japan and you were fighting the British on the Burma, and Americans in the Pacific and now the Red Army appeared on your doorstep, frocing you to make a tough decision and surrender. Plus how many more nuclear bombs the Americans had. Ketsugo or the Japanese defense of their country would have heavily compromised if 1 million Red Army soldiers invaded Japan as well as the many houndreds of thousands of US troops. Again I love your videos and keep them comin'.
@@rudolphguarnacci197 Excellent point:). The difference is that in America you can be a crazy, stupid, and unpatriotic and you burn the American flag. In Nazi Germany you get executed. So the political ideology matters here. Tet Offensive was a major blow to US morale and since America was a democracy that anger can be magnified. Typhoon, Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration, Battle fo Bulge defeats did not get the same level of unpatriotic response from the Germans for two reasons. Firstly as stated the ideology was more dictatorial and you can get executed, and second the country was getting invaded. COntext is key here. Thank you:).
@@twoheadeddatascientist3289
Don't worry. Now the marxists have complete control in U.S.
Great job, just watched this series and wanted to give you some explanation to Maskirovka element (concealment), it's execution and effect was simply astonishing. They managed to prepare greatest operation and be so sneaky about it, that even the commander of the Center Army Group has left to vacation 3 days before it's start. ua-cam.com/video/ppCUHPgugiE/v-deo.html - you can see it's brief explanation by the timecode i given on the documental film about the operation, English subtitles available.
And to add, also Soviet partisans made a great role in it with their "Rail War". They received orders from high command to not attack railroad and German trains/communications headed South, who took the bait of false intel of operation starting there and started moving forces there. They let them pass as much as possible away from the Belarus, and when the time comes, when the operation starts, when Germans in haste started pulling all forces back in Belarus - blow up railroads, disrupt communication, cease help, win timing for the frontlines.
Also how constantly ongoing engineering preparations of the Red Army proved itself not only in defensive, but on the offensive side, as the Bagration shown - they re-arranged whole swamped area to give ability to it's tanks and infantry cannons move through there by makeshift bridges placed on engineeringly scouted areas. Germans were in shock as during the fighting they never anticipated the coming of tank forces from a different direction of completely impossible-to-pass-through locations. It was simply logical and a right thing to not expect tanks from there thus weakening defenses on that direction, but you do not fight Red Army by using a common sense.
Also add:
"All orders to the unit commanders were given PERSONALLY by the army commanders; telephone conversations concerning preparation for the offensive, even in coded form, were strictly prohibited. The fronts preparing for the operation went into radio silence. At the forefront, active engineering works were carried out to simulate deep defense preparations. The minefields were not removed completely, so as not to alarm the enemy by the fact of their removal, the sappers were limited to screwing fuses off the mines right after operation start. Concentration of troops and regrouping were carried out mainly at night. Dedicated General Staff officers patrolled the area on recon airplanes to monitor compliance with camouflage measures of moving troops. Lighting lamps of the vehicles were removed completely and put away in storage, so they could be retrieved after the signed permission from the high command officers themselves."
Are you more interested in the Western Front of "The Great War" (Battle of Mulhouse, Battle of Verdun, Meusse-Argonne Campaign) or the Fronts of the Russian Empire (Ober Ost, Caucasus, Galitzia)???
Keep in mind the Germans suffered more losses against the French than against the Tzars, the Brits, etc
I'm definitely more interested in the Western Front of World War 1 more. I only really know about the Russian Civil War.
How to pronounce Pyotr Bagration - ua-cam.com/video/fOnlwb0WM6A/v-deo.html
By late 1941 ~25% russsian medium tanks were western (mostly Valentine and Matilda, armed with 37mm). By 1945, some Red Army armoured units were standardized to depend primarily on lend lease (instead of theT-34) eg. 1st Guards Mechanized Corps, the 3rd Guards Mechanized Corps and the 9th Guards Mechanized Corps. The Sherman was held in high regard (just over 1/2 supplied had the 76mm). US Trucks were ubiquitous. Propaganda (understandably) avoided photographing them.
I am using declassified US sources on lend-lease for this video. Please, look at the citations. Don't let the current war cast a shadow on this video.
hi there in your operation bagration pt 1 you mention that the main Soviet forces attacked the most fortified areas. but why did they do this?
The Soviets did not necessarily rely on finding vulnerabilities like the Germans. The fortified areas just corresponded to the areas of highest interest ie the flanks.
@@BlitzOfTheReich ok thanks for the response. so when you talked about attacking the most fortified those areas were the highest priority target. I am i understanding this right?
@@jadencornelius6013 Yes, they were. the 1st Belorussian Front was attacking the Bobruisk sector whilst the 3rd Belorussian Front and the 1st Baltic Front attacked the Vitebsk/Orsha area.
@@BlitzOfTheReich thanks again for the reply.
Interesting shirt... not many people on the left or right want to recognize the commonality of Adam Smith and Marx. Have you read Theory of Moral Sentiments? In its day, it was seen as a radical attempt to define morality based entirely on Smith’s proto-sociology and without regard for religion. It’s an interesting read, because American liberalism went in a very different direction, inheriting the spiritual individualism of the Transcendentalists (which you can see in everything from the 60’s counter-culture to self help books today). Smith was of course a liberal, but he focused on the interaction between people rather than the radical individualist, navel-gazing liberalism we ended up with.
I have not read theory of moral sentiments. I've barely even read wealth of nations, but I am familiar with the commonalities between the two thinkers especially when comparing alienation with Smith's mental mutilation. Your take on it is quite fascinating. I studied philosophy in University, but for whatever reason I was more interested in the analytical school and presocratics. Thank you for your insight.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Right, there’s a lot of commonality. I think Marx said his work would have been impossible without the foundation of the Scottish Enlightenment. The Theory of Moral Sentiments is more of an intellectual dead end, but it’s actually a pretty good read... highly recommended.
Its bagra-ti-on. Nice video.
th-ank-you
Who were the "Best Soldiers" of the Russian Empire in WW1???
Kornilov regiment infantry
*July days intensifies
You have grossly overrated the impact of the Land Lease by the West to the Soviet Union on the success of Operation Bagration. It has to be underlined that almost half of all the Western aid to the Soviet Union from the Northern route was being destroyed by the German U Boats' or Wolf Packs. So while aid from the West was welcome, it did not help the Soviet Union much militarily. Operation Bagration was planned 6 months before the invasion of Normandy by the Western Allies. The Soviet Union employed a strategy of diversion to the utmost by making the Germans think that they would attack from the South by moving armor and tanks in full view of the Germans to the South while hiding much larger movements of troops to the center through camouflage and by strictly carrying out such movements at night. This helped in maintaining the element of surprise till the launch of the Soviet offensive which took the Germans completely off guard.
The vast majority of lend-lease came through the Pacific, not the Northern Route.
@@BlitzOfTheReich, also the Iranian route. Iran, which both, the USSR and England invaded at that time to keep it quiet.
@@webkeeper absolutely true. I have a very old video on lend-lease where I show the proportion that went through the Iranian route.
Just a tiny nitpick in an otherwise phenomenal video. Bagration is pronounced like BAG-RA-TEE-ON.
Not BAG-REI-SHUN.
Крутая работа
I think the true nemesis of carl Marx is mises not Adam smith
If the Allies had a preponderance of armaments why didnt they invade France in 1943.
The Allies didn't do the fighting against Germany during Bagration. They didnt supply any divisions.
Their weakness is why they were able to supply the Soviets for their efforts.
To claim that without this aid the Soviets couldn't have still beat Germany is ridiculous because the Soviets have been doing that since 1941 ...far before the allies were able to produce substantial armaments themselves ...which they could most certainly do because of course the US had no invading Germans on their soil ...easy to ramp up production them and invade France only when they were good and ready ....big deal .....
The Soviet economy would of collapsed by 42 without lend lease. Even if it did t collapse the the USA was sending planes, trains, trucks and tanks to help the soviet army become mobile and help them fight the type of war the Germans were fighting in 41. The Soviets weren’t beating the Germans in 41 either they were being pasted everywhere until late 42 early 43 where they encircled the German 6th army.
@@thevettegetsitwett
False...the Soviets were NOT getting "pasted" everywhere. You are not informed of the Eastern Front. You just reflect the typical uninformed bias or pure Cold was revisionism.
If you read Guderian's accounts alone it will be clear the Germans were struggling a few weeks into Barbarossa.
Hitlers defeat ( his first strategic defeat). was on 5th December 1941. When Barbarossa failed. With it Germany's hopes of breaking their dependence on raw materials.
THAT'S WHEN WW2 WAS LOST TO THE GERMANS .....
● you do not understand the scale of the conflict on the EF. Aid was a fraction of the material needs.
You have a lot of reading to do. :-)
● There were no weapons the Allies had that were better than what the Russians had. If you had read the EF you would know that. German accounts alone would make that clear.
3000 P39 would not make an impact? The Soviets produced 46000 IL 2 alone ?
● A reading of the meetings between Churchill and Stalin would be clear as to who dominated the relationship. That wouldn't have happened if the Allied Aid had been vital to Russia.5% of what the Russians produced themselves. Their T34 was the most produced tank and their IL 2 -worlds first armoured dive bomber - the most produced aircraft of WW2.
A stupendous performance given the US sat on its ass till 1944 before it was able to take on the Nazis. Was it a coincidence they attacked only after the Red Army destroyed the German tank armies and reserves in 1943?
● One attack on the Allied convoy PQ38 if I recall..and Churchill canceled all convoys for 1942?.if the Soviets had depended on Allied Aid they would have collapsed when the Convoys were canceled?
● The Allies struggled against the nazis in France. If not for Operation Bagration the Allies would not have been able to proceed with Cobra. The Allies NEVER surrounded and crushed the Nazis like the Red Army was capable.
● no allied contemporary news or account ever denied the dominant contribution of the Red Army in defeating Germany. Churchill gifted the Sword of Stalingrad and FDR gave a plaque acknowledging this contribution.
It was only after July 1945 that the Allies suddenly got balls to face the Soviets and force them to adapt the western agenda in Eastern Europe.
What a dastardly stab in the back by the so-called allies to the country that did the most to defeat Hitler.
Well ...what do you expect from the words largest colonial power fighting to subjugate its colonies ..helped by a rising economic power enslaving Blacks in the Jim Crow south, segregating its soldiers as it fought Hitler for racial justice ?
The USSRs economy never collapsed ..as Hitler wrote Stalin had done a great job preparing the country for war.
We will never know know if their economy would have worked because if it was defunct why did the Allies have to embargo the USSR? The West may claim socialism does not work but it reacted with fear as if does work? Why the contradiction.
China is now the world's largest economy ...that doesn't say much for the US and its policy of sanctioning countries for economic gain. Belies the principle of competition.
Not bagration. Bah-grah-tee-yon
Yes, I know that; however, the way that I pronounce it feels more comfortable to me due to the English suffix -ion.
Go Rokkosovsky!
Bagration?? is that the correct pronunciation?
not in Russian, but I latinized it.
Not a fan of the artistic side of the video, but the documentary is good.
can you elaborate?
@@BlitzOfTheReich Not a fan of the music and memes. Just not good. This doesn't include maps and animations, which are very nice.
@@stef1896 Ah okay, I thought it was the inverse which I am quite happy about. The memes are simply filler because editing is quite boring. The music is to file the monotone background, which is very monotone. I try to tone it down though. I'm feeding you so much information. I expect viewers to pause in order to reflect. Think of the videos are wikipedia pages.
Dude, you have to check basic Russian words pronunciation. it is /bʌɡrʌtiˈɒn/ not Bagration (Georgian-Russian general who fought Napoleon)
I am speaking English. Deal with it.
beforw u say land lesse 400.000 trucks.
look at germany takong of almost entire Europe industry...the frwnch the polish etd all put in servise for germany
so interesting .. and still relevant. And hey, you only need one like to reach 1k likes. *fingers crossed* Good luck !
Thank you!
Pronunciation of the name Bagration (name of russian XIX century general and hero) is awful !
Should be: Bagh - rat - Yohn (accent on Y) Google translator pronounces correctly.
Otherwise great job!
I know I know I know I know. I am speaking English, not Russian. I am Latinizing the name.
I watched a couple of your videos and they are good info. And I am big history.
But what do you mean by commonalities with Liberalism and Marxism being the same?
Liberalism is freedom of expression. Individual empowerment, expressing yourselves. (Gays, trans, female, other races have all been allowed under "liberal" countries because the Individual comes before the group or the state.
Marxism is the group first which is always run by a dictator. You will be a slave to the group and not allowed to express yourself or start a business and a youtube channel under Marxism. Just look it up, I have been to the eastern bloc and they all hate Communism cause of what it did to them and there families. Its a lie the young and naive western kids keep believing.
("But they never implemented true Marxism".... After 100 times of trying and it always turning into a despotic dictator taking over, its not a good system.
True liberalism has checks and balances in Government which protects the people from psychopaths and Dictators taking over. Its a protection to keep from infringing on others rights.
I pray to God and all the higher powers that we are not this stupid to continue to fall for this.
Welcome to my channel. If you were to analyze it further, you'd see that I am an ardent anti-communist and critic of the Soviet Union. That being said, that statement was based on objective written facts when comparing the works of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Look up Smith's concept of mental mutilation in regard to manufacturing jobs and compare it to workers alienation of Marx. My point is that in this regard and many others, both thinkers held similar views. They just disagreed on the solutions.
First
welcome welcome
Been loving this series until you went all “liberalism = Marxism” b.s.. omfg? Seriously? 🙄🤦🏻♂️🙇🏻♂️