Learn about the MOLOTOV-RIBBENTROP PACT: ua-cam.com/video/yuXMR8RDFow/v-deo.html Learn about DUTCH VOLUNTEERS FOR THE WAFFEN-SS: ua-cam.com/video/bQlF0ia-ABA/v-deo.html
You should do a video about the myth of that the ss fighters were elite fighters with advanced weaponry like hydra when in reality it was the opposite in which they were notorious in scavenging weapons especially ironically from the Soviets and by the end of the war most of if not half the ss weren't German nor aryan but foreign especially those considered inferior with some of their best fighters were foreigners such as the ss wikings division and the ss French charlemagne units that fought to the better end at the battle of Berlin taking out alot of Soviet tanks during the end of the war. They were resented by the regular german army for taking away resources and weapons such as the tiger tanks especially from rommel himself and they weren't considered a true military force especially led my himmler who never fought in ww2 compare to Hitler and goering that was said to mock him behind his back due to this.
Wasn’t another factor that drove historians to cite German sources the fact that the Soviet state archives were kept secret until 1991? I don’t believe anyone really knew the specific numbers about the war effort, beyond propaganda like Tass, until they were opened.
@@HistoryHustle There were several Soviet sources available during the cold war, but they were usually ignored or scoffed at for being 'communist propaganda'. Since you're Dutch, have you ever read G.L. Rozanov 'Hitlers Laatste Dagen' ? It described the Soviet perspective of the fall of Berlin and came out in 1962, also in The Netherlands. Highly interesting to read and it mentions sources I haven't seeing mentioned in 'capitalist studies', while those do substantiate the events and facts mentioned.
Great point. The lifting of "Easter veil " was a big reveal. Katrina Witt's stasi file to poor Laika's pedigree crimes and accomplishments still await scholarship. I have never understood the motivation of the guilty to be such meticulous record keepers .
Great video as always! It was a real eye-opener to see how these myths, many of which I believed, could have been propagated. I have two comments, though: At 4:44 you said "temperatures went below 35 degrees *Celsius*" (emphasis added). I think you meant "Fahrenheit," right? Speaking as a Canadian in November, 35 C in December would be just lovely to experience! :D Though, I'd have to go to Australia get it. You didn't cover my favorite Barbarossa myth: that Stalin was so shocked by the attack that in depression, he hid in his bunker for the first two weeks of the invasion and left his people with no direction. Apparently that one was started by Khrusechev as part of his effort to denigrate Stalin (as if one would need to lie to do that, but anyway).
I confirm that it was minus 30-35 Celsius and it bothered not only the Germans, but also the Russians. Russians don't like frost either, as you can imagine.
There are memories of officials close to Stalin that he did not meet anyone for three or four days. However, all these memories date back to the years of Khrushchev's reign. As a person born in the USSR, I cannot refute these rumors, as they were in our school history books, but I cannot trust Khrushchev, the main party official of the Ukrainian SSR, who not only signed lists for execution in the 30s of the last century, but also assigned quotas for the repressed..
@@vladimirnikolskiy The crossover point is minus 40: forty below Celsius is the same as forty below Fahrenheit -- perfectly normal January in Eastern Ontario if you're twenty kilometres away from the Saint Lawrence.
@@TheDavidlloydjones I checked and it's true! This is an interesting fact when Celsius and Fahrenheit met, shook hands and ran to warm themselves with vodka, whose strength is measured in degrees and you know what it is equal to vodka.👍🏼👍🏼
And always that story about "General Winter" who helped the Russians. It is true that the Russians are somewhat more accustomed to winter than the Germans. But, let's be realistic, when it's -35 degrees Celsius (-31 degrees Fahrenheit), then it's cold on both sides of the front, and no one wants to fight at such extreme temperatures. To bring the Eskimos, even they would say, "Wait for it to warm up a little, then we'll counterattack."
There was an American football coach who was asked if the rain was the cause for his teams poor performance. He said "It rained on both sides of the field."
@@christopherconard2831 Exactly! Sport is also a competition, but thank God, without human military and civilian casualties, with certain rules and fair play, but it is still a competition between people, so this comparison is totally in place. That American football coach simply but very wisely summed things up on the field..
Having flown into eastern Russia ( Petropavlovsk ) numerous times and seen Russian aircraft service technicians standing in 10 to 15 kt winds at -15c without any appearance of being affected by the cold. Also not wearing clothing that seemed overly warm. I have concluded Russians are largely unaffected by the cold. Compared to the rather soft living Germans grew up in. Nothing takes the life out a person faster than being unbearably cold. My German mother remembers her mother giving up her fur coat to send to a soldier on the Eastern front during that winter.
@@thommykent7785 only a small percentage of people (and of all countries in the Soviet Union, only in Russia) in the Red Army had experienced these conditions on a regular basis, similar to the US, who have Alaska, and back then the British Empire, who had Canada. Moscow’s and even St. Petersburg’s climates are waaaay milder, you need to go to the (sub-)Arctic or really remote regions of Siberia for that. Lastly, the Finns fought on the German side initially, and that didn’t help beat the weather. A major factor was that the Soviets were fighting on home soil, the Nazi’s resilience also rose when they were pushed back beyond their own borders. And besides, water freezes, no matter where it comes from.
When it comes to numerical superiority, I would point to the fact that the Soviets lost battle after battle, millions of POWs but they still pulled more and more soldiers from the east. Germany didn't have such huge base of manpower.
To some degree true, the peace with Japan made it possible to move troops from the Far East to the western front in the Sovjet-union. And the size of Russian reserves was understimated by the german command. However, the strongly populated european area was occupied by the Germans. Besides that, having manpower is just one factor in creating armies. Logistics and training matter. Regarding armies, Germany was also able to replace losses in soldiers until the endphase. Add the benefit of defensive warfare, and the numerical superiority was not the crucial factor, neither for Russians or Germans.
'The AXIS powers that took part in Barbarossa had a nearly 2:1 ratio of numerical superiority and the surprise-effect with which they executed the operation, acted as a force-multiplier of at the very least that same ratio. Add to that the pervasive 'speed' effect on the drugged and hopped-up on 'Panzerschokolade' German troops and you would have a pretty substantial initial combat advantage. BUT in the term 'INITIAL' lies the rub so to speak. Just as they ran out of their favourite war-candy, the fresh and massive Soviet replacements arrived from Siberia (where they had been freed up from having to keep track of the Japanese war-effort.). That, AND the start of the Russian winter, as well as the USA entering the war as a combattant in Northern Africa put great strain on the Wehrmacht etc.
@@zexal4217 I don't know where you get your figures, but I strongly suggest to re-check those numbers and use a variety of sources. Some sources are slanted according to an agenda other than being on facts.
@@oddballsok TIK is a good choice for a point of reference. Doesn't mean I always agree with him but TIK is meticulous, reliable and for as far as I can determine honest with the info he gives.
A few points. English is not related to German, it IS a Germanic language. What kept the Germans from taking Moscow were three things. 1 - Hitler did not see Moscow as a priority, so diverted forces. 2 - The German supply lines were stretched to the limit, whereas the Soviets were receiving supplies from factories in Moscow and Gorky. 3 - The Japanese Soviet pact allowed the Soviets to divert men from Manchuria to the West. On manpower, sure the local numbers favored the Germans, but the Soviet reserves available were in the millions, and as Soviet soldiers fell, they were replaced with equal or greater numbers of untrained conscripts. Sometimes correcting history can swing too much in the other direction.
Excellent and thank you from Canada. Also, thanks for the tulip bulbs Holland sends Canada every year and are grown in our nation’s capital every spring.
The reality of history is what is taught today isn't what is going to be taught tomorrow, every generation of historian is going to debunk the myths and unintentionally create myths in the process.
Great video professor I had never seen this one but it poses some great points that are rarely discussed! I would also argue that as like you said with many factors contributing to the Nazi defeat in Barbarossa one of the major ones being Hitlers radical mistake of moving alot of his armies to take Stalingrad which I believe started a domino affect on his eastern campaign.
I dont agree with you ! Stalingrad was absolutely not an objective. In 1942, the Germans had absolutely not a single idea about a viable strategical goal. Hitler was against Moscow in the beginning. He was for the economic goals. If Stalingrad came to mind it is only because it was imposed by the events, like the spliting of the southern front after Rostov.
Oh and on the topic of Germans and Soviets swapping their strategic methods, the odd thing is that they also swapped the ways in which their leaders handled leading the war. Hitler started listening less and less to his generals and overruled them more often with sometimes harebrained edicts, whereas Stalin took to relying more and more on his military commanders and more often granted them (somewhat) more freedom and initiative to implement strategy in order to effectuate successful tactics. Just thought that I'd mention it.
Back in 2000, I had the privilige to visit the Motherland museum in Kyiv. i must say, I was impressed, by the huge scale of the fighting on the Eastern Front. Very, very impressive museum I can say! As a Dutchman, i'd never seen this before, while i've been visiting many war museums throughout Europe. The grandfather, of a girlfriend of mine, his brother fought during the battle of Minsk, He was a pilot in an IL-2 Sturmovik fighter-bomber, he crashed and his body has never been recovered. He already had a gold star of hero of Soviet Union medal before that. I still have pictures of his brother, that visited the monument in Minsk for the fallen of that battle. It was the only way, to pay respects to his fallen brother. Unfortunately, that was still back in the days of the Soviet Union, nowadays Ukraine and Belorussia are 2 different countries, so after that it became somewhat more difficult for him. During many years, i've seem to have collected all kinds of stories of so many different people, that would be probably forgotten in time, but thanks to them I've learned from their personal war stories, whether it was in the West, or in the East. I am very thankful for that, because, as time passes, eye witnesses of that war, become fewer and fewer.
Yes, my uncles were in the war and I only talked to one about it. He was in China-India-Burma theater USAAC. He would go into jungle with and spot enemy planes as they had little if any radar. He also repaired radioes in planes. The only story he told me was he witnessed a plane crash upon landing and that you could put the largest piece of wreckage in a letter-sized envelope.
As for numerical superiority, the attacker chooses when and where to mass his forces where as the defender has to spread his forces to cover possible routs of assault. This is the same way that Gen. Jackson had such success in the Valley Campaign of the American Civil War,
Soviets had learned the hard way to fight in the winter. They tried to occupy Finland in 1939, but failed miserably. Finns used many great tactics, even used nowadays and Soviets took notice and that was a big part why Barbarossa failed. Hitler saw the Russian failure at Winter War as a sign of Russian weakness which also was a partial contribute to why Barbarossa was launched in such a short-ish notice.
A common mistake some military planners and politicians make is in assuming the performance of an opponent will be similar to that of a previous war they had fought, without taking into proper account how circumstances may have changed between wars or factors that might make the future conflict more difficult. The Soviets were poorly evaluated on the basis of their lackluster performance in Finland during the Polish-Soviet War, with not enough consideration given to the fact that these were foreign wars where national survival was not at stake, or that the capabilities of the Soviet military had improved by 1941.
People also don't take into account that the German Army suffered its most causalities in the summer through to September of the campaign long before the winter.
@Antoine Mozart Soviet heavy resistance that caused delays and the scourge of the German campaign, which was poor logistics that dampened the wehrmacht big time however thankfully the brilliance of German leadership and professionalism of the military got them so far. Ok the winter did it's part but it never stopped Panzers advancing as the frozen hard ground actually helped them move better compared to the being stuck in the mud in autumn and parts of summer.
So it was basically the same as Napoleon's Grande Armee.. These troops had been constantly fighting and mostly marching for nearly six months over endless dirt roads, with only meager rations, eating them on the move, very little sleep or rest, lice and flee ridden, bad drinking water giving them diarrhiea. And then the icy cold of winter adding to all this misery. They had expected, and were assured, it would be a walkover. But it turned out to be an exhausting meatgrinder, which only the WW1 veteran NCO's and officers experienced before. And had hoped never having to endure again. Which was a major demoralizing factor for a vital chain of Wehrmacht field command. In short; two major combined factors thus caused operation Barbarossa to fail at the closing stages of 1941; 1. Exhaustion. 2. Demoralization. Not very much unlike what happened to Napoleon's army.
Well, the Nazis thought it would be a walkover but unfortunately, this proved to be a costly mistake on their part. The 6 months they did well initially contributed towards the two critical points as the war dragged on and turned into a bloody meat grinder.
t34 and kv1 came as a big surprise for germans, it was a set of circumstances that red army didn't have enough of them and ammo supply and maybe soviet industry was also not capable of producing so much stuff, stalin became furious and also threatened a Il2 factory manager. It was an unfortunate set of circumstances what happened back then
@@HistoryHustle oh Stefan volgens mij liep het hele derde rijk op dat spul en hier was het ook te koop onder een andere naam....gewoon bij de drogist. De Amerikanen en Engelsen hadden later hun eigen versie voor hun militairen.
To be honest, I didn't know that the Wehrmacht had a numerical superiority during the assault on Moscow in December 1941. And even after this documentary to me still remains a mystery how the Soviets managed to push back the Germans in December 1941. At the end of the day, the harsh winter must have played a significant role.
@@anzukadotani8953 That is not a myth at all. Do some research. The Germans had a numerical advantage on the Eastern Front throughout most of Operation Barbarossa. The Soviets eventually would be able to muster more men across the front than their opponents, but that was in 1942, not during 1941.
@@lycaonpictus9662 you're telling me the best army in the history of makind had superior numbers and still failed to take Moscow? You just talke utter rubbish, fuul!
I heard stalin was as worse as hitler, but had heart and honesty and gave the morale to all his soldiers at moscow when the germans were 25 miles from moscow, and the speech that stalin did at the anniversary, and I also believe the encirclement of stalingrad and the americans arriving at North africa is what caused the soviets to push them back because the germans had to open a second front, a quarter of the germans moved to north africa, making their frontline unstable, giving the soviets chance to push them all back.
Stalin worse than Hitler? Depends of what measures you take. You can compare the two murderous ideologies, and the totalitarian dictators. The question is whether asking yourself which one was more evil than the other is the right one. One component often overlooked is that Stalin could live up to his evilness the fullest. Yet, Hitler got defeated. If the Germans had won WWII many, many, MANY more people would have been killed. Take that into account.
@@HistoryHustle Stalin didn't liberate poland and the other countries aswell, , but created ''Eastern bloc'' and named it Warsaw pact or smth for protection against the allies, Stalin also set up Gulags, where MILLIONS died in it, Stalin also made the Eastern bloc poor, not getting any money inside, but the budget was used all for the army. Not the people.
With the benefit of hindsight Germany had already lost the war before the U.S. even really involved in the Second World War. The battle for Moscow occurred in December - January 1941/1942, at roughly the same time as the Pearl Harbor attacks. Case Blue never had any realistic shot at succeeding. While lots of territory was seized it really did nothing to change the overall strategic situation across the front. The Red Army (and Stalin, to an extent) had learned their lessons and were no longer allowing large armies to become encircled and destroyed, but rather were trading territory for time. Aside from seizing the oil of the Caucasus the other major goal of the offensive was to destroy the Red Army in large encirclements like that inflicted on the Soviets in the summer of 1941. The Soviets mostly avoided that and fell back to Stalingrad.
No, I think as far as December 41, the weather played a large part and the lack of winter preparation by the Germans ,even with hitlers indecisiveness about attacking Leningrad ,or rush for oil in the South played a huge part in not capturing Moscow . As in 1814 the were willing to evacuate the capital .IMHO
Well the weather certainly didnt help. It really WAS the coldest winter in quite a very long time. And the "endless number" of Soviet troops really were almost endless. What isnt mentioned much is the fact that the Soviets had initiated a mandatory reserve training program long before the war. That meant that when these men were called up, they already had some military training. Thus they could be equipped and thrown right into the fight. What stymied the Germans most was the depletion of there armor due to breakdown and battle losses. (some divisions were down to half their original strength, and spare parts were needed from a continuously lengthening supply chain) Combined with the fact that the sharp veteran infantry that began the offensive had been whittled down to a dull nub. Untried replacements were ordered to do what that sharp spearpoint had been doing. And that ever-lengthening supply line nailed the lid on the German's coffin. So yes, the failure of Operation Barbarossa was due to many factors. Not just the Russian Winter.
British LL tanks made up 25% of Red army tanks at the Battle of Moscow. These Matilda and Valentines were better than T-28's, the most numerous of the Russian tanks and had already proved themselves against the Panzer 1,2 and early model Panzer 3's. With no training the crews had to learn how to operate them as they went into battle.
I believe that they made the mistake by putting Paulus in charge. He was nothing compared to Chuikov. Paulus ended up bombing Stalingrad ahead of time reducing it to rubble basically negating their advantage because it was impossible for tanks and such to get through the streets and they couldn’t use their artillery or AirPower without killing their own men. Chuikov knew they liked to fight from a distance and made the “cheek to jowl” order to push their advantage in urban warfare which the tactics he came up with are still used to train special forces. Plus, they allowed the mass buildup of forces and to completely missed it multiple times. The Soviets mastered deep battle and the deception (maskirovka) they fell for hook, line, and sinker. Even from the Allies too. Bagration was the perfect example of that.
And the allies didn't learn 2 years later when they bombed Monte Cassino into rubble creating wonderful defensive positions for German paratroopers. Bombing Stalingrad bad, bombing a centuries old monastry good?
A contributing factor towards the myth of the larger Soviet forces is that almost all Soviet units were one size smaller than the western formation of the same name. So a Soviet Corps was roughly the same size as a German division etc. This is confusing when you are reading about particular battles.
Groeten, bravo voor dit hoofdstuk, je hebt de mythen aangeraakt die sommigen gebruiken om afbreuk te doen aan de ontwikkeling van de Sovjet militaire doctrine
It wasn't quite that simple. As noted in the video the Axis actually had the numerical advantage throughout Barbarossa. Moreover large swaths of some of the most populous territory in the Soviet Union fell to German occupation, not to mention the millions of Soviet troops that were taken prisoner in the summer of 1941. By the time the Soviet Union was able to make full use of its manpower the war had - with the benefit of hindsight - already been lost by Germany.
@@lycaonpictus9662 When the Russian launched "Operation Bagration" on June 22nd 1944 they out number germany in everything , even if German's West front could join in. Here is a great Doc about it ua-cam.com/video/rJAEdLnZsgI/v-deo.html It was larger than D-Day in scale.
@@Crashed131963 Operation Bagration was outside the scope of the video, which just covered Operation Barbarossa. The strength of armies deployed across a front could vary greatly between different periods of the war. By 1944 the Soviet Union had fully mobilized, much of the territory that had been conquered by the Germans in 1941 had been liberated (and so the people who lived there could be mobilized as well), and German strength had been whittled away by years of fighting on the Eastern Front and needing to shift some forces to Italy and France to face the Western Allies. Operation Barbarossa lasted from June to December of 1941, and the circumstances were quite different than in 1944 when the Soviets launched Operation Bagration. Through most of Barbarossa Germany had the numerical advantage across the front.
Interesting video. I am originally from Uzbekistan,former USSR, and its interesting to see how they cover the whole topic of Barbarossa in Europe/Netherlands. I actually did my school history research on Barbarossa(it was international school, as in public schools they usually explain it like black and white thing. Sort of Germans were bad, Soviets were good.Obviously I do not try to deny that nazis are bad, and soviet people(i wouldn't say Stalin did something good) did heroic things). I just wonder for whether you,Stefan, heard about the book by Viktor Rezun(former KGB agent) named 'Icebreaker:Who started the WW2(Ledokol in Russian)'. The book was written based on archive materials Rezun found in 90's, some memoirs and his conversations with other KGB and military people. If you haven't read, the book basically talks about how Staling was preparing an offensive vs. Germany, but unfortunately for Stalin Hitler started Barbarossa, and Stalin lacked a few more months to complete preparations for the offensive operation. I have an English version of the book , so I may share it if you would like to have a look. P.S: really like your channel, hope you get more subscribers:)
Battle of Khalkin Gol in mongolia was the most pivotal battle of ww2....by stopping the japanese in manchuria and keeping mongolia as buffer zone, this battle allowed russia to avoid 2 front wars and allowed millions of siberian troops to the western front...
@@HistoryHustle there isnt a definite start date for ww2 in the east....as the japanese empire started their expansionist policy long before ww2 started in europe....the fact that general zhukov lead the assault in battle of khalkin gol showed that it was very important....
You are right about western historians using German sources during the Cold War, but I would also emphasize that the USSR did not supply much information to the west from their own sources until the end of the Cold War.
It has also been suggested that in the Cold War with the fearsome Soviet threat, it was a comforting thought for the West/NATO to downplay Soviet strength and emphasize German error (and blame Hitler, as did his generals) in assessing the Soviet victory in WWII. That might have been another contributing factor on how we were taught about the war.
Thanks a lot. A few remarks to your video: - Operation Barbarossa was doomed from the beginning. It was delayed, due to Yugoslavia campaign. The original plan was to attack earlier and finish up before winter. There was no plan B. Hence absolute unpreparedness for winter warfare. 1) The fierce resistance of soviet troops in the beginning is overstated. While there were some pockets of resistance, like Brest fortress you told about, there were multiple successful envelopment operations by the Wehrmacht like Kiev, Smolensk, Byalostok-Minsk operations, where multiple soviet divisions seized to exist. The total ammount of soviet troops, captured during the first months of war was over 2 millions. That is more than Wehrmacht and it's allies ever had on the front. Imagine everyone of them firing at least couple of shots towards enemy, let alone fighting till the last bullet. 2) Which brings me to another point. The comparison of total German and allied troops to the troops on the western military district of Soviet Russia is just wrong in several ways. First of all: the numbers don’t add up. Take Kiev military district for example. According to soviet sources (Red Banner Kiev Military district 1979) it alone had on June 21st: 5th, 6th, 26th and 12th armies with reserve 31st, 36th, 37th, 49th, 55th infantry corps, 9th, 15th, 19th, 24th mechanized corps and 5th cavalry corps. Total 900000 soldiers with 4900 tanks. Western Military district (probably the one you were talking about) had 630000 troops with 2900 tanks. And those were not the only military districts in the west. And somehow you completely forget the troops of second and third defensive echelon and the mobilization potential. Talking about tanks: Whole Wehrmacht had about 3700 tanks during the initial attack, with zero heavy tanks (in fact most of them were the light Panzer I and II models). Soviet army had almost 11000 tanks, with heavy KV tanks and the famost T-34. Just compare the soviet losses from any source with the total 576500 troops you are giving. Again, take any sources about tank losses during the initial attack. There are not even remotely 574 soviet tanks in the west. 3) Soviets were indeed just „zerg rushing“ german troops with waves of infantry and tanks till the end of war with huge losses in every battle (they are still unable to count the exact ammount of their losses). They had huge reserves in Sibiria (troops, manpower, industry, minerals), help of the allies and no other fronts to take care of. German troops had to spread their units for occupation duty around Europe and had no serious allies or resources to count on
@@HistoryHustle I disagree on the idea that Soviet reisitance was not fierce. According to Overmans the Whermacht had 260,00 killed through November 1941 and this was not including wounded which would be 3 to 4 times as many. This does not include December and January when the Soviet counterattack began.
We here in the West have been HUGELY complicit with the scapegoating of poor herr Schicklegruber by allowing the Wicked Wheraboos to write the original canon of the Western view of the conflict that we know as World War 2 (which was in fact a continuation of World War 1 and really lasted all the way though the Cold War.) By allowing Gen. Eric Halder cs. to write the Western version of the Third Reich military history, we allowed ourselves to be fed the smooth and homoganized dreck and filth that only served to whitewash the poor but galant German professionals and blame it all on the deranged lunatic 'Gefreiter' Adolf Hitler, while at the same time smear the evil Stalinist Soviet Bolshevik hordes for ripping through their innocent little tea-party in 1941 Moscow. I dare say that most of the 1941-1946 Western recorded history has been (and still is) an extensive exercise in Red-Scare propaganda in which the respective roles of the Western allies AND that of the Brave, Gallant and basically innocent German Wehrmacht were set off in highlight against the dank and vile Soviet Bolshevik barbarity. Hitler and Goebbels would still be going into hysterical and maniacal giggling fits if they would be here to see it.
Well, yes, in 1941 there were only a couple million Soviet troops who were initially stationed in the west, but millions more soon came after to replace them. And in fact, the reinforcements who turned the tide and saved Moscow were fresh legions transferred from the East after it became apparent that the Japanese would not simultaneously invade, which the Soviets were very worried about and thus had a huge amount of troops stationed there.
What about the Russian forces made available in mid-1941 due to Russio-Japanese nuetrality after their Mongolia conflict? Weren't those Russian troops from the east put to good use during the Dcember 1941 Moscow counter-offensive? Is this a myth?
Every personal account I ever read was about some Fritz from Hannover who destroyed 30 Soviet tanks. According to German accounts, the Red Army were the original Empire Stormtroopers.
Why was taking Moscow such an important goal for the success of the Operation? I still don’t get it as Hitler argued that Ukraine was more significant due to its resources. But Moscow was just a capital other than a ideological symbol of the Soviet. If then taking Moscow was successful, it would not have meant the Germans winning the war. So then why was the city still worth fighting for?
Because the German higher command modeled the Soviet campaign according to the French one where outflanking and creating a kettle at Northern France and then attacking towards Paris ended the campaign fast. And remember that the Germans needed a short quick war or else they were at trouble. So...
Germans taking hundreds of thousands of POWs was not specific to Russia. How about thousands and thousands of POWs the Germans took in Poland, France, Yugoslavia. Belgium and Holland capitulated in a few days without putting up much resistance. Were these soldiers dissatisfied with their countries' regimes?
When mentioning recently annexed Baltic and West Ukrainian soldiers as being unmotivated vs Russians and BeloRussians being motivated. Don't leave out Central Asians. The famous Panfilov Guardsmen mostly from the Kazahk and Kyrgyz SSRs helped hold the Germans back on the gates of Moscow in Dec 1941 allowing time for reinforcements to role in. They played a role equal to the winter! I've seen the Panfilov memorial in Bishkek.. Almaty also has a massive park dedicated to them. The Uzbeks were less happy to be Soviets, than their neighbors, but also served with distinction and also have a massive WWII memorial in their capital Tashkent.
@@HistoryHustle cool.. As time allows. It is a pretty interesting region in WWII. Also, Many of Stalins forced internal migrations were sent to Central Asia ( Koreans Germans, Caucaus nationalities, including Chechens). Check out the history of the town Luxembourg, Kyrgyzstan when you have a chance.
Also over-confidence and over-reach. Thought the East would be won in a short time. Spread forces to thinly across Europe. Also Greece and other distractions, diverted forces away from the Eastern campaign.
There is an excellent movie on the seige at Brest fortress. A modern Russian film so it doesn't have the Soviet propaganda feel but the new modern Putin propaganda
You think the germans would launch Barbarossa without taking care of their balkans side when tge USSR had annexed Besarabia ? This is madness. The balkans were part of Barbarossa.
Hello, I have usually very appreciated both quality content and the shrewd narrator but in case of this topic I feel obliged to make spectators aware that almost everything presented is simply official Russian propaganda based on Khrustev and Breznev era historiography. It seems sad to me it's full of false claims. Read Metlyukhov, Solonin, Suvorov and Weeks.
I suppose if you got the hell kicked out of you you'd want to try to get as many reasons to show the world was against you all along and you never stood a chance, and in the same way, why wouldn't you fight back hard as you could if you just got sick of been the one everyone took a try to beat, and thanks for trying to point this out.
Nice analysis. But the Germans were also superior in tactics. Using what is now known as combined arms. That is using infantery and tanks together causing a superior firepower to sole tank contaning units. Later in the war the British and the Soviets used that as well and became an equal match. Furthermore the Germans lost the war because of oil. Theis main tactic was encirceling the enemy forces with tank. Cut them off from the rest and the infantery does the rest to get them in submission. The tanks were already sprinting ahead to encircle the next group. This is by many called Blitzkrieg but the Germans did call it bewegungskrieg. Mobile warfare. With not enough fuel for the tanks that was impossible later on. So they had to fight the same way as the Soviets and were indeed outnumbered at a later stage. But not 10:1 or so.
Logistics > Strategy > Tactics While it's true that the Germans were often superb at the tactical level, they also often performed poorly when it came to logistics and committed quite a few major strategic blunders that contributed directly to their defeat.
@@HistoryHustle If I may answer the question: Ad 1) To descent to the simple level of that video: In all its offensives the Red Army had a materially and numerically superiority, sometimes enormously. Just look at the number of sovjet prisoners, destroied tanks, artillery pieces, planes etc. And these numbers were not fantasy figures, it was the reality of a stupid war strategy up to the end of the war. 2) You said that these german numbers, used by western historians, were wrong. Did you ever read the nonsens sovjet and even today's russian "researchers" wrote about strengh, combat power and above all the german losses? Your statement containes no evidences, so do not ask me to provide evidence. 3) As far as the sovjet counter-offensive is concerned: Where did you get the information about the stength of the Wehrmacht and the Red Army? I suppose you did only mention the sowjet reserves, right? Glantz (p. 88-89) and Jukes (p. 32) state that the two attacking sovjet fronts had only a slight superiority over the german defender due to the number of fresh reserves, but they also state that the sovjets were able to reach strong local superiority because of their familiarity with the weather and better mobility, while the Germans were pinned down by the weather. 4) Thats why temperatures have had an impact on operations. In october, frosty weather supported the german attack on Moskau by hardening the ground but stopped the advance in late november, when temperatures dropped to 20 degrees below zero. Simply saying "winter defeated the Germans" is wrong, but do you really believe, that a same sovjet counter offensive, executed not in winter but in somnertimes, would have been successful? If you want to learn more about temperatures at the eastern front I recommend you to have a look into Kriegstagebücher (KTB) of several german divisions.
I'm not trying to start a fight but wasn't the 1941 Japanese attack across the Pacific and the American and European territories there a larger military operation? Or what disqualifies it? 🙋🇺🇲🛠️🇷🇺 Edit : maybe a little defense here, I'm talking about an act of war by one country on multiple countries across an 8,000 mile or so front that included amphibious landings and sinking several enemy ships and engaging fortresses. This is something no other belligerent at the time, even Nazi Germany, ever considered pulling off.
Interesting comment, never thought of it that way. I think the Axis invasion force in Operation Barbarossa was bigger than the Japanese force attacking SE Asia, but have no numbers considering the latter. If you have any feel free to share.
Operation Barbarossa was significant not only because of its size and scope. It bared the reason for why it was absolutely necessary for Germany to attack the USSR and capture the Ukrainian, Russian and Caucasian (not the race) resources. It also laid bare the fact that after the initial assault, the socalled BlitzKrieg / BewegungsKrieg showed its limitations as the concept of physical distance (in Kilometers or Miles) differentiates. Certainly when 'Bewegung' is subject to Soviet infrastructure as compared with Western European and even Polish infrastructure. The earlier BlizKrieg successes were partly due to the fact that 'Bewegung' was actually possible and that the road-systems and railways allowed for the attacker to always have alternatives in routing and access to achieve its objectives. The USSR did not have a comparable or even feasible infrastructure. Thus we see that somewhere by the end of 1941 the Germans are forced to give up their favourite strategical doctrine and (what is even more sigificant) the Soviets manage to overcome this and from that moment on adopt a similar combined-operations strategy as the Blitzkrieg in order to drive out and defeat the AXIS. In short, Operation Barbarossa forced the Germans and the Soviets to swap-out their strategical doctrines. That is significant, since Germany did not have an answer to the Soviet implementation and did not have the wherewithall to even contemplate such other than rely on older stratagems, whereas the Soviets observed BlitzKrieg and saw fit to adopt, adapt and improve (if that's the right word for it.) it to incorporate in their their 'Art of Warfare'. With success, I might add.
@@fritzlang4941 Well, in the grand scheme of things, it only matters who wins. USSR (and the Allies) got first place. Germany and Japan got second place and thus lost.
@@HistoryHustle I guess he can't. Just likes leaving what he considers a clever insult. See you, Michael Steiner; kill rates don't mean shit. Look at Viet Nam. I call bullshit.
@@rudolphguarnacci197 The Carthaginians also killed a lot more Romans than the reverse during the Second Punic War. Carthage also lost the war, and as a direct consequence also no longer exists. As you said, kill rates don't always determine outcomes.
Het heeft te maken dat het meer Koude Oorlog geschiedenis is van WWII met de russen. De Russen deden het fantastisch. Neem alleen al het feit dat de Russische KV tanks een ongelofelijke bijdrage leverde tegen de Duitse Tank mythe. En wat hebben de Duitsers niet geleerd van de T-34. De beste tank van WWII Hebben we het niet eens over Zjukov. Heb ik het nog niet eens over de
zo fantastisch waren de Russen niet,zeker niet in het begin, tijdens de grote zuivering had hij (Stalin)ook de militaire top niet gespaard. het feit dat de Duitsers tot op 40 km van Moskou kwamen,had hier zeker mee te maken, en ook dat het sovjet leger centraal werd geleid,commandanten op elk niveau moesten overal toestemming voor vragen. De Wehrmacht was tactisch gezien superieur aan het sovjet leger. maar dat was niet voldoende, de bevoorradinglijnen van de Wehrmacht werden te lang,de verliezen (mensen en materiaal) konden nauwelijks meer worden aangevuld. Het sovjet leger had daar minder last mee,, voldoende mensen, materiaal (ook de hulp van de geallieerden ) en in 1944 de opening van het 2e front. Dat heeft uiteindelijk geleid tot de nederlaag van de Wehrmacht.
heres a funfact = stalin ordered the excavation of the tomb of timur and hitler invaded russia within 2 days and when he ordered to rest his body the germans started retreating . timur said 'the world will tremble when i wake up and it did sure tremble
@@HistoryHustle well timur was turk from uzbekistan . he made one the strongest empire in the world . he considered himself the worthiest successor of chengis khan . he defeated the delhi sultanate , the mamluk sultanate , ottoman empire and captured the sultan bayezid , the golden horde ,the persian sultanates and the chagatai
Nah, The Germans failed to take Moscow due to logistics (or lack/failure thereof.). Not so much logistics regarding ammunition, food and technical supplies, but (and this is a nasty little secret) they ran out of methamphitamine. Up until november 1941, there had remained a fairly stable supply of methamphitamines with which they kept their troops hopped-up. For various reasons that supply dried up, So now they not only had to deal with the cold and usual deprivations of war as well as with an enraged opponent (Yes, that would be the Soviet forces.) but they were also collectively nursing a huge (as in Really HUGE!!!) downer with the combined withdrawal effects of their favorite war-candy and the inescapeable adverse side effects of using it in the first place and for as long as they had. Meth habit/downer is a major B!TCH to kick and makes you pretty much useless as a soldier. Add that to the otherwise significant combat stress and such and you have to peg your expectations of success in military operations quite considerably lower.
Bro the thing about speed/meth or whatever is that it's users claim it gives them more energy but it doesn't...it just makes you use up your energy more quickly. Also speed plus cold is a shitty combination, it constricts the blood vessels and makes you feel cold even when it's not cold when you're coming down...I know from experience lol. Ever heard of ''whizz dick''? (whizz is another name for speed)
@@godsowndrunk1118 You are talking about 6 mo. I am talking about the very start of WWII (1939) or even longer. I'm not sure when Germany started making Pervitin and not going to research that either, but it has been known to be a staple during the invasion of Poland, Norway, the Low Countries and France. Note: In the 1940 invasion of France there were rather disturbing findings about normally healthy and young soldiers dying of sudden heart-failure and German officers having to be taken off the fighting strength due to exhaustion and physical emaciation within weeks into the campaign. Rough commonality between non-combat casualty cases of this nature was an established dependence on Pervitin. Not that it made much of a difference to Germany as a whole where Herr Schicklegruber (aka. Adolf Hitler) was an enthusiastic user of it himself. Just sayin....
@@simonh6371 Agreed. And you are right: Speed and Sub-zero don't mix even remotely successfully, which makes for an unpleasant combination with the Russian winter climate. Certainly when possibilities to get warm and cozy are not likely to be forthcoming shortly. Whether or not Whizz makes werewolves out of wimps, I will leave in the middle, but endurance limits and physical strength are for the most part determined between the ears, which is where the 'rubber meets the road' with stuff like this. What it effectively does is that it eradicates hunger, thirst and need to rest.....and it adversely affects mental state in a serious fashion so that otherwise normal people would do things that they would not normally contemplate. Most notably violent, cruel, vile and horrible things, perpetrated without any form of remorse and/or empathy. All of which have been known to have happened. Another thing that it does is that it eventually incapacitates and kills it unrestrained user. That, and give you horrifyingly bad breath, ruins your dentition, give you psychosis and make you generally be not 'a good sport', all of which can hardly be seen as being conducive to military readiness.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 Eggsackly! Historically IG Farben GMBH certainly proved itself to be a double-edged sword, but they were not the only ones. There were several other pharma companies (from outside Germany (wink-wink, nod-nod... USA)) involved in the Third Reich endeavours.
Learn about the MOLOTOV-RIBBENTROP PACT:
ua-cam.com/video/yuXMR8RDFow/v-deo.html
Learn about DUTCH VOLUNTEERS FOR THE WAFFEN-SS:
ua-cam.com/video/bQlF0ia-ABA/v-deo.html
You should do a video about the myth of that the ss fighters were elite fighters with advanced weaponry like hydra when in reality it was the opposite in which they were notorious in scavenging weapons especially ironically from the Soviets and by the end of the war most of if not half the ss weren't German nor aryan but foreign especially those considered inferior with some of their best fighters were foreigners such as the ss wikings division and the ss French charlemagne units that fought to the better end at the battle of Berlin taking out alot of Soviet tanks during the end of the war. They were resented by the regular german army for taking away resources and weapons such as the tiger tanks especially from rommel himself and they weren't considered a true military force especially led my himmler who never fought in ww2 compare to Hitler and goering that was said to mock him behind his back due to this.
Wasn’t another factor that drove historians to cite German sources the fact that the Soviet state archives were kept secret until 1991? I don’t believe anyone really knew the specific numbers about the war effort, beyond propaganda like Tass, until they were opened.
True. The 1990s were a golden decade for historians because then the Russian archives opened only to be closed later.
@@HistoryHustle There were several Soviet sources available during the cold war, but they were usually ignored or scoffed at for being 'communist propaganda'. Since you're Dutch, have you ever read G.L. Rozanov 'Hitlers Laatste Dagen' ? It described the Soviet perspective of the fall of Berlin and came out in 1962, also in The Netherlands. Highly interesting to read and it mentions sources I haven't seeing mentioned in 'capitalist studies', while those do substantiate the events and facts mentioned.
we are still waiting in 2021 for UK and France to open their archives
Great point. The lifting of "Easter veil " was a big reveal. Katrina Witt's stasi file to poor Laika's pedigree crimes and accomplishments still await scholarship. I have never understood the motivation of the guilty to be such meticulous record keepers .
@@fergar9264 Wait really their archives are not open to public.
Great channel and your knowledge. Thank you for explaining war myths.
Thanks!
Great video as always! It was a real eye-opener to see how these myths, many of which I believed, could have been propagated. I have two comments, though:
At 4:44 you said "temperatures went below 35 degrees *Celsius*" (emphasis added). I think you meant "Fahrenheit," right? Speaking as a Canadian in November, 35 C in December would be just lovely to experience! :D Though, I'd have to go to Australia get it.
You didn't cover my favorite Barbarossa myth: that Stalin was so shocked by the attack that in depression, he hid in his bunker for the first two weeks of the invasion and left his people with no direction. Apparently that one was started by Khrusechev as part of his effort to denigrate Stalin (as if one would need to lie to do that, but anyway).
Thanks for your reply. I believe it was minus 35 C! Thanks for adding the information about the other myth.
I confirm that it was minus 30-35 Celsius and it bothered not only the Germans, but also the Russians. Russians don't like frost either, as you can imagine.
There are memories of officials close to Stalin that he did not meet anyone for three or four days. However, all these memories date back to the years of Khrushchev's reign. As a person born in the USSR, I cannot refute these rumors, as they were in our school history books, but I cannot trust Khrushchev, the main party official of the Ukrainian SSR, who not only signed lists for execution in the 30s of the last century, but also assigned quotas for the repressed..
@@vladimirnikolskiy The crossover point is minus 40: forty below Celsius is the same as forty below Fahrenheit -- perfectly normal January in Eastern Ontario if you're twenty kilometres away from the Saint Lawrence.
@@TheDavidlloydjones I checked and it's true! This is an interesting fact when Celsius and Fahrenheit met, shook hands and ran to warm themselves with vodka, whose strength is measured in degrees and you know what it is equal to vodka.👍🏼👍🏼
Soviet forces were initially not that large (
Thanks for your additional information.
Soviet divisions were smaller than German ones however, and that has to be taken into account.
You are a jewel, my sir. People like you make one more interested in history than my school teachers ever did.
👍
And always that story about "General Winter" who helped the Russians. It is true that the Russians are somewhat more accustomed to winter than the Germans. But, let's be realistic, when it's -35 degrees Celsius (-31 degrees Fahrenheit), then it's cold on both sides of the front, and no one wants to fight at such extreme temperatures. To bring the Eskimos, even they would say, "Wait for it to warm up a little, then we'll counterattack."
Eskimos? I see.
There was an American football coach who was asked if the rain was the cause for his teams poor performance. He said "It rained on both sides of the field."
@@christopherconard2831 Exactly! Sport is also a competition, but thank God, without human military and civilian casualties, with certain rules and fair play, but it is still a competition between people, so this comparison is totally in place. That American football coach simply but very wisely summed things up on the field..
Having flown into eastern Russia ( Petropavlovsk ) numerous times and seen Russian aircraft service technicians standing in 10 to 15 kt winds at -15c without any appearance of being affected by the cold. Also not wearing clothing that seemed overly warm. I have concluded Russians are largely unaffected by the cold. Compared to the rather soft living Germans grew up in. Nothing takes the life out a person faster than being unbearably cold. My German mother remembers her mother giving up her fur coat to send to a soldier on the Eastern front during that winter.
@@thommykent7785 only a small percentage of people (and of all countries in the Soviet Union, only in Russia) in the Red Army had experienced these conditions on a regular basis, similar to the US, who have Alaska, and back then the British Empire, who had Canada. Moscow’s and even St. Petersburg’s climates are waaaay milder, you need to go to the (sub-)Arctic or really remote regions of Siberia for that. Lastly, the Finns fought on the German side initially, and that didn’t help beat the weather. A major factor was that the Soviets were fighting on home soil, the Nazi’s resilience also rose when they were pushed back beyond their own borders.
And besides, water freezes, no matter where it comes from.
You gave some aspects of Operation Barbarossa that I've never read about, especially about language (8:40)!
Thanks Roger, glad you learned something new! :)
This and mark Felton are the best on UA-cam
😎👍
When it comes to numerical superiority, I would point to the fact that the Soviets lost battle after battle, millions of POWs but they still pulled more and more soldiers from the east. Germany didn't have such huge base of manpower.
To some degree true, the peace with Japan made it possible to move troops from the Far East to the western front in the Sovjet-union. And the size of Russian reserves was understimated by the german command.
However, the strongly populated european area was occupied by the Germans. Besides that, having manpower is just one factor in creating armies. Logistics and training matter. Regarding armies, Germany was also able to replace losses in soldiers until the endphase. Add the benefit of defensive warfare, and the numerical superiority was not the crucial factor, neither for Russians or Germans.
'The AXIS powers that took part in Barbarossa had a nearly 2:1 ratio of numerical superiority and the surprise-effect with which they executed the operation, acted as a force-multiplier of at the very least that same ratio. Add to that the pervasive 'speed' effect on the drugged and hopped-up on 'Panzerschokolade' German troops and you would have a pretty substantial initial combat advantage.
BUT in the term 'INITIAL' lies the rub so to speak. Just as they ran out of their favourite war-candy, the fresh and massive Soviet replacements arrived from Siberia (where they had been freed up from having to keep track of the Japanese war-effort.). That, AND the start of the Russian winter, as well as the USA entering the war as a combattant in Northern Africa put great strain on the Wehrmacht etc.
I mean even during the battle of Moscow, it reached a point where 1.5 million Germans were facing 600,000 Soviets...
@@zexal4217 I don't know where you get your figures, but I strongly suggest to re-check those numbers and use a variety of sources. Some sources are slanted according to an agenda other than being on facts.
@@oddballsok TIK is a good choice for a point of reference. Doesn't mean I always agree with him but TIK is meticulous, reliable and for as far as I can determine honest with the info he gives.
This is so well done. It makes it so much easier to understand. Wow. Thank you for the lesson!
Thanks for your reply.
A few points. English is not related to German, it IS a Germanic language. What kept the Germans from taking Moscow were three things. 1 - Hitler did not see Moscow as a priority, so diverted forces. 2 - The German supply lines were stretched to the limit, whereas the Soviets were receiving supplies from factories in Moscow and Gorky. 3 - The Japanese Soviet pact allowed the Soviets to divert men from Manchuria to the West. On manpower, sure the local numbers favored the Germans, but the Soviet reserves available were in the millions, and as Soviet soldiers fell, they were replaced with equal or greater numbers of untrained conscripts.
Sometimes correcting history can swing too much in the other direction.
I see. Thanks for pointing this out.
Thank you for your remarkable work.
Thanks for your reply, Mariyana.
@@HistoryHustle You are very welcome. Your videos are very interesting.
😁👍
Thank you for a very good analysis! Keep up the good work!
Thanks Chris!
Checking a subscriptions and seeing that both History Hustle and World War Two uploaded a video, hard choice
Both can supplement each other😁
It was truly a hard choice.
Funny overlapse indeed.
Excellent and thank you from Canada. Also, thanks for the tulip bulbs Holland sends Canada every year and are grown in our nation’s capital every spring.
You're welcome! Thanks for your message.
Fantastic video
Thank you!
The reality of history is what is taught today isn't what is going to be taught tomorrow, every generation of historian is going to debunk the myths and unintentionally create myths in the process.
indeed
Great video professor I had never seen this one but it poses some great points that are rarely discussed! I would also argue that as like you said with many factors contributing to the Nazi defeat in Barbarossa one of the major ones being Hitlers radical mistake of moving alot of his armies to take Stalingrad which I believe started a domino affect on his eastern campaign.
Thanks for watching, Nick!
@@HistoryHustle Pleasure is all mine I love the channel!
I dont agree with you ! Stalingrad was absolutely not an objective. In 1942, the Germans had absolutely not a single idea about a viable strategical goal. Hitler was against Moscow in the beginning. He was for the economic goals. If Stalingrad came to mind it is only because it was imposed by the events, like the spliting of the southern front after Rostov.
Very informative 👍
Great 👍
Oh and on the topic of Germans and Soviets swapping their strategic methods, the odd thing is that they also swapped the ways in which their leaders handled leading the war. Hitler started listening less and less to his generals and overruled them more often with sometimes harebrained edicts, whereas Stalin took to relying more and more on his military commanders and more often granted them (somewhat) more freedom and initiative to implement strategy in order to effectuate successful tactics. Just thought that I'd mention it.
Thanks for sharing.
We love your channel and you. Please all guys make him 10 million subscription . Hes best guy. Another good video.
Thank you for your loving words as always.
@@HistoryHustle you deserve it because of your good work nature and honesty sir
Back in 2000, I had the privilige to visit the Motherland museum in Kyiv. i must say, I was impressed, by the huge scale of the fighting on the Eastern Front. Very, very impressive museum I can say! As a Dutchman, i'd never seen this before, while i've been visiting many war museums throughout Europe. The grandfather, of a girlfriend of mine, his brother fought during the battle of Minsk, He was a pilot in an IL-2 Sturmovik fighter-bomber, he crashed and his body has never been recovered. He already had a gold star of hero of Soviet Union medal before that. I still have pictures of his brother, that visited the monument in Minsk for the fallen of that battle. It was the only way, to pay respects to his fallen brother. Unfortunately, that was still back in the days of the Soviet Union, nowadays Ukraine and Belorussia are 2 different countries, so after that it became somewhat more difficult for him. During many years, i've seem to have collected all kinds of stories of so many different people, that would be probably forgotten in time, but thanks to them I've learned from their personal war stories, whether it was in the West, or in the East. I am very thankful for that, because, as time passes, eye witnesses of that war, become fewer and fewer.
Thanks for your message. I visited that museum also - in 2018 - an was very impressed!
@@HistoryHustle i went in 2007 great museum, but they had those really bad hole in the ground toilets then. Arrggg
Yes, my uncles were in the war and I only talked to one about it. He was in China-India-Burma theater USAAC. He would go into jungle with and spot enemy planes as they had little if any radar. He also repaired radioes in planes. The only story he told me was he witnessed a plane crash upon landing and that you could put the largest piece of wreckage in a letter-sized envelope.
Thank you for making this video, very informative!
Cheers
As for numerical superiority, the attacker chooses when and where to mass his forces where as the defender has to spread his forces to cover possible routs of assault.
This is the same way that Gen. Jackson had such success in the Valley Campaign of the American Civil War,
I see.
Great video!
Thank you.
Thanks for this. Please do a video on Lend Lease.
Perhaps in the future.
Where do you teach history? Kids are very lucky to have you as their teacher!
Thanks, Paul! I teach history in Wageningen.
@@HistoryHustle is it a university or high school?
top Stefan, what I see,is a man with passion, your students are very lucky too have such a talented teacher.
And we ,your viewers can share in that 😉
Thanks for your kind words! :)
Vette video zoals altijd gozer!
En ik moet je nageven dat je Engels met flinke stappen vooruit is gegaan de laatste tijd! Go vooral zo door! 👊🏻👍🏻😁
Bedankt, Brian!
Interesting.
👍
Thank you. 🐎
👍
Soviets had learned the hard way to fight in the winter. They tried to occupy Finland in 1939, but failed miserably. Finns used many great tactics, even used nowadays and Soviets took notice and that was a big part why Barbarossa failed. Hitler saw the Russian failure at Winter War as a sign of Russian weakness which also was a partial contribute to why Barbarossa was launched in such a short-ish notice.
They did.
A common mistake some military planners and politicians make is in assuming the performance of an opponent will be similar to that of a previous war they had fought, without taking into proper account how circumstances may have changed between wars or factors that might make the future conflict more difficult.
The Soviets were poorly evaluated on the basis of their lackluster performance in Finland during the Polish-Soviet War, with not enough consideration given to the fact that these were foreign wars where national survival was not at stake, or that the capabilities of the Soviet military had improved by 1941.
I always found it fitting the operation was named for a German Emporer who drowned in a river during a failed crusade
Crazy times.
People also don't take into account that the German Army suffered its most causalities in the summer through to September of the campaign long before the winter.
Indeed.
Thats true ! This is maybe tge reason why they failed before Moskow.
wrong
@Antoine Mozart Soviet heavy resistance that caused delays and the scourge of the German campaign, which was poor logistics that dampened the wehrmacht big time however thankfully the brilliance of German leadership and professionalism of the military got them so far. Ok the winter did it's part but it never stopped Panzers advancing as the frozen hard ground actually helped them move better compared to the being stuck in the mud in autumn and parts of summer.
In this topic, Myths of Operation Barbarossa, I recommend Марк Семёнович Солонин [Marek Solonin]'s books
Interesting although I don't read Russian...
So it was basically the same as Napoleon's Grande Armee..
These troops had been constantly fighting and mostly marching for nearly six months over endless dirt roads, with only meager rations, eating them on the move, very little sleep or rest, lice and flee ridden, bad drinking water giving them diarrhiea. And then the icy cold of winter adding to all this misery.
They had expected, and were assured, it would be a walkover.
But it turned out to be an exhausting meatgrinder, which only the WW1 veteran NCO's and officers experienced before.
And had hoped never having to endure again. Which was a major demoralizing factor for a vital chain of Wehrmacht field command.
In short; two major combined factors thus caused operation Barbarossa to fail at the closing stages of 1941;
1. Exhaustion.
2. Demoralization.
Not very much unlike what happened to Napoleon's army.
Thanks for sharing.
Well, the Nazis thought it would be a walkover but unfortunately, this proved to be a costly mistake on their part. The 6 months they did well initially contributed towards the two critical points as the war dragged on and turned into a bloody meat grinder.
You're Dutch? Your English is excellent.
Many thanks!
He's Dutch, of course his English is excellent!
t34 and kv1 came as a big surprise for germans, it was a set of circumstances that red army didn't have enough of them and ammo supply and maybe soviet industry was also not capable of producing so much stuff, stalin became furious and also threatened a Il2 factory manager. It was an unfortunate set of circumstances what happened back then
Thanks for sharing.
Always a very good analysis Stefan. Thanks. Maybe also the Pervitin did not work very good anymore or was not available anymore. Thanks Stefan.
Thanks Rene. About the Pervitin, I have to do research about, can't really tell.
@@HistoryHustle oh Stefan volgens mij liep het hele derde rijk op dat spul en hier was het ook te koop onder een andere naam....gewoon bij de drogist. De Amerikanen en Engelsen hadden later hun eigen versie voor hun militairen.
Today I hustled history on a terras with half liter of beer.
Not as cold as the Russian winter but it was nice!
Keep the hustle alive!
Excellent video!
Thanks 👌
To be honest, I didn't know that the Wehrmacht had a numerical superiority during the assault on Moscow in December 1941. And even after this documentary to me still remains a mystery how the Soviets managed to push back the Germans in December 1941. At the end of the day, the harsh winter must have played a significant role.
It sure played a role yes.
the wehrmanht didnt have numerical superiority, thats a major myth ,
@@anzukadotani8953 That is not a myth at all. Do some research.
The Germans had a numerical advantage on the Eastern Front throughout most of Operation Barbarossa.
The Soviets eventually would be able to muster more men across the front than their opponents, but that was in 1942, not during 1941.
@@lycaonpictus9662 wrong
@@lycaonpictus9662 you're telling me the best army in the history of makind had superior numbers and still failed to take Moscow? You just talke utter rubbish, fuul!
I always enjoy the Dutch perspective of ww2.
👍
I heard stalin was as worse as hitler, but had heart and honesty and gave the morale to all his soldiers at moscow when the germans were 25 miles from moscow, and the speech that stalin did at the anniversary, and I also believe the encirclement of stalingrad and the americans arriving at North africa is what caused the soviets to push them back because the germans had to open a second front, a quarter of the germans moved to north africa, making their frontline unstable, giving the soviets chance to push them all back.
Stalin worse than Hitler? Depends of what measures you take. You can compare the two murderous ideologies, and the totalitarian dictators. The question is whether asking yourself which one was more evil than the other is the right one. One component often overlooked is that Stalin could live up to his evilness the fullest. Yet, Hitler got defeated. If the Germans had won WWII many, many, MANY more people would have been killed. Take that into account.
@@HistoryHustle Stalin didn't liberate poland and the other countries aswell, , but created ''Eastern bloc'' and named it Warsaw pact or smth for protection against the allies, Stalin also set up Gulags, where MILLIONS died in it, Stalin also made the Eastern bloc poor, not getting any money inside, but the budget was used all for the army. Not the people.
With the benefit of hindsight Germany had already lost the war before the U.S. even really involved in the Second World War. The battle for Moscow occurred in December - January 1941/1942, at roughly the same time as the Pearl Harbor attacks.
Case Blue never had any realistic shot at succeeding. While lots of territory was seized it really did nothing to change the overall strategic situation across the front. The Red Army (and Stalin, to an extent) had learned their lessons and were no longer allowing large armies to become encircled and destroyed, but rather were trading territory for time. Aside from seizing the oil of the Caucasus the other major goal of the offensive was to destroy the Red Army in large encirclements like that inflicted on the Soviets in the summer of 1941. The Soviets mostly avoided that and fell back to Stalingrad.
oh yes, Sweetheart Stalin who sunk the Gustloff and 2 other ships with tens of thousands of German civilians, what a great man!!!
@@HistoryHustle Good thing your Allies did not kill millions of German civilians. Oh,wait...
No, I think as far as December 41, the weather played a large part and the lack of winter preparation by the Germans ,even with hitlers indecisiveness about attacking Leningrad ,or rush for oil in the South played a huge part in not capturing Moscow . As in 1814 the were willing to evacuate the capital .IMHO
Thanks for sharing your insights.
Well the weather certainly didnt help. It really WAS the coldest winter in quite a very long time. And the "endless number" of Soviet troops really were almost endless. What isnt mentioned much is the fact that the Soviets had initiated a mandatory reserve training program long before the war. That meant that when these men were called up, they already had some military training. Thus they could be equipped and thrown right into the fight. What stymied the Germans most was the depletion of there armor due to breakdown and battle losses. (some divisions were down to half their original strength, and spare parts were needed from a continuously lengthening supply chain) Combined with the fact that the sharp veteran infantry that began the offensive had been whittled down to a dull nub. Untried replacements were ordered to do what that sharp spearpoint had been doing. And that ever-lengthening supply line nailed the lid on the German's coffin. So yes, the failure of Operation Barbarossa was due to many factors. Not just the Russian Winter.
Indeed.
Nicely done !
Cheers mate!
What a cool jacket you wearing!
Hi Yuji, are you family of the man behind the famous Nakamura treasure?
Thank you!
British LL tanks made up 25% of Red army tanks at the Battle of Moscow. These Matilda and Valentines were better than T-28's, the most numerous of the Russian tanks and had already proved themselves against the Panzer 1,2 and early model Panzer 3's. With no training the crews had to learn how to operate them as they went into battle.
Thanks for sharing this info.
You mean T-16 ? The majority of Soviet tanks were intentionally spoiled or abandoned before The Battle of Moscow.
I believe that they made the mistake by putting Paulus in charge. He was nothing compared to Chuikov. Paulus ended up bombing Stalingrad ahead of time reducing it to rubble basically negating their advantage because it was impossible for tanks and such to get through the streets and they couldn’t use their artillery or AirPower without killing their own men. Chuikov knew they liked to fight from a distance and made the “cheek to jowl” order to push their advantage in urban warfare which the tactics he came up with are still used to train special forces. Plus, they allowed the mass buildup of forces and to completely missed it multiple times. The Soviets mastered deep battle and the deception (maskirovka) they fell for hook, line, and sinker. Even from the Allies too. Bagration was the perfect example of that.
Thanks for sharing your insights on this.
And the allies didn't learn 2 years later when they bombed Monte Cassino into rubble creating wonderful defensive positions for German paratroopers. Bombing Stalingrad bad, bombing a centuries old monastry good?
I really like the Brest fortress, nice vudeo
Thanks, I still want to visit that place actually!
Very good educational video and spot on language and none slant report
Thanks!!
New HH video, weekend complete. some interesting points made, I like that. Have a great weekend further.
Many thanks Mammuchan! :)
A contributing factor towards the myth of the larger Soviet forces is that almost all Soviet units were one size smaller than the western formation of the same name. So a Soviet Corps was roughly the same size as a German division etc. This is confusing when you are reading about particular battles.
Thanks for sharing this.
80 years ago today
Yes.
@@HistoryHustle At least the nazis were defeated
Groeten, bravo voor dit hoofdstuk, je hebt de mythen aangeraakt die sommigen gebruiken om afbreuk te doen aan de ontwikkeling van de Sovjet militaire doctrine
Dank voor je bericht.
Germans: FIRE FIRE FIRE MOW THEM DOWN
Red Army: *there's more*
Much more.
Did Russia have more men?
The population of Germany was 70 million .
The USSR population was 160 million.
That's as simple as math gets.
The reality is the mud and not the winter stoped the Germans in 1941
Rasputitsa
History is never that simple.
It wasn't quite that simple. As noted in the video the Axis actually had the numerical advantage throughout Barbarossa. Moreover large swaths of some of the most populous territory in the Soviet Union fell to German occupation, not to mention the millions of Soviet troops that were taken prisoner in the summer of 1941.
By the time the Soviet Union was able to make full use of its manpower the war had - with the benefit of hindsight - already been lost by Germany.
@@lycaonpictus9662 When the Russian launched "Operation Bagration" on June 22nd 1944 they out number germany in everything , even if German's West front could join in.
Here is a great Doc about it ua-cam.com/video/rJAEdLnZsgI/v-deo.html
It was larger than D-Day in scale.
@@Crashed131963 Operation Bagration was outside the scope of the video, which just covered Operation Barbarossa. The strength of armies deployed across a front could vary greatly between different periods of the war.
By 1944 the Soviet Union had fully mobilized, much of the territory that had been conquered by the Germans in 1941 had been liberated (and so the people who lived there could be mobilized as well), and German strength had been whittled away by years of fighting on the Eastern Front and needing to shift some forces to Italy and France to face the Western Allies.
Operation Barbarossa lasted from June to December of 1941, and the circumstances were quite different than in 1944 when the Soviets launched Operation Bagration. Through most of Barbarossa Germany had the numerical advantage across the front.
Wasn't fuel shortages another major reason the Germans bogged down outside of Moscow?
It played parts but lack of fuel was playing a bigger role later.
Interesting video. I am originally from Uzbekistan,former USSR, and its interesting to see how they cover the whole topic of Barbarossa in Europe/Netherlands. I actually did my school history research on Barbarossa(it was international school, as in public schools they usually explain it like black and white thing. Sort of Germans were bad, Soviets were good.Obviously I do not try to deny that nazis are bad, and soviet people(i wouldn't say Stalin did something good) did heroic things). I just wonder for whether you,Stefan, heard about the book by Viktor Rezun(former KGB agent) named 'Icebreaker:Who started the WW2(Ledokol in Russian)'. The book was written based on archive materials Rezun found in 90's, some memoirs and his conversations with other KGB and military people. If you haven't read, the book basically talks about how Staling was preparing an offensive vs. Germany, but unfortunately for Stalin Hitler started Barbarossa, and Stalin lacked a few more months to complete preparations for the offensive operation. I have an English version of the book , so I may share it if you would like to have a look.
P.S: really like your channel, hope you get more subscribers:)
Thanks for sharing and welcome to the channel!
Islam Gaziev, are you another young man with a weak self-consciousness? This lie has long been destroyed, Rezun is a nonentity, not worth attention.
Does anybody know what nationality Charlemagne would have if you look at the map today
Both Germany and France. Did you know the French SS Legion was named after Charlemagne. This Summer I'll discuss this in another video.
Battle of Khalkin Gol in mongolia was the most pivotal battle of ww2....by stopping the japanese in manchuria and keeping mongolia as buffer zone, this battle allowed russia to avoid 2 front wars and allowed millions of siberian troops to the western front...
That battle actually took place before WW2 broke our.
@@HistoryHustle there isnt a definite start date for ww2 in the east....as the japanese empire started their expansionist policy long before ww2 started in europe....the fact that general zhukov lead the assault in battle of khalkin gol showed that it was very important....
Great video! But near the end, the camera started crackling. Try to fix that next time please.
It was my beard hitting the mic. No joke.
@@HistoryHustle lols the Barbarossa Beard very fitting
You are right about western historians using German sources during the Cold War, but I would also emphasize that the USSR did not supply much information to the west from their own sources until the end of the Cold War.
Thanks for your reply.
It has also been suggested that in the Cold War with the fearsome Soviet threat, it was a comforting thought for the West/NATO to downplay Soviet strength and emphasize German error (and blame Hitler, as did his generals) in assessing the Soviet victory in WWII. That might have been another contributing factor on how we were taught about the war.
Thanks a lot. A few remarks to your video:
- Operation Barbarossa was doomed from the beginning. It was delayed, due to Yugoslavia campaign.
The original plan was to attack earlier and finish up before
winter. There was no plan B. Hence absolute unpreparedness for winter warfare.
1) The fierce resistance of soviet troops in the beginning is overstated.
While there were some pockets of resistance, like Brest fortress you told about, there were multiple successful envelopment operations
by the Wehrmacht like Kiev, Smolensk, Byalostok-Minsk operations, where multiple soviet divisions seized to exist.
The total ammount of soviet troops, captured during the first months of war was over 2 millions. That is more than Wehrmacht and it's
allies ever had on the front. Imagine everyone of them firing at least couple of shots towards enemy, let alone fighting till the last bullet.
2) Which brings me to another point. The comparison of total German and allied troops to the troops on the western military district of Soviet Russia is
just wrong in several ways. First of all: the numbers don’t add up.
Take Kiev military district for example. According to soviet sources (Red Banner Kiev Military district 1979) it alone had on June 21st: 5th,
6th, 26th and 12th armies with reserve 31st, 36th, 37th, 49th, 55th infantry corps, 9th, 15th, 19th, 24th mechanized corps and 5th cavalry corps. Total 900000
soldiers with 4900 tanks. Western Military district (probably the one you were talking about) had 630000 troops with 2900 tanks. And those were not the only
military districts in the west. And somehow you completely forget the troops of second and third defensive echelon and the mobilization potential.
Talking about tanks: Whole Wehrmacht had about 3700 tanks during the initial attack, with zero heavy tanks (in fact most of them were the
light Panzer I and II models). Soviet army had almost 11000 tanks, with heavy KV tanks and the famost T-34. Just compare the soviet losses from any source with the total 576500 troops you are giving. Again, take any sources about tank losses during the initial attack. There are not even remotely 574 soviet tanks in the west.
3) Soviets were indeed just „zerg rushing“ german troops with waves of infantry and tanks till the end of war with huge losses in every
battle (they are still unable to count the exact ammount of their losses). They had huge reserves in Sibiria (troops, manpower, industry, minerals), help of
the allies and no other fronts to take care of. German troops had to spread their units for occupation duty around Europe and had no serious allies or resources to count on
Many thanks for the additional information.
@@HistoryHustle I disagree on the idea that Soviet reisitance was not fierce. According to Overmans the Whermacht had 260,00 killed through November 1941 and this was not including wounded which would be 3 to 4 times as many. This does not include December and January when the Soviet counterattack began.
great post!
The clasic trick.
Just blame it on Hitler.
Yes, indeed.
We here in the West have been HUGELY complicit with the scapegoating of poor herr Schicklegruber by allowing the Wicked Wheraboos to write the original canon of the Western view of the conflict that we know as World War 2 (which was in fact a continuation of World War 1 and really lasted all the way though the Cold War.) By allowing Gen. Eric Halder cs. to write the Western version of the Third Reich military history, we allowed ourselves to be fed the smooth and homoganized dreck and filth that only served to whitewash the poor but galant German professionals and blame it all on the deranged lunatic 'Gefreiter' Adolf Hitler, while at the same time smear the evil Stalinist Soviet Bolshevik hordes for ripping through their innocent little tea-party in 1941 Moscow.
I dare say that most of the 1941-1946 Western recorded history has been (and still is) an extensive exercise in Red-Scare propaganda in which the respective roles of the Western allies AND that of the Brave, Gallant and basically innocent German Wehrmacht were set off in highlight against the dank and vile Soviet Bolshevik barbarity. Hitler and Goebbels would still be going into hysterical and maniacal giggling fits if they would be here to see it.
@@Centurion101B3C
I think you're right.
There's an excellent movie about the Brest Fortress, entitled "Fortress of War."
Good movie!
The intro music was nice lol
:)
What future generals should do if they lose a war and a write a memoir or history book, be honest! Honesty goes a long way for history.
Memoirs aren't the most reliable sources I believe.
Also Volga Germans were displaced by Stalin’s order
Yes, they were.
Well, yes, in 1941 there were only a couple million Soviet troops who were initially stationed in the west, but millions more soon came after to replace them. And in fact, the reinforcements who turned the tide and saved Moscow were fresh legions transferred from the East after it became apparent that the Japanese would not simultaneously invade, which the Soviets were very worried about and thus had a huge amount of troops stationed there.
Thanks for your reply.
Battle of Khalkin Gol in mongolia was the most pivotal unknown battle of ww2
What about the Russian forces made available in mid-1941 due to Russio-Japanese nuetrality after their Mongolia conflict? Weren't those Russian troops from the east put to good use during the Dcember 1941 Moscow counter-offensive? Is this a myth?
Believe this isn't a myth.
It occured in 1939 !
Every personal account I ever read was about some Fritz from Hannover who destroyed 30 Soviet tanks. According to German accounts, the Red Army were the original Empire Stormtroopers.
Thanks for sharing.
je geluid in de laatste minuut ging beetje krakend klinken. zeker je microfoon beetje los kwam?
Nou, dat ontdekte ik onlangs, mijn baard veroorzaakte de verstoring! Heb al vaker meegemaakt dat daardoor hele video's niet meer te gebruiken waren.
@@HistoryHustle ah... tja misschien moet je beetje inkorten? maar verder was voor mij nu opgevallen
Why was taking Moscow such an important goal for the success of the Operation? I still don’t get it as Hitler argued that Ukraine was more significant due to its resources. But Moscow was just a capital other than a ideological symbol of the Soviet. If then taking Moscow was successful, it would not have meant the Germans winning the war. So then why was the city still worth fighting for?
Because the German higher command modeled the Soviet campaign according to the French one where outflanking and creating a kettle at Northern France and then attacking towards Paris ended the campaign fast. And remember that the Germans needed a short quick war or else they were at trouble. So...
Napoleon took Moscow and still lost.
If a country landed in the USA and took Washington DC I doubt the Americans would surrender over it.
We will never know what would have happened íf the Germans captured Moscow.
Germans taking hundreds of thousands of POWs was not specific to Russia. How about thousands and thousands of POWs the Germans took in Poland, France, Yugoslavia. Belgium and Holland capitulated in a few days without putting up much resistance. Were these soldiers dissatisfied with their countries' regimes?
Depended per country. I recently covered the 1941 Yugoslavia campaign where I talk about those POWs.
You have falsa data and share read Soloonin
Please explain
The numbers arę the key Soviet Union got on 1939 more tanks than the rest od Europe while Soviet people were starving
@@maciejwalkowski2316 The Red Air Force was also the world's biggest.
"Ideology has changed him." Isn't it a little like pot calling the kettle black?
It's a quote from a German soldier.
Indeed!
When mentioning recently annexed Baltic and West Ukrainian soldiers as being unmotivated vs Russians and BeloRussians being motivated. Don't leave out Central Asians. The famous Panfilov Guardsmen mostly from the Kazahk and Kyrgyz SSRs helped hold the Germans back on the gates of Moscow in Dec 1941 allowing time for reinforcements to role in. They played a role equal to the winter! I've seen the Panfilov memorial in Bishkek.. Almaty also has a massive park dedicated to them. The Uzbeks were less happy to be Soviets, than their neighbors, but also served with distinction and also have a massive WWII memorial in their capital Tashkent.
Thanks for the additional information. More about Central Asians later.
@@HistoryHustle cool.. As time allows. It is a pretty interesting region in WWII. Also, Many of Stalins forced internal migrations were sent to Central Asia ( Koreans Germans, Caucaus nationalities, including Chechens). Check out the history of the town Luxembourg, Kyrgyzstan when you have a chance.
Also over-confidence and over-reach. Thought the East would be won in a short time. Spread forces to thinly across Europe. Also Greece and other distractions, diverted forces away from the Eastern campaign.
These are reasons why it failed you mean?
it failed due to the courage and valour of the Russian soldiers.
Mr hustle. Germany had penal units . soldiers who hated hitler . german ones any history on them
Not yet. Although in this battle a German penal unit was mobilised:
ua-cam.com/video/XH2VkYqZcGk/v-deo.html
@@HistoryHustle thank you sir
👍
There is an excellent movie on the seige at Brest fortress. A modern Russian film so it doesn't have the Soviet propaganda feel but the new modern Putin propaganda
I've seen it. It's a strong one!
Bro, do you know that atack on Jugoslavia fucked up Barbarosa?
That's debated.
You think the germans would launch Barbarossa without taking care of their balkans side when tge USSR had annexed Besarabia ? This is madness. The balkans were part of Barbarossa.
@@HistoryHustle it's not, they would have started in May.
Hello, I have usually very appreciated both quality content and the shrewd narrator but in case of this topic I feel obliged to make spectators aware that almost everything presented is simply official Russian propaganda based on Khrustev and Breznev era historiography. It seems sad to me it's full of false claims. Read Metlyukhov, Solonin, Suvorov and Weeks.
Thanks for your comment.
I suppose if you got the hell kicked out of you you'd want to try to get as many reasons to show the world was against you all along and you never stood a chance, and in the same way, why wouldn't you fight back hard as you could if you just got sick of been the one everyone took a try to beat, and thanks for trying to point this out.
Thanks for your comment.
👍
👍
Nice analysis. But the Germans were also superior in tactics. Using what is now known as combined arms. That is using infantery and tanks together causing a superior firepower to sole tank contaning units. Later in the war the British and the Soviets used that as well and became an equal match. Furthermore the Germans lost the war because of oil. Theis main tactic was encirceling the enemy forces with tank. Cut them off from the rest and the infantery does the rest to get them in submission. The tanks were already sprinting ahead to encircle the next group. This is by many called Blitzkrieg but the Germans did call it bewegungskrieg. Mobile warfare. With not enough fuel for the tanks that was impossible later on. So they had to fight the same way as the Soviets and were indeed outnumbered at a later stage. But not 10:1 or so.
Thanks for your reply.
Logistics > Strategy > Tactics
While it's true that the Germans were often superb at the tactical level, they also often performed poorly when it came to logistics and committed quite a few major strategic blunders that contributed directly to their defeat.
Wrong numbers, wrong conclusions.
For the germans ! Yes !
Please explain.
@@HistoryHustle If I may answer the question: Ad 1) To descent to the simple level of that video: In all its offensives the Red Army had a materially and numerically superiority, sometimes enormously. Just look at the number of sovjet prisoners, destroied tanks, artillery pieces, planes etc. And these numbers were not fantasy figures, it was the reality of a stupid war strategy up to the end of the war. 2) You said that these german numbers, used by western historians, were wrong. Did you ever read the nonsens sovjet and even today's russian "researchers" wrote about strengh, combat power and above all the german losses? Your statement containes no evidences, so do not ask me to provide evidence. 3) As far as the sovjet counter-offensive is concerned: Where did you get the information about the stength of the Wehrmacht and the Red Army? I suppose you did only mention the sowjet reserves, right? Glantz (p. 88-89) and Jukes (p. 32) state that the two attacking sovjet fronts had only a slight superiority over the german defender due to the number of fresh reserves, but they also state that the sovjets were able to reach strong local superiority because of their familiarity with the weather and better mobility, while the Germans were pinned down by the weather. 4) Thats why temperatures have had an impact on operations. In october, frosty weather supported the german attack on Moskau by hardening the ground but stopped the advance in late november, when temperatures dropped to 20 degrees below zero. Simply saying "winter defeated the Germans" is wrong, but do you really believe, that a same sovjet counter offensive, executed not in winter but in somnertimes, would have been successful? If you want to learn more about temperatures at the eastern front I recommend you to have a look into Kriegstagebücher (KTB) of several german divisions.
I'm not trying to start a fight but wasn't the 1941 Japanese attack across the Pacific and the American and European territories there a larger military operation? Or what disqualifies it? 🙋🇺🇲🛠️🇷🇺
Edit : maybe a little defense here, I'm talking about an act of war by one country on multiple countries across an 8,000 mile or so front that included amphibious landings and sinking several enemy ships and engaging fortresses. This is something no other belligerent at the time, even Nazi Germany, ever considered pulling off.
Interesting comment, never thought of it that way. I think the Axis invasion force in Operation Barbarossa was bigger than the Japanese force attacking SE Asia, but have no numbers considering the latter. If you have any feel free to share.
Operation Barbarossa was significant not only because of its size and scope. It bared the reason for why it was absolutely necessary for Germany to attack the USSR and capture the Ukrainian, Russian and Caucasian (not the race) resources. It also laid bare the fact that after the initial assault, the socalled BlitzKrieg / BewegungsKrieg showed its limitations as the concept of physical distance (in Kilometers or Miles) differentiates. Certainly when 'Bewegung' is subject to Soviet infrastructure as compared with Western European and even Polish infrastructure. The earlier BlizKrieg successes were partly due to the fact that 'Bewegung' was actually possible and that the road-systems and railways allowed for the attacker to always have alternatives in routing and access to achieve its objectives. The USSR did not have a comparable or even feasible infrastructure. Thus we see that somewhere by the end of 1941 the Germans are forced to give up their favourite strategical doctrine and (what is even more sigificant) the Soviets manage to overcome this and from that moment on adopt a similar combined-operations strategy as the Blitzkrieg in order to drive out and defeat the AXIS. In short, Operation Barbarossa forced the Germans and the Soviets to swap-out their strategical doctrines. That is significant, since Germany did not have an answer to the Soviet implementation and did not have the wherewithall to even contemplate such other than rely on older stratagems, whereas the Soviets observed BlitzKrieg and saw fit to adopt, adapt and improve (if that's the right word for it.) it to incorporate in their their 'Art of Warfare'. With success, I might add.
Many thanks for the additional information.
And stil Germans easily conquered European Russia and claimed millions of POWs, you're talking out of your azz.
Russians won bc of LL, simple as that.
Also Russians in the end had 5:1 superiority and fought German kids.
@@fritzlang4941 Well, in the grand scheme of things, it only matters who wins. USSR (and the Allies) got first place. Germany and Japan got second place and thus lost.
Just see the killing rate and you learn somthing.
Cheers
Please explain.
@@HistoryHustle
I guess he can't. Just likes leaving what he considers a clever insult. See you, Michael Steiner; kill rates don't mean shit. Look at Viet Nam. I call bullshit.
@@rudolphguarnacci197 The Carthaginians also killed a lot more Romans than the reverse during the Second Punic War. Carthage also lost the war, and as a direct consequence also no longer exists.
As you said, kill rates don't always determine outcomes.
Het heeft te maken dat het meer Koude Oorlog geschiedenis is van WWII met de russen.
De Russen deden het fantastisch. Neem alleen al het feit dat de Russische KV tanks een ongelofelijke bijdrage leverde tegen de Duitse Tank mythe.
En wat hebben de Duitsers niet geleerd van de T-34. De beste tank van WWII
Hebben we het niet eens over Zjukov.
Heb ik het nog niet eens over de
zo fantastisch waren de Russen niet,zeker niet in het begin, tijdens de grote zuivering had hij (Stalin)ook de militaire top niet gespaard.
het feit dat de Duitsers tot op 40 km van Moskou kwamen,had hier zeker mee te maken, en ook dat het sovjet leger centraal werd geleid,commandanten op elk niveau moesten overal toestemming voor vragen.
De Wehrmacht was tactisch gezien superieur aan het sovjet leger.
maar dat was niet voldoende, de bevoorradinglijnen van de Wehrmacht werden te lang,de verliezen (mensen en materiaal) konden nauwelijks meer worden aangevuld.
Het sovjet leger had daar minder last mee,, voldoende mensen, materiaal (ook de hulp van de geallieerden ) en in 1944 de opening van het 2e front.
Dat heeft uiteindelijk geleid tot de nederlaag van de Wehrmacht.
De Russen deden het in 1941 nog niet 'fantastisch'. Maar ze hebben zeker van hun fouten geleerd en eind 1941 effectief terug geslagen.
Explain why. I’ve never heard a good European explanation of why.
Why what?
Al zouden ze moscow hebben genomen, dan rest de vraag op victorie nog immer.
Klopt. We zullen het nooit weten.
Just subscribed and would like to b a regular person
Great! Feel free to watch some of the older videos and comment. I'm sure there are epiodes that you find interesting!
heres a funfact = stalin ordered the excavation of the tomb of timur and hitler invaded russia within 2 days and when he ordered to rest his body the germans started retreating . timur said 'the world will tremble when i wake up and it did sure tremble
Yes, I heard of that! Crazy fact right?
@@HistoryHustle yeah man timur was a monster
Havent Read up on Timur.
@@HistoryHustle well timur was turk from uzbekistan . he made one the strongest empire in the world . he considered himself the worthiest successor of chengis khan . he defeated the delhi sultanate , the mamluk sultanate , ottoman empire and captured the sultan bayezid , the golden horde ,the persian sultanates and the chagatai
@@HistoryHustle watch the video hikma history made on timur
Nah, The Germans failed to take Moscow due to logistics (or lack/failure thereof.). Not so much logistics regarding ammunition, food and technical supplies, but (and this is a nasty little secret) they ran out of methamphitamine. Up until november 1941, there had remained a fairly stable supply of methamphitamines with which they kept their troops hopped-up. For various reasons that supply dried up, So now they not only had to deal with the cold and usual deprivations of war as well as with an enraged opponent (Yes, that would be the Soviet forces.) but they were also collectively nursing a huge (as in Really HUGE!!!) downer with the combined withdrawal effects of their favorite war-candy and the inescapeable adverse side effects of using it in the first place and for as long as they had. Meth habit/downer is a major B!TCH to kick and makes you pretty much useless as a soldier. Add that to the otherwise significant combat stress and such and you have to peg your expectations of success in military operations quite considerably lower.
I wouldn't say that Meth was THE factor, but German pharmaceuticals definitely helped.
Bro the thing about speed/meth or whatever is that it's users claim it gives them more energy but it doesn't...it just makes you use up your energy more quickly. Also speed plus cold is a shitty combination, it constricts the blood vessels and makes you feel cold even when it's not cold when you're coming down...I know from experience lol. Ever heard of ''whizz dick''? (whizz is another name for speed)
@@godsowndrunk1118 You are talking about 6 mo. I am talking about the very start of WWII (1939) or even longer. I'm not sure when Germany started making Pervitin and not going to research that either, but it has been known to be a staple during the invasion of Poland, Norway, the Low Countries and France. Note: In the 1940 invasion of France there were rather disturbing findings about normally healthy and young soldiers dying of sudden heart-failure and German officers having to be taken off the fighting strength due to exhaustion and physical emaciation within weeks into the campaign. Rough commonality between non-combat casualty cases of this nature was an established dependence on Pervitin. Not that it made much of a difference to Germany as a whole where Herr Schicklegruber (aka. Adolf Hitler) was an enthusiastic user of it himself. Just sayin....
@@simonh6371 Agreed. And you are right: Speed and Sub-zero don't mix even remotely successfully, which makes for an unpleasant combination with the Russian winter climate. Certainly when possibilities to get warm and cozy are not likely to be forthcoming shortly.
Whether or not Whizz makes werewolves out of wimps, I will leave in the middle, but endurance limits and physical strength are for the most part determined between the ears, which is where the 'rubber meets the road' with stuff like this. What it effectively does is that it eradicates hunger, thirst and need to rest.....and it adversely affects mental state in a serious fashion so that otherwise normal people would do things that they would not normally contemplate. Most notably violent, cruel, vile and horrible things, perpetrated without any form of remorse and/or empathy. All of which have been known to have happened. Another thing that it does is that it eventually incapacitates and kills it unrestrained user. That, and give you horrifyingly bad breath, ruins your dentition, give you psychosis and make you generally be not 'a good sport', all of which can hardly be seen as being conducive to military readiness.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 Eggsackly! Historically IG Farben GMBH certainly proved itself to be a double-edged sword, but they were not the only ones. There were several other pharma companies (from outside Germany (wink-wink, nod-nod... USA)) involved in the Third Reich endeavours.
superficial
Ok.
Ukrainian and other peoples not happy with Soviet rule could have supported Germany but for Nazi cruelty
In case you're interested, more on that here
ua-cam.com/video/Cll91vfc_3Q/v-deo.html