"In 1941 the United States entered the war on the Allies' side". To be clear, it's important to remember that the US had declared war only on Japan. It was Hitler and Mussolini then declaring war on the US that brought that great power formally into the Allied fold. Yes, American sympathies were already mostly with the British Empire and France but it was Hitler's choice to fight the US and all that followed was of his own making.
To be clear, the US declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Hitler declared war on the US on December 11 and the US returned the favor within hours. But the US had been preparing for war with Germany years earlier and in 1940 reinstated the draft. Production of airplanes, tanks, and ships ramped up as well. Churchill had been courting the US for months as well and had been given significant material support including the Lend-Lease Act in March 1941. The US, fearing that England would not hold out against the Germans, began developing a transcontinental bomber, the B-36 Peacemaker, in early 1941 (although it didn't enter service until after the war). So to be even more clear, your comment that Hitler's speech on December 11 preceded the US declaration of war on Germany is technically true, it is a distinction without a difference. The US would have entered the war against Germany in any case, irrespective of "Hitler's choice".
A friend, now deceased, was injured at Stalingrad before it was encircled, and was sent back to Germany to recuperate. Recovered, he was again sent to the Eastern front. He said his train stopped at the station quite normally, but when he climbed out of the carriage, there was around 2,000 Russian soldiers in the station. He decided to surrender.
Could have been Operation Bagration. The Soviets smashed through German lines in 1944 at lightning speed and the Germans didn't have enough time to reorganize. They probably penetrated behind the front lines and reached the train station as his train was still heading to the front. Just one possibility.
Thank you. I thank you with the most beautiful words for your esteemed channel and the accurate, wonderful and useful information you provide. I hope you success . I have the utmost respect, appreciation and pride for your wonderful work
If you think about it the whole thing it was just unnecessary blood and death gore fest. What were they thinking? So much unnecessary loss of lives. So insane, humanity died momentarily, the whole war was just insane. Not even the usa nor the soviets (the so called allies) were heroes either. This was undoubtedly one of humanity's greatest blunders.
That's true but that's not the whole truth. The whole truth is that Hitler and his henchmen made the whole German people their accomplices. The German soldier went to war not to defend his country (even this may be a propaganda trick), the Nazis told him that he was a superman and had the right to kill and rob Untermensch. German soldiers knew very well that their goal was total destruction of Russia and Russian people and conquering the land for themselves. This is the logic of a bandit. Any fairy tales about defending Europe against Bolshevik hordes Goebbels propaganda started only when it became crystal clear that conquering Russia turned out to be impossible.
A wonderful channel that deserves all respect, appreciation and pride. Accurate and useful information in a sophisticated and beautiful manner. I wish you lasting success. I have the utmost respect and admiration for your great honor for these wonderful works. I hope you success
My great grandfather and Great Grand Uncle and Grand Uncle were in the Soviet army or thd Red Army. They all fought defending Moscow, but later, my Great grandfather went towards Stalingrad to defend it and survived. Then my Grand Uncle and Great Grand Uncle went towards Leningrad, and they didn't make it sadly. Later on, my great grandfather went towards Kursk fought there, and later on, he went to Ukraine to liberate it. Then Poland. And he finally made it to Berlin. Eternal memory to the heroes!
@@someone-ti8ov it's all a matter of perspective, not a fan of the Soviets, but it's true, for you they might be dogs, but for this guy, they were heroes.
How on earth you can say those who fought for communism were heroes, it's quite mind boggling They brought untold misery and deprivation to millions in Europe after the war. It is the height of conceit to claim what they did was anything positive
Soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a middle age German immigrant to Canada that I knew said she was going on a tourist trip to Stalingrad. When I asked her why she was going there? Her reply was "I lost three brothers there".
Every year when the spring thaw happens in Stalingrad bones both german and russian come out of the ground - they are still finding the war dead there.
@@TruthisNaked One thing to think about when you think about the Cold War was how many Soviet citizens had severe PTSD from spending their childhoods in places like Stalingrad. The average Soviet second grader knew at least ten children who died in the War.
One of my German uncles was at that battle. He became a POW from 1943 to 1947. He used the time well, though. He learned Russian, Romanian and Hungarian.
My german grandpa fled to german switzerland through the mountains in 1944 Then went to french switzerland 1949-1961 when there was the whole ex german soldier hunt. Especialy he served since 1936 and was special elite forces Then 1961 he fled to France, in Nice cote dazur under false papers 😂 He lived there most of his life. With some years in Paris & Bordeaux He met my grandma in Bordeaux But he was a womanizer. He had apparenrly 20 wives in France. And he lied to all of them 😂 He passed away in 2008 in Paris from alcohol overdose that caused him fatal liver pancreas damage due to oldness He lived quite a crazy life He also fought a lot in the 1960s 1970s 1980s against french bandits. Cause he like to walk outside in the nights even in bad neibourhood and fought using his special force fighting technique. But he stopped doing that in the 1990s cause he felt he was starting to get old and not as strong and fast as before
Well in Napoleon's case he actually captured Moscow, but that did little to force the Russians to the negotiating table. Something similar would've probably happened even if Hitler took Moscow
@@georgedobler7490 yeah, from New York Times. They forged that lie and they laughed at it as if they weren't the ones that created it, typical american propaganda.
I visited Volgograd in September 2014. So much to see and some great museums. The basement of the GUM department store where Paulus was captured is now a small museum.
Not long before Case Blue, something like only 18% of the divisions in the Wehrmacht were considered suited for offensive operations. The vast majority of divisions were only considered capable of defensive or static operations. Another thing many forget is the fact that the Wehrmacht, with diminished air superiority, lost a ton of soldiers between the start of Fall Blau and the time they reached the banks of the Volga at Stalingrad in August 1942. Maybe 20-45% divisional strength by the time the battle for Stalingrad even began. This is easily the most fascinating chain of historical and military events in my opinion. Just insane.
the fact that Hitler didnt give any of the soldiers in Operation Barbarossa winter clothing - in an invasion of Russia- is optimistic well into insanity.
@@julianciahaconsulting8663And the fact that he intended to take 18 million km2 under the control of 80 million Germans is also amazing. I undeniably believe that the Germans could take over all of Europe and keep it under their control for decades. But I do not have enough strength to think that it is possible, in principle, to capture 18 million km2 and not choke. Truly the most insane person in history.
I had a German language teacher in college that was one of the 5000 German soldiers that survived Stalingrad and prison in the 1980s. At first I was doubtful but he showed us pictures, documents and the cap and jacket he wore when he returned to West Germany. Amazing story. I remember that he ate bread made out of sawdust and glue from wallpaper.
@@jackoboyle7749 What do you think? C'mon honestly what the hell do you think? No doubt part of him was pleased to have survived, but you can bet your house that a bigger part of him was left on the battlefields with his long lost Comrades, in and around Stalingrad.
@@jackoboyle7749 maybe not. He may have with hindsight thought the World is a better place with the defeat of his army though he may mourn the death of his friends and family if there were any killed serving in that army
Minor correction: Chuikov's 62nd Army was not the only army stationed in Stalingrad along with it were 2 other armies the 63th, 64th, and the first guard tank guard army. And The Soviets shot roughly 1000 or so Cowards and deserters in and around Stalingrad, others 14.000 or so were sent to other units or penal battalions.
Penal battalions is completely made up crap. Soviet union did kot shoot its own soldiers. Those shot were mostly nkvd etc officers who deserted their own troops and positions living people to doe. However of those numbers are very low. There is kot evwn proof of 500 deaths of those
The events of the Battle of Stalingrad have been covered in numeros media works of British, American, German, Russian origin, for its significance as a turning point in the Second World War and for the loss of life associated with the battle. The term Stalingrad has become almost synonymous with large-scale urban battles with high casualties on both sides.
That really pisses me off, I see a lot of UA-cam historians talk about America's Stalingrad or Britain's, or this country or that country but the fact is, Stalingrad stands on it's own, it has no contenders!
Imagine of Hitler never split army group south during Fall Blau in the Caucasus, and first captured the Oil fields, and had even more resources, AND THEN, invade Stalingrad with a stronger army. Maybe he would've won?? Or maybe the USSR would fall more easily.
A thousand greetings of great respect and appreciation for your esteemed channel. Thank you for this accurate and useful information and your great effort. I wish you success . My utmost respect and appreciation
Red is the color used for enemy forces on a military map. Blue for one's own forces. It is general practice to portray the Germans as the enemy by historians in Allied nations.
An excellent video. I think one thing is underexposed. That it was a coincidence that Operation Torch started, at the same time that Operation Uranus was postponed by 10 days. I don't think this was coordinated between the USSR and the USA. But Operation Torch did ensure that Hitler decided to transfer most of the Luftwaffe from the Eastern Front to the African Front. And so when Operation Uranus started later, the lack of German air support for Paulus' troops was crucial to their fate.
Right! The Battle of Britain and the African front where huge undertakings that coat the Nazis thousands of lives, thousands of planes, trucks, guns and equipment and not to mention the hundreds of thousands of men who had to be stationed all over Western Europe. In Africa alone some 250,000 men are captured and at the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe lose some 2,600 men and like 1k planes. All that material and man power would’ve went along way on the eastern front. Stalin who started the war with Hitler always complained about “the second front” while he himself only fought and had to worry about the eastern front. While America and Britain and the common wealth allies had to deal with Germany on the periphery Russian only had to worry about one front. The battle for the Atlantic consumed massive amounts of resources for the Germans, they sunk millions into their Kreigsmarine and had hundreds of thousands of sailors that could’ve been used in the army. If you can’t achieve superiority of arms in the air and at sea building an airforce or a navy only depletes those resources from the army. The Russians only had to worry about their army. The Americans had to build the largest airforce and navy the world had ever seen.
And "Military Genius" decided to flood Africa with troops during the last 6 months of the Campaign and lost about 200.000 troops in Tunisia into captivity. Not to mention Luftwaffe lost about 2500 airplanes over North Africa in a span of just 5 months during November 42-April 43. Crazy!
My grandfather fought in russia and served in a replenishment companie, he told me that they had big problems to had enough equipment from the first day of operation Barbarossa. The distances grow from day to day and there where no good roads to use, on the other hand they had all kinds of trucks, captured british and french vehicles and various german made trucks like Opel Blitz, Mercedes, Borgwards and so on. It was a logistical nightmare that become even worse when the rain in the autum converts the roads in muddy swamps so the vehicles get stuck. When the first winter came they had all hands to do to keep the vehicles running and bring the supplies to the front. He says: "we knew after the first four weeks it was a stupid idea to go to war with russia, the land is too big and the russians fight like hell to defend the motherland" So i absolute agree with you that they where doomed from the first day on. (Sorry if i write some wrong grammatiks but i dont like the google translator so i dig out my old scool english) 😉😉
@@unoriginalog836no not really ,thats a myth. Some forces arrived there but they were as good as destroyed by that point. The Germans were doomed from the very beginning.
I have an uncle from Germany who was there as well. He was a POW for 4 years. He lost a leg. He came back having learned Russian, Hungarian and Romanian. He was not bitter at all.
I believe the infantry used horse drawn wagons to pull their equipment. Probably many of these horses died or were eaten the first Winter. They were definitely eaten at Stalingrad
Many didn't walk far, they died or were captured. 25% lost first 6 months or so. Many were in vehicles or on horses. Trains and planes. It's not thought of this way. The Germans were successful early because they could move fast: Captured vehicles, horses, motorcycles. As time passed the foreign vehicles broke down, horses died and motorcycles failed. The army lost its mobility over time
What people need to realise is that the people involved made the best decisions they could based on the information they had available at the time. Hindsight makes things look incredibly easy.
Dumb decisions made by the Austrian corporal with no formal strategic military training doomed Germany, especially when he decided to double cross Stalin and invade the USSR. Did not learn anything from Napoleon's blunder.
That is why you need good spies. A famous russion spy in Japan could inform that Japan will not attack USSR , so could russian forces be transported from the east to the front.
Only the decisions which they think were best. Had they been smart enough, they could change the course to whatever they like. Hindsight just makes the average see the best decisions a lot easier.
Very good overall, thank you. Just a couple of corrections though. Friedrich Paulus wasn't a von, he was of humble, not noble birth (like Rommel). Also, Erich von Manstein was a Generalfeldmarschall, not a General, as he'd been promoted in July 1942 after his victory in Crimea.
This is a good summary of Operation Blue. Identifies the battle of Stalingrad as a "high tide mark" rather than the traditional "turning point" and correctly determines the outcome to have been decided by resources and supply rather than "one vital decision" by Hitler. Doesn't dwell too much on the cruel decision to keep 6th Army from retreating, a retreat which, I believe, would have risked cutting off the entire Army Group A.
That is a common misunderstanding of ability of 6th army to rescue itself during the winter 1942. Germans had numerous cases of dying from starvation or/and freezing to death. No one would do that if he has fuel to burn and horse to eat. So germans had no fuel for their tanks and trucks and no horses to pull artillery pieces which means in case of breaking out attempt they would have to walk on foot in a frost and deep snow just with rifles and hand grenades, leaving all seek an injured behind against tank and artillery fortified positions of Soviets
@@insideoutsideupsidedown2218 , They might have been able to retreat at an early stage before the encirclement was well established. Of course, we cannot be certain of what would have happened. One thing we know is that the encirclement tied down a large number of Soviet troops for two months.
Every event in WWII was affected by the preceding ones. The battle of Malta directly influenced the Battle of Stalingrad. On November 15th, 1941. Luftflotte 2 was pulled off the battle line on the Eastern Front and sent to Italy, to reinforce the beleaguered Axis forces dealing with the RN and RAF onslaught. You cannot pull an entire air fleet out of a combat theatre and not have operations affected.
Germany was too overconfident as well. Hitler biggest mistake was splitting his forces in 1942 on the eastern front. Taking Stalingrad was not a good idea as it didn't provide any benefit other than bragging rights that Hitler took stalins city. Another massive mistake was not finishing the fight with Britain
@@JangoBlader not finishing off britain was a mistake but capturing stalingrad could provide huge benefits. 1: stalingrad was a major center of war production and capturing the city would have dealt immense damage to the soviet economy and its warmaking potential 2: capturing stalingrad puts the volga river in german hands dealing further economic and logistical damage to russia 3: it allows wehrmacht forces to directly threaten moscow and provides a new avenue of attack on the city as well as a relief of logistical pressure via using the river for transport
And many, many historians fail to note that Barbarossa was planned to launch *March* 21, but Mussolini asked Hitler for help in Libya and Greece, and so Wehrmacht units were peeled away to fight in North Africa and the Balkans, and Barbarossa was pushed back three months so that some of those units could be reintegrated once Italy's sector was stable. That's 12 weeks. That's the difference between hitting Moscow and Leningrad before the Autumn rains... or not.
The losses that the Germans had in the First winter of the war is often down played or skipped over. But they were huge, and mostly from freezing to death...
I think the German army lost 25% of their total troops the first year, but 75% of their trained combat troops. The army the following year was made up of more Pioneer (construction) and other reserve troops.
@@chadthundercock4806 There are still many people that like to make excuses on why the Germans lost the war. They cannot accept that the Russians beat them.
Chuikov took over command of the 9th Army after the failures at Suomussalmi and after the order to halt offensive operations in order to reorganise the Red Army for a renewed offensive in 1940. So not sure why he would need to impress Stalin or anything, he wasn't meant to do anything other than hold position of the 9th army at the border.
IMPORTANTLY, precious opportunities were squandered during July 1942. Hitler blundered horribly by micromanaging priorities for a split Army Group A and B. Contradicting orders led to massive traffic jams that caused crucial delays; allowing the Soviets to escape and regroup. Also, Chuikov asked repeatedly to leave the west bank of Stalingrad. Zhukov denied these requests, as he knew the Germans being kept distracted was the most important factor for the encirclement of Sixth Army.
Chuikov wasn't asking for retreat, he was asking for reinforcements. But Zhukov was accumulating forces for the counter-offensive so he could't give much.
This is the propaganda made by the German Generals after the war. The truth is the war was unwinnable and they were all fools. The German Generals were not any smarter than their boss.
@@KenjaTimu Yes there was no clear strategy after the first few months. Gen. Paulus ran the war games and didn't think it was a good idea to invade. I'm just addressing the blunders that made the defeat at Stalingrad worse.
@jjmachuca It wasn't really blunders. Their blunders were fundamental. Being Nazis. They had a land army. Where else could they go after France? They had to do something. It was either invade the Soviet Union or do nothing. Doing nothing wouldn't work. Their Empire was unsustainable and in an unwinnable war.
I wouldn't say that splitting Army Group A and Army Group B was a blunder; it was the least bad option among a set of bad options - the Germans were desperately short on fuel, and they recognized that siezing the oilfields was their only hope. They also recognized that sending all of their forces to the Caucuses would mean the Soviets could launch a counteroffensive from Stalingrad to the Black Sea, cutting off all of Army Group South.
A big contributing factor to the Nazi defeat was Soviet crash industrialization. When Barbaross happened, German armies encountered factories and rail lines that weren't on any of their maps. Hitler himself was alarmed at how in just a decade, Soviet industry had modernized seemingly out of nowhere.
@@GnosisJapan Modern research that there was no deliberate famine in Ukraine, not to mention that the overall Nazi plan was to kill two thirds of Ukraine and turn the survivors into slave labour. Soviet industralization saved the country from the Nazi warmachine
@@Nina-l2l1e Refusal by the generals to heed their logisticians who warned of the inability of the reich to supply the Wehrmacht in the Soviet Union. Hitler’s horrendous mistreatment of the Ukrainians achieved something Stalin never could, a pro-soviet Ukraine. The Soviet opportunity to trade land for time as well as a much, much greater pool of manpower on which to draw. America’s ability and willingness to supply the Soviets with large quantities of badly needed armaments through the lendlease program.
The 6th army holding out gave Army Group South time to retreat from the Caucasus. Presumably Stalin was asking his generals to attack Rostov thus mostly blocking the escape except a sea crossing into Crimea which would have been an even bigger defeat, the fact that the Russians concentrated on Stalingrad indicates by this time Stalin was listening to the advice from his army, unlike Hitler who constantly intervened.
Simply not true when it comes to Hitler's military legacy in world war 2. He listened to his generals when it made sense, and ignored some of them when they offered advice that did not consider the entire strategic picture. Our impression of Hitler is immensely clouded by his generals who survived, all trying desperately to rescue their reputations and escape further vilification by the West who now found themselves a common enemy. Senior level Wehrmacht post war memoirs are chock full of half-truths, intentional mischaracterizations, lies by omission, and actual fantasy. Manstein swears up and down that Paulus was an immovable coward, but documented communications prove unequivocally that Manstein knew the 6th army was doomed by the time he began his relief attack. He refused to order Paulus to commence the primary breakout operation, because his relief "army," if you could call it that, was already getting bogged down and shortly after pushed back in the south by the Soviets. Just one small example, but relevant nonetheless.
It would be more correct to say that Stalin finally began to listen to his generals in the later half of 1942. During the first year of the war, Stalin dictated strategy for the Red Army and disaster after disaster was the result.
@@vonbennett8670 he probably listened to them from the beginning but mostly rejected their plans. He heeded them later. I would say it’s likely he first accepted their plans during the winter offensive to drive the Germans back from the gates of Moscow in December 1941 when Stalin wanted a larger counter offensive but his officers seemingly persuaded Stalin that a limited counter would be strategically better as the Russians didn’t have the resources.
Much in the same way that I'd attribute Allied failure in Market Garden to a lack of foresight, and lack of a 'back-up' plan, I'd say a similar thing for the Germans in the East. The logistical backbone of Barbarossa did not take into account an alternative where the Wehrmacht failed to beat the Soviets into submission in those first crucial two months. This is HIGHLY overlooked, in a lot of historiographies, and especially popular media that surrounds the war. Stalingrad is often hailed as the turning point, which it certainly was from the perspective of the Soviets gaining the initiative along the front, but the writing was on the wall for the Germans much sooner.
I have read a ton of books and seen 1,000 documentaries and I totally agree with you. One book I read said at those crucial early stages the germans had the russians beat, but they didn't pursue it at the right time because they didn't know how close their army was to collapse. So they waited a few crucial days and by then the russians got enough backup support that they didn't collapse. There were two instances of this, had they just kept on attacking at crucial times, the red army may have collapsed, but they waited.
The Germans lost the war on December 11th 1941 and the Japanese on December 8th when the US declared war on them. The Germans and the Japanese were in the ascendancy so long as Americas foreign policy ain’t to wage war on the axis powers. Yes there were some early setbacks for the allies, but just after 6 months after Pearl Harbor the battle of the Coral sea, Midway then Guadalcanal and that same year Stalingrad. If Germany and Japan wanted to solidify their gains the best thing they could’ve done was stay out of a war with the US.
@@mattgames7543 lol. ussr survived only thanks to lend-lease. russia had lost previous world war even though its allies continued without russians and had won. btw, all this happened only because japan had lost khalkhin gol and instead of attacking ussr decided it would be easier to attack pearl harbor
@@SergePavlovsky So, because Russia lost a historic war, they were by default going to lose a new one? The Germans won the Franco Prussian war so surely they must win WWI! What a foolish argument. And you are simply wrong about lend-lease. The German advance stopped, and the Soviets had conducted their first successful counter-offensive before the lend-lease even began arriving in meaningful amounts. Between 1941 and the end of 1943, lend-lease had accounted for no more than roughly 4% of Soviet wartime production, and therefore despite having made the transportation of goods and the production of certain materials easier, the Soviet troops were still, by and large enabled by a national industry. The lend-lease ramped up (some historians claim as high as 10% of Soviet production, however some estimates state a lower figure, its hard to tell) in 1944 and 1945, however by this point the tide had turned in the conflict. The Germans had lost Stalingrad and were ejected from their furthers extent, and 1944 would signify the removal of the Germans from the pre-war borders. The ultimate point, however, is the fact that the Germans had lost in the first 4 critical months. Barbarossa failed to achieve its strategic aims, the German army was ill-equipped for future fighting, moved to a predominantly defensive footing bar Army Group South, and were struggling to support their supply lines. Despite the massive Soviet losses, their army was actually bigger by the end of 1941 than when the war started, and had done a good job at stablising most of the front, and even counter-attacking during the winter offensive. I could go on, but in short, you are wrong.
Good summary. I followed this campaign in great detail on the TIK channel (which I highly recommend) but it was nice to have a recap. There is no doubt in my mind that the fate of the European war was decided in these battles.
The invasion was to have begun in April or May, but the uprising in Yugoslavia stopped that plan. Once over summer had begun and the uprising ended, they were six weeks behind in their plans. Watch the series from the 1970s called The World At War.
Great documentary it is an Oscar winning documentary there is a single volume companion book the cover is that awesome title screen of “the world war war” burning. World war 2 in color is also a great one but they took it off Netflix. I have both on blue ray.
If Germany had those extra weeks I think they would have captured Moscow before winter set in. But I don't know if that was enough to finish the Soviet Union off. Stalin at one point had his private train packed incase Moscow fell so he was committed to keep fighting from the East. He also had many factories sent to the East by rail. Taking Moscow could have caused a chain reaction and a collapse, but it also might not have. Remember that Napoleon captured Moscow and that still wasn't enough.
This has been "debunked" so to speak; if Barbarossa starts earlier they run into a whole new set of problems which are potentially more severe than starting six weeks behind schedule. There simply is no magic trick which will make Barbarossa work with just one simple, or even a few adjustments in planning and strategy. They really do have to either reach the designated Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line in 1941 thus conquering enough of the Soviet industrial capacity and oil production in one fell swoop as to render them unable to continue the war meaningfully, or the attack has to cause some kind of internal turmoil in the Soviet system which leads to the same result ("kicking in the door"). The latter of course was exactly the same kind of wishful thinking that led the Japanese to believe that Americans were "soft" and awe-inspiring military setbacks such as Pearl Harbor could scare them and make them quickly ask for peace. If neither of these options come true then it's simply a numbers game of resources and industrial capacity, and in that game Germany simply does not have the cards in hand to win it in the long run. And no amount of tweaking strategy or sending this or that division here or there or changing timetables and producing limited amounts of wunderwaffe is going to change that, it can only delay the inevitable.
@@JGD185 I think the current consensus among what-if historians now is that if Germany manages to capture Moscow in late 1941, the Soviet resources husbanded for the winter counter-attack (they're still there, they don't magically disappear) are simply used to take it back. This means that Stalingrad happens a year early, and at Moscow. Remember that if the Germans do manage to take Moscow in late 1941 they will do so at the absolute end of their tether. There is no magic trick that will solve their massive logistical problems on the Eastern Front at the same time and allow them to do so while also staying in good shape, and sticking to their other commitments on that massive front and elsewhere.
The far more important 'what if' analysis is what if the Russians and French & British weren't so incompetent at the beginning? Virtually the entirety of German 'success' up until Dec 5 1941 is the result of allied failures ranging from hiding behind the Maginot line and not just walking in to Germany in Sep 39. Total incompetence in assigning French tanks as infantry support and trying to re-fight WWI in 1940. Stalin ignoring intelligence and losing 2 million men and vast amounts of equip in summer 1941...instead of just redeployment them further east. Total war is mostly decided by economics and the economics were massively in the allied favor, but their failures in 1939-41 were epic and far more driven by their incompetence then German genius.
Even had Germany taken the oil fields. They would have been a bigger target than the Romanian fields. Add on top of that the infrastructure needed to make it available to Germany is crazy.
German logistics were incredibly poorly organised. The lack of rail infrastructure meant it was impossible to adequately supply German forces as they advanced and, even if the oil fields had been captured and were able to be turned to production, it would have been impossible to move the captured oil back to Germany.
On the plus side, taking the oil fields means the Rooskies lost all that oil for their own economy. Yes the Germans did not gain any, but the Soviets would have lost a LOT.
4:29 Voronezh was under siege for 212 days, but it was not captured. Actually, Voronezh was the only city that had the frontline going thought the city itself except for Stalingrad.
They kicked down the door and it all came crashing down. Only behind that door was another door and another ........ The penny finally dropped when they started liberating factories or what was left of them and were shocked at the scale of production.
there is an obscure interview captured on camera between Hitler and Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim (Finnish leader) where Hitler with horror says that how could have anyone known that Soviets would field 6,000 tanks in 1941..It's monstrous, he said. Hitler sounded truly shocked.
If the Germans wanted to win ww2 they should’ve never got into a war with the America. In 194- the only thing keeping the German and Japanese empires alive so the fact that America isn’t waging war on them that all changes at Pearl Harbor and the coral sea and Guadalcanal and yea Stalingrad
Definitely doomed from the start. They didn't have enough fuel to get there in force before winter. Trying to reach Baku in the south and simultaneously hit Stalingrad in the east was an impossible task. They advanced on a narrow front with thin flanking support from lesser armies (Romanians and Italians). This operation all but guaranteed their total defeat.
The had neither the manpower or the industrail might to defat the Allies. It's quite simple. That much is obvious and considering that the Allies had broken the Enigma codes and it still took them 6 years to beat the Germans says one of two things, they either were superior or the Allies were totally incompetent! Take your pick...
@@karlheinzvonkroemann2217😂 Dood we systematically destroyed Germany bit by bit and there wasn’t a damn thing the Germans could do to stop it. 😂 You have that old Southern mentality “yea well we took 300,000 Yankees with us” “Still lost” 😂😂😂
This is right, encirclement can result to formation for break through or permanent warfare. The germans abandoned lightning warfare and didnt think of mass invasion theory ie Napoleon burned moscow. Encirclement is time consuming. Mass invasion theory doesnt work tactically against formation like in sparta, punic wars, pyrric war or gettysburg so idk. Taking northern russia only only couldve broke moral, split the country hence they had leningrad for 4 years.
There's a speech Hitler gave on September 30 1942 in which he braggs about conquering stalingrad. Its still available online I'm sure. Its one of the rare hitler speeches that is shown translated in its entirety.
I dunno if you’d ever seen the 1960s Soviet adaptation of War And Peace but in the fourth film (yes it’s a LotR-ish quadrilogy) when they made a grand, helicopter-shot pan-over of the French armoes hobbling along in the blizzard, they chose to have Napoleon narrate his intended Victory-in-Moscow speech over the whole debacle, and the results are always laugh-cry inducing to me. I wonder if the Hitler speech was so comprehensively translated into other languages for the same reason.
@@markprange4386 I have watched the video of the speech about a dozen times and it was definitely September 30. You can Google it to confirm. Also that was my fathers 10th birthday. Maybe he made one in November to. Not only that but by November 8 they were getting their butt's kickeded.
@@markprange4386 I just watched a very good video called the hitler chronicles in which they mentioned hitlers speech at the berger braukeller on November 9, 1942.
HI I've seen lots of videos on the Stalingrad campaign. But this one explains it the best. How the change of Plan, and sending units to Army Group North and Army Group Centre was bad mistake. Imagine If all the German resources were give to Army Group South!
Anything in the Soviet Union was doomed to fail if you actually thought you could keep supply lines open through the Russian winter. I know Germany had experienced a lot of successes, but you can't have supply lines that go thousands of miles through enemy territory. And there's plenty of historical empirical data and experience that would have told you the same.
When the Russians launched their pincer attack around Stalingrad, and later on the Don river (held by the Italians) they had a huge advantage in men, armor and artillery. The Italian divisions were infantry (including some mountain infantry: Alpini): they were hit by waves of T-34 and many of them completely destroyed in place, in a futile attempt to hold the line. The retreat of the remnant of the Italian Army (75000 people strong), which also incorporated many disbanded German units (which provided some armored vehicles) and Romanians, was led by the last combat ready division, the Alpini Tridentina, followed by a huge column of disbanded soldiers. The Russians launched many waves of T-34 units to try to cut the retreat. For countless times the Tridentina (infantry) had to attack the Russian tanks and break the encirclement. There were no trucks, the few anti tank guns they had were horse drawn, the temperature was deadly cold, and many just died because of frozen feet and hands and lack of food. For those who could not keep the pace of the retreating Tridentina the prospect was to be imprisoned and probably die in Siberia, or being immediately shot dead (the Germans were immediately killed after capture, the Russians were not willing to take German prisoners). The Tridentina took tremendous losses, they finally managed to breach the last attempt of encirclement mounted by the Russians in the village of Nikolayevka, and could reach the Axis line bringing with them tens of thousands of disbanded Axis soldiers. Most of those that were captured never returned home.
The prisoners died not because something bad was done to them, but because they were captured exhausted, because before that they lived in the cold and without food.
@@Anchelm Some of them for sure. But very few returned alive from imprisonment in Siberia. Including Russian dissidents sent there by Stalin after being taken from their homes in perfectly good shape!
This was a combination of the failure to properaly assess Soviet strength by the Wehrmacht's "Fremde Heere Ost (FHO)" or"Foreign Enemies East" section of German Intelligence under General Reinhard Gehlen (OKH) and Hitler, both believing that the Soviets had to be at the end of their manpower rope. Not only because of the Stalingrad Campaign itself but the "Meatgrinder" of the Rzhev Salient in Army Group Center, a series of Soviet Offensives that cost them another 1.5 Million men between Jan 1942 and March of 1943 against the German 9th and 4th Armies. A way to radically limit the German losses in this Case Blue campaign and the smartest way, was to just drive to the Volga north of Stalingrad and set up artillery positions and (river) minfields over a section of the Volga say only 5 to 10 miles long to bring all of the river trafic from the south flowing to the north to a dead stop! Not having suffered the losses involved in all of the bloody street fighting in Stalingrad would have provided the forces, infantry and assault engieers, necessary to stiffen their minor Allied armies on the Don Front and thus provide those areas with much better defensives capabilities. Additionally, The 14th and 16th Panzer Divs (2 Panzer Divisions and one (the 3rd )Motorized Infantry together with the 24th Pz Panzer Division added a little later on) would have been available along with the 24th Panzer Div to form a mobile reserve of one strong Panzer Corps. This certainly could have been done just by not trying to conquer the city. Just from what I'e shown, this was very possibe to do. That would have avoided all of the insanely heavy street fighting and the huge German Infantry and Assault Engineer (Sturmpioniere) losses suffered by the 6th Army in capturing the city and provided infantry units for the flanks (to stiffen these minor Allies with. I don't know of any other serious way that would have allowed for meeting the objectives of the Campaign (except for unnecessarily taking the city), and providing adequate defense against any Soviet counter attacks that might have occurred on the Don Front.
About one sixth of German POW died in captivity. About 70% of Soviet POW died in captivity - Hitler announced that it would be a War of Annihilation against the Soviet Union (therefore Soviet POW were treated very differently to British or US POW.)
@@Holocaustica Patton was almost going to take it. And we know how unstoppable Patton was. Plus the Germans liked to surrender to the western allies and resisting the USSR. So the west could have reached Berlin much easier. Stalin knew why he was rushing. But of course it was not worth the lives
Hi guys from the IWM. Great video! Just a minor thing that I noticed: it’s not „von Paulus“ just „Paulus“. Not every General in the Wehrmacht had a „Von“ in their surname 😂
Hitler himself said, before Battle of Stalingrad, that he had lost the war. Germany didn't take oil fields and attacking Stalingrad was only about cutting Soviet communication at Volga. It was all over before the end of 1942.
@@lonemaus562 Stalingrad and the river beyond it was the most defensible line in the area. The next closest defensible line? Yeah...that is all the way back to the Dnieper River back in Ukraine. The Stalingrad line gives you access the the oil fields that are crucial to the long term needs of the Reich. The Dnieper means a long defensive war that you lose anyway. There is a reason that the Southern flank of the current Russian operation in Ukraine is....the Dnieper River. And it is one of the obvious borders between Russia and Ukraine when this current war is over. (Assuming a negotiated settlement at some point and one side or the other doesn't collapse)
@@lipscomb3632 assuming you aren't brainwashed by russian tv, obvious borders between russia and ukraine are internationally recognized borders since 1991. dnieper was crossed by ukrainian marines(over bridge, but still) several weeks ago, so now southern flank of russian fascists is located a bit to the southeast of dniper. btw, stalingrad and the river beyond it is easy to defend only when enemy is beyond the river. when instead all your logistics is beyond the river, it's very hard to defend, like it was hard for russians to defend kherson and they fleed from it. but somehow they managed to defend similarly located stalingrad. maybe because germans weren't on home soil and had even more severe issues with logistics
I think one of the Axis powers biggest mistakes of the war was opening the Eastern front before finishing off us, the British. It would have ended the bombing campaign, hamstrung the French resistance, given him the North African front and control of the Suez canal. The Americans might have even hesitated join the European part of WW2, instead focusing on Japan.
And give russians time to prepare, time they desperately needed. They made a struck at the very last point , otherwise they would be force to wait until late spring 1942. At that time it would be too late , that will give russians 10 months to get ready their defence lines. It would be end like Kursk battle and russians was have only 6 months to prepare it.
Germans had no means to finish off, you the British, or they would've done so. They need it to launch their own D-Day but for that they 1st, needed air superiority and 2nd navy superiority. And Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain and German navy was in an even weaker navy.
@@mrvk39 Also I read something about southern England having little to no beachhead-worthy spots unlike France when it became a choice of “Calais? Nah too obvious, let’s go for Normandy surprise instead!”
@@davidw.2791 this could've very much complicated German efforts. They probably needed far greater room to maneuver than William the Conqueror - the last one to make a successful amphibious landing from France :) They probably had to sail further North, which would've exposed them even more to allies' navy and aerial attacks. There was simply no way for them to do it.
I feel a bit misled. Why was the operation doomed from the start? I was expecting an in depth analysis of the logistical situation. How many trains, transport planes, trucks, got through, the supplies needed and delivered, how the split of army group South affected the logistical situation - if the initial plan has been kept would the logistics of 6th army allow it to fight better. The supply for both army groups seem to have passed through Rostov. Maybe focusing them on one stronger army would have been better, etc. I was expecting to learn why all variations were doomed to failure. Instead the video is just a quick overview of the battle.
You see youtube video clicker, Its doomed from the start because if you followed the battle the EXACT way it happened the result is what happened 🤣🤣 They never think of changing what happened and what results it may have had
@@me-262gamingluftwaffememin2 indeed hindsight is always 20/20, had history played out differently wed have a youtube video "the defense of stalingrad was doomed from the start..."
One thing more : Barbarossa ist postponed because of the war with Yugoslavia, and that had a big impact because there was not enough time for battles before winter.
Why do you think Moscow was so important? Napoleon took Moscow and still lost. There is no resources to take in Muscow. It was mainly a political objective. The battle was in the south where most of the resources was. Like it or not, but Hitler was correct on going south. He should have allocated troops and resources sooner for the southern push though.
8:52 - add to this that Soviet snipers were deliberately avoiding shooting German soldiers and only going after officers - the snipers surmised that it wasn't worth giving away good position to shoot a common soldier.
The campaign was doomed to fail when the Germans failed to encircle and annihilate the Soviet forces in front of them at the start of Fall Blau The whole plan relied on the assumption that Stalin would have forced his soldiers to stand no matter what like in 1941 so, once the bulk of the Red Army was destroyed, they would have had empty roads in front of them towards the Volga and the Caucasus However this time most of the Soviet forces just routed/retreated (the generals wrote about it as "organized and part of their plan", the soldiers on the fields descrived it as "pure chaos") to fight another day and all the German assumptions about the time, the losses and the resources required to reach their already unrealistic targets (not only Baku is very very far away, but they expected to capture the oil fields almost undamaged) were no more. Moreover, the German intelligence estimated that the Soviets had enough forces to launch only 1 major autumn/winter offensive and that it would have been in front of Moscow so, despite the several warnings from their allies defending the flanks along the Don, they didn't really see Uranus coming. Back to Stalingrad itself, especially given the failing of the Germani initial plan, not taking it not only would have just left a dagger pointed at the German back (given the size, the location and the infrastructures of the city, the Soviets could have gathered forces more easily than the Germans outside in the steppes) but would have made it way more difficult for the Germans to face the incoming winter (Stalingrad would have offered them a logistical hub to move supplies and also given their soldiers as many shelters as they needed). About the breakthrough, Paulus had little to no chances to escape; the Germans were outnumbered, outgunned and lacked transport (good luck walking for dozens of km in the frozen steppes with no supplies, tons of Soviet tanks and artillery ready to plunge into and no heavy weapons to deal with them), not to mention how difficult it would have been to fool the Soviets fighting in the city and prevent them from just moving forward and hit the back+flanks of the reatreating Germans as soon as these left their positions in the city to try their escape. Even had it succeded, the Germans would have only saved few dozens of k of their soldiers at best (even though none of them would have been able to fight anytime soon) but on the other end the Soviets would have been free to use all their soldiers around the city to just keep pushing and, most likely, to reach Rostov sooner and/or to block Army Group A from escaping from the Caucasus (which would have been the end for the whole German Southern front) In the end, the outcome would have been no different (and probably even worse) had the Germans ignored Stalingrad (you can't defend in the open steppes), just focused on the Caucasus (their flank/back would have been wide open) and/or allowed Paulus to try a break through
@@glennmcquoid it would have been impossible because you need to take Stalingrad first to be able to reach Astrakhan An army needs railways to be supplied and advance and there was no major one between Rostov/Ukraine and Astrakhan so either you go down to the Caucasus, then right to the Caspian sea and finally up to the city (but still, your left flank remains unsecured as long as you don't secure the area between Rostov and Stalingrad) or you follow the shorter road to Stalingrad and then along the Volga to Astrakhan
@user-ht9pi6ki4p with which navy and which air supremacy? The Royal Navy ruled the seas and the Luftwaffe got its ass kicked during August and September (Military History Visualized has a very good video about the attrition Germany was suffering in the skies over England and how, on the other hand, the RAF was constantly increasing its numbers during the weeks despite the losses) As several war games showed later during the Cold War, Sea Lion would have never be successful even had the Germans been able to, somehow, land troops in England
@@davidosullivan9817soviet union was weak at that time and without lend&lease it would have worked easily. Russia today cant even take ukraine after 3 years just because ukraine gets the lend&lease now, while germany took ukraine in 2 months.
6:22 "The 6th Army were eating their horses before reaching Stalingrad" 😮 If this is true, they were eating their main means of transportation. Astonishing 😂 9:28 German Logistics problems owing to Railway congestion. 😢 Great video ❤
@karolissavickis10 The narrator said it was because of supply shortages. The locals had destroyed the crops so the soldiers could not live off the land.
it still blows my mind how the germans had the soviets defeated down to a small thin zone along the river in Stalingrad and ended up losing the entire city and an entire army in the process.....
Fall Blau suffered from the bane of so many military campaigns: mission creep. The main objective was to capture the resource producing areas, and even that would be difficult due to the distances. But Hitler got distracted by the completely useless objective of capturing Stalingrad and poured all the available resources into that, even weakening the southern thrust to capture the resources which was the main objective in the first place. Keeping to the initial objectives and staying the hell away from the city fights that limited their advantage of mobility and allowed them to be surrounded would most likely have changed everything.
Would not agree that Stalingrad was useless objective. Simple put, that city, if taken, would be ideal place to perform role of logistical base and in general base for defence of Don-Volga front.
capturing stalingrad cuts ussr off of the southern oil fields , removes one of the ussr's major centers of armament manufacturing , removes the russian control of the volga river damaging the ussr's logistics and enhancing germanys logistics and allows germany another avenue to attack moscow
Hitler's failure to take Moscow doomed Germany's Eastern front campaign. Had he made it a priority from the onset of the invasion, the Soviets would have suffered a major morale blow, Stalin's administration would have been in shambles, and strategically, the Soviets would have lost an essential road and communication network, which would result in the loss of the slender supply line keeping Leningrad alive, and also receiving vital shipments from the Allies. Russia was just too big for the Germans to encompass and occupy. The distances involved made it a logistical nightmare to supply the army. Soviets partisans made things worse, and soon 1 out of every 5 German soldiers would be committed to guarding their supply lines. The final nail in the coffin was getting into a urban street fight at Stalingrad, negating the Germans fire and maneuver tactics , allowing the Russians to hug the German front lines to nullify their artillery and air attacks.
Ever heard of Napoleon? He took Moscow. Ad0lf needed oil and food for the war not a glorified barracks. His priorities should have been. 1 The Caucus 2. Lenningrad. 3. Moscow.
@@macoooos9204 look they both hurt Russia alot. People speak about Germany losing but Hitler killed so many Russian soldiers. Literally 500 Russian soldiers losing their lives every day. Russia won but at a very high cost. The proof is in the pudding 🍰. Lots of Russian boys without fathers and Russian women looking for foreigners for many years to come.
Interesting/informative/entertaining. Excellent photography job/maps enabling viewers to better understand what/whom the orator was describing. After the failed blitzkrieg invasion attempt into Moscow's perimeters. Forever diminishing plans for a quick fall campaign to end the conflict.
Great documentary. Just one thing „von Paulus“ is not his name. It’s just „Paulus”. In spite of his rank and background, he was not ennobled or born into nobility.
Omar Bradley said it best. "Amateurs talk tactics. Professionals talk logistics." Logistics was a foreign concept to Germany, whose strategy was still stuck in the 19th Century. Everyone wants to say how GREAT German generals were. They were good at tactics, but they were amateurs.
Excellent summary, there is a 36 hour long documentary for History fans on the subject, the best, most in-depth one I've ever seen, it's on TIK youtube channel for free.
2:18 In comparison, Germany offensive against France, Belgium and the Low Contries assembled 141 divisions… If the south was their main target, Army Groups North and Center south amount only the force needed to protect South's advance. I think Germany would’ve won if the first two army groups had worked only with the porpuse of conquering the Caucasus.
German/Canadian coworker of mine told me her grandad lost a leg in Stalingrad but survived. She didnt know how he lost it until she found some old photos of him in her teens I guess. Sounds like the silver lining for loosing his leg was being evacuated well before the encirclement happened.
At 3:38 the narrator calls the Axis forces “the allied forces”. And yes I understand that the German, Italian and Romanian forces were allied amongst them.
This documentary is pretty good, but there are some important points to remember that it doesn't emphasize that change how one considers this material: 1) Germany was not obligated to declare war on America when America declared war on Japan. The Tripartite or "Axis" Pact did not require joining wars that other parties to the pact had started. Germany declared war on the United States anyways, and a big reason for this was because, from the perspective on many analysts at the time, it looked like Germany was still winning the War. It's easy for us to see all of the serious logistical issues the Germans faced and the dramatic improvement in the British and Soviet armies at the time, but in 1941, that was much tougher to assess. 2) Not only did it look like Germany was winning throughout 1941, but even for most of 1942, it looked like Germany was at least partly winning. While the Americans began to have military success in the Pacific after Midway, they often struggled in Africa, and even to an extent in the U-Boat campaign, against the Germans in 1942. Even at the end of 1942 in Stalingrad, while it's easy for us to say in hindsight that the German army was in serious trouble, lots of analysts expected the Germans to break out of the encirclement still. 3) A huge reason why the Soviets were able to encircle the Germans at Stalingrad with Operation Uranus was because the Italians and Romanians were guarding the Germans' flanks and were poorly trained. 4) Paulus and other Nazi officers just assumed that Hitler would let them break for Baku's oil fields. While the Soviets may very well have routed the Germans in a hypothetical "Battle of Baku", the fact that this is what so many Nazi officers were expecting changes the context.
I also just have to say: Excellent video. Thanks IWM. You provide the best historic documentaries out there.
"In 1941 the United States entered the war on the Allies' side". To be clear, it's important to remember that the US had declared war only on Japan. It was Hitler and Mussolini then declaring war on the US that brought that great power formally into the Allied fold. Yes, American sympathies were already mostly with the British Empire and France but it was Hitler's choice to fight the US and all that followed was of his own making.
The only treaty Hitler honored, and one of the worst moves he ever made.
The US was already at war with Germany in all but name prior to Pearl Harbor.
The US and Germany had even traded shots at each other in the Atlantic.
But there was a "shoot on sight" order to the US navy, which therefore already became a belligerent in the Atlantic.
To be clear, the US declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Hitler declared war on the US on December 11 and the US returned the favor within hours. But the US had been preparing for war with Germany years earlier and in 1940 reinstated the draft. Production of airplanes, tanks, and ships ramped up as well. Churchill had been courting the US for months as well and had been given significant material support including the Lend-Lease Act in March 1941. The US, fearing that England would not hold out against the Germans, began developing a transcontinental bomber, the B-36 Peacemaker, in early 1941 (although it didn't enter service until after the war).
So to be even more clear, your comment that Hitler's speech on December 11 preceded the US declaration of war on Germany is technically true, it is a distinction without a difference. The US would have entered the war against Germany in any case, irrespective of "Hitler's choice".
@@11Kralle In reprisal for German provocations. The US was acting within maritime law.
I love to see the IWM docs on these subjects. They always do a great job and add plenty of reasons to learn more about sometimes familiar topics.
A friend, now deceased, was injured at Stalingrad before it was encircled, and was sent back to Germany to recuperate. Recovered, he was again sent to the Eastern front. He said his train stopped at the station quite normally, but when he climbed out of the carriage, there was around 2,000 Russian soldiers in the station. He decided to surrender.
'decided'
Wow that’s unreal.
Could have been Operation Bagration. The Soviets smashed through German lines in 1944 at lightning speed and the Germans didn't have enough time to reorganize. They probably penetrated behind the front lines and reached the train station as his train was still heading to the front. Just one possibility.
@@wtotheo I mean he could pull his gun or knife out and make all of their days.
@@wtotheo I could have taken those 2000 soviet soldiers alone but I felt generous that day
Thank you. I thank you with the most beautiful words for your esteemed channel and the accurate, wonderful and useful information you provide. I hope you success . I have the utmost respect, appreciation and pride for your wonderful work
Moral of the story: None of the soldiers and civilians that gave their lives in this war meant anything to the one's that started it.
If you think about it the whole thing it was just unnecessary blood and death gore fest.
What were they thinking?
So much unnecessary loss of lives.
So insane, humanity died momentarily, the whole war was just insane.
Not even the usa nor the soviets
(the so called allies) were heroes either.
This was undoubtedly one of humanity's greatest blunders.
That is the history of man, if that still surprises you welcome to reality! I pray we may never have to fight. Cheers 🍻
Since when do the soldiers doing the fighting actually matter to the ones who started the wars?
@@dx1450 idk when we still had tribal warfare?
That's true but that's not the whole truth. The whole truth is that Hitler and his henchmen made the whole German people their accomplices. The German soldier went to war not to defend his country (even this may be a propaganda trick), the Nazis told him that he was a superman and had the right to kill and rob Untermensch. German soldiers knew very well that their goal was total destruction of Russia and Russian people and conquering the land for themselves. This is the logic of a bandit. Any fairy tales about defending Europe against Bolshevik hordes Goebbels propaganda started only when it became crystal clear that conquering Russia turned out to be impossible.
A wonderful channel that deserves all respect, appreciation and pride. Accurate and useful information in a sophisticated and beautiful manner. I wish you lasting success. I have the utmost respect and admiration for your great honor for these wonderful works. I hope you success
My great grandfather and Great Grand Uncle and Grand Uncle were in the Soviet army or thd Red Army. They all fought defending Moscow, but later, my Great
grandfather went towards Stalingrad to defend it and survived. Then my Grand Uncle and Great Grand Uncle went towards Leningrad, and they didn't make it sadly. Later on, my great grandfather went towards Kursk fought there, and later on, he went to Ukraine to liberate it. Then Poland. And he finally made it to Berlin. Eternal memory to the heroes!
Tell us which nations they "liberated" from September 1939 to 22.06.1941 - fighting arm to arm with NAZIs, on the side of Hitler.
They were dogs not heros
@@someone-ti8ov it's all a matter of perspective, not a fan of the Soviets, but it's true, for you they might be dogs, but for this guy, they were heroes.
How on earth you can say those who fought for communism were heroes, it's quite mind boggling
They brought untold misery and deprivation to millions in Europe after the war. It is the height of conceit to claim what they did was anything positive
@@someone-ti8ovAnd what were those german soldiers for you?
0:08 LOL the ukrainian river flowing into Dnieper is not called Privet ("Hello!" in Russian), but Pripyat.
privet
Soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a middle age German immigrant to Canada that I knew said she was going on a tourist trip to Stalingrad. When I asked her why she was going there?
Her reply was "I lost three brothers there".
Every year when the spring thaw happens in Stalingrad bones both german and russian come out of the ground - they are still finding the war dead there.
@@julianciahaconsulting8663Watch the channel "Yuri Gagarin, Russian war diggers". There are many videos like this out there.
😢
@John Kenyon,
Did she say "Stalingrad" or "Volgograd"?
@@TruthisNaked One thing to think about when you think about the Cold War was how many Soviet citizens had severe PTSD from spending their childhoods in places like Stalingrad. The average Soviet second grader knew at least ten children who died in the War.
One of my German uncles was at that battle. He became a POW from 1943 to 1947. He used the time well, though. He learned Russian, Romanian and Hungarian.
Ehmm. The Romanian and Hungarian was from the axis side.
I know.@@forzaacmilan36
Boludo does not sound like a German surname.
@@iwantdog Maybe they moved to South America after the war
My german grandpa fled to german switzerland through the mountains in 1944
Then went to french switzerland 1949-1961 when there was the whole ex german soldier hunt. Especialy he served since 1936 and was special elite forces
Then 1961 he fled to France, in Nice cote dazur under false papers 😂
He lived there most of his life. With some years in Paris & Bordeaux
He met my grandma in Bordeaux
But he was a womanizer. He had apparenrly 20 wives in France. And he lied to all of them 😂
He passed away in 2008 in Paris from alcohol overdose that caused him fatal liver pancreas damage due to oldness
He lived quite a crazy life
He also fought a lot in the 1960s 1970s 1980s against french bandits. Cause he like to walk outside in the nights even in bad neibourhood and fought using his special force fighting technique. But he stopped doing that in the 1990s cause he felt he was starting to get old and not as strong and fast as before
IWM is one of the few channels I nearly always watch on day of upload. Just great, high-quality, informed and interesting videos
"We'll be in Moscow in 6 weeks, not a problem" - Napoleon
"We'll be in Moscow in 6 weeks, not a problem" - Hitler
Litovonian crusaders said the same lol
Well in Napoleon's case he actually captured Moscow, but that did little to force the Russians to the negotiating table. Something similar would've probably happened even if Hitler took Moscow
Napoleon's forces were actually IN Moscow, albeit a deserted Moscow.
@@georgedobler7490 yeah, from New York Times. They forged that lie and they laughed at it as if they weren't the ones that created it, typical american propaganda.
History Repeats !
@5:03 wow the Dieppe landing is rarely mentioned anywhere- thanks for bringing it up
I visited Volgograd in September 2014. So much to see and some great museums. The basement of the GUM department store where Paulus was captured is now a small museum.
is it all rebuilt now?
@@julianciahaconsulting8663 It's a modern department store.
This must have been an experience....Russians were great fighters
Even now you can find trees along the main avenue of Volgograd that are still stunted by being bullet riddled from WW2.
Not long before Case Blue, something like only 18% of the divisions in the Wehrmacht were considered suited for offensive operations. The vast majority of divisions were only considered capable of defensive or static operations. Another thing many forget is the fact that the Wehrmacht, with diminished air superiority, lost a ton of soldiers between the start of Fall Blau and the time they reached the banks of the Volga at Stalingrad in August 1942. Maybe 20-45% divisional strength by the time the battle for Stalingrad even began. This is easily the most fascinating chain of historical and military events in my opinion. Just insane.
not "stagnant" but "static" defense. The Germans NEVER had to even enter the city. All they had to was reach the Volga and halt the river traffic.
the fact that Hitler didnt give any of the soldiers in Operation Barbarossa winter clothing - in an invasion of Russia- is optimistic well into insanity.
The foreshowing of Stalingrad was played out at Smolensk.
@@julianciahaconsulting8663And the fact that he intended to take 18 million km2 under the control of 80 million Germans is also amazing. I undeniably believe that the Germans could take over all of Europe and keep it under their control for decades. But I do not have enough strength to think that it is possible, in principle, to capture 18 million km2 and not choke. Truly the most insane person in history.
@Stepan Fedorov oil is the reason why the Germans couldn't hold any region for too long.
I had a German language teacher in college that was one of the 5000 German soldiers that survived Stalingrad and prison in the 1980s. At first I was doubtful but he showed us pictures, documents and the cap and jacket he wore when he returned to West Germany. Amazing story. I remember that he ate bread made out of sawdust and glue from wallpaper.
Nein
Did he display any kind of dread when discussing the battle or was it a gratitude he survived to tell the tale?
@@jackoboyle7749 What do you think? C'mon honestly what the hell do you think? No doubt part of him was pleased to have survived, but you can bet your house that a bigger part of him was left on the battlefields with his long lost Comrades, in and around Stalingrad.
@@frenzalrhomb6919 I think he'll be pissed that you can only play the russian side in call of duty world at war.
@@jackoboyle7749 maybe not. He may have with hindsight thought the World is a better place with the defeat of his army though he may mourn the death of his friends and family if there were any killed serving in that army
Minor correction: Chuikov's 62nd Army was not the only army stationed in Stalingrad along with it were 2 other armies the 63th, 64th, and the first guard tank guard army. And The Soviets shot roughly 1000 or so Cowards and deserters in and around Stalingrad, others 14.000 or so were sent to other units or penal battalions.
The internal Soviet records suggest that's bullshit. The whole shooting cowards thing is complete wank the Germans told the Allies post-war.
The number of those actually shot could be as low as ~340, making the chances of being shot as low as 0.5%.
Personally, I think those are good odds.
Penal battalions is completely made up crap. Soviet union did kot shoot its own soldiers. Those shot were mostly nkvd etc officers who deserted their own troops and positions living people to doe. However of those numbers are very low. There is kot evwn proof of 500 deaths of those
@@knightlypoleaxe2501If I had to desert for any reason, situational or personal, I'd rather be sent somewhere worse than simply killed.
Откуда ты знаешь сколько дезертиров расстреляли в Красной Армии? Геббельс сказал?
The events of the Battle of Stalingrad have been covered in numeros media works of British, American, German, Russian origin, for its significance as a turning point in the Second World War and for the loss of life associated with the battle. The term Stalingrad has become almost synonymous with large-scale urban battles with high casualties on both sides.
TO sum it up - Hitler had bitten off more than he could chew. But his hubris had become so enormous there was nothing that could stop him.
That really pisses me off, I see a lot of UA-cam historians talk about America's Stalingrad or Britain's, or this country or that country but the fact is, Stalingrad stands on it's own, it has no contenders!
and fought in impossible weather conditions too.
@@jimbo43ohara51 true he should have attacked Britain instead and the war would have turned out different.
Imagine of Hitler never split army group south during Fall Blau in the Caucasus, and first captured the Oil fields, and had even more resources, AND THEN, invade Stalingrad with a stronger army. Maybe he would've won?? Or maybe the USSR would fall more easily.
A thousand greetings of great respect and appreciation for your esteemed channel. Thank you for this accurate and useful information and your great effort. I wish you success . My utmost respect and appreciation
This is a good watch. Created by professionals. A worthy watch. Please view.
Very interesting and well presented. A small quibble: what possessed you to use red markers for the German army, and blue markers for the RED army.
Red is the color used for enemy forces on a military map. Blue for one's own forces. It is general practice to portray the Germans as the enemy by historians in Allied nations.
I haven't seen a WW2 map that doesn't use red = Nazi.
@@crownprincesebastianjohano7069 I was going to reply the same
@@crownprincesebastianjohano7069 not necessarily enemies, but the red forced are usually the ones invading or attacking.
On the Soviet maps the black markers were used for the German army and the red ones for the Red Army
Very good presentation, superior to many longer and more detailed accounts in my opinion.
Best of the countless explanations I ever read or viewed !
An excellent video. I think one thing is underexposed. That it was a coincidence that Operation Torch started, at the same time that Operation Uranus was postponed by 10 days. I don't think this was coordinated between the USSR and the USA. But Operation Torch did ensure that Hitler decided to transfer most of the Luftwaffe from the Eastern Front to the African Front. And so when Operation Uranus started later, the lack of German air support for Paulus' troops was crucial to their fate.
Right! The Battle of Britain and the African front where huge undertakings that coat the Nazis thousands of lives, thousands of planes, trucks, guns and equipment and not to mention the hundreds of thousands of men who had to be stationed all over Western Europe. In Africa alone some 250,000 men are captured and at the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe lose some 2,600 men and like 1k planes.
All that material and man power would’ve went along way on the eastern front. Stalin who started the war with Hitler always complained about “the second front” while he himself only fought and had to worry about the eastern front. While America and Britain and the common wealth allies had to deal with Germany on the periphery Russian only had to worry about one front. The battle for the Atlantic consumed massive amounts of resources for the Germans, they sunk millions into their Kreigsmarine and had hundreds of thousands of sailors that could’ve been used in the army. If you can’t achieve superiority of arms in the air and at sea building an airforce or a navy only depletes those resources from the army. The Russians only had to worry about their army. The Americans had to build the largest airforce and navy the world had ever seen.
And "Military Genius" decided to flood Africa with troops during the last 6 months of the Campaign and lost about 200.000 troops in Tunisia into captivity. Not to mention Luftwaffe lost about 2500 airplanes over North Africa in a span of just 5 months during November 42-April 43. Crazy!
@@Person0fColorSo true, and very well said. 🇿🇦🇳🇿🇨🇦🇬🇧✝️🇺🇲🇦🇺🇮🇳🇵🇭
United States had to wage war in both the Pacific and in Europe/Africa at same time so I don't understand why people say USA had it so easy.
Well done, found this the best video explaining the situation of this campaign
My grandfather fought in russia and served in a replenishment companie, he told me that they had big problems to had enough equipment from the first day of operation Barbarossa.
The distances grow from day to day and there where no good roads to use, on the other hand they had all kinds of trucks, captured british and french vehicles and various german made trucks like Opel Blitz, Mercedes, Borgwards and so on. It was a logistical nightmare that become even worse when the rain in the autum converts the roads in muddy swamps so the vehicles get stuck. When the first winter came they had all hands to do to keep the vehicles running and bring the supplies to the front.
He says: "we knew after the first four weeks it was a stupid idea to go to war with russia, the land is too big and the russians fight like hell to defend the motherland"
So i absolute agree with you that they where doomed from the first day on.
(Sorry if i write some wrong grammatiks but i dont like the google translator so i dig out my old scool english) 😉😉
Mongols invaded Russia in the coldest winter and took over the land😏👍
@@troylollysaf9311 there was no united Russia in times of Mongol invasion
But they almost did take it, Moscow was a seeing distance away
Noone beats Russia.
@@unoriginalog836no not really ,thats a myth. Some forces arrived there but they were as good as destroyed by that point. The Germans were doomed from the very beginning.
The comments are terrific. I learned a lot.
That was a such great Video thank you so much !
Nobody tells these stories as well as the late Prof John Erickson IMHO. Still an awesome video, well done!
My grandfather fought in Stalingrad, Axis side. I'm glad they lost, but equally glad he made it home.
You glad they lost? What? ☠️ you want Europe to be communist?
And thus you're here luckily
I have an uncle from Germany who was there as well. He was a POW for 4 years. He lost a leg. He came back having learned Russian, Hungarian and Romanian. He was not bitter at all.
Are you german?
My wife's grandfather, a printer from Berlin, was conscripted and sent to the eastern front, was captured and sadly died in some gulag.
It’s crazy to think of the vast distances German soldiers had to walk. 😵
To be honest human armies through out all of hustory have walked greater distances than the germans did in WW2.
I believe the infantry used horse drawn wagons to pull their equipment. Probably many of these horses died or were eaten the first Winter. They were definitely eaten at Stalingrad
@@tylerpace6517 I wonder how the horse meat tasted.
@@zacthebuzzkill
Probably great, they were starving
Many didn't walk far, they died or were captured. 25% lost first 6 months or so. Many were in vehicles or on horses. Trains and planes.
It's not thought of this way. The Germans were successful early because they could move fast: Captured vehicles, horses, motorcycles. As time passed the foreign vehicles broke down, horses died and motorcycles failed. The army lost its mobility over time
What people need to realise is that the people involved made the best decisions they could based on the information they had available at the time. Hindsight makes things look incredibly easy.
Nah they really didn't
Well said
Dumb decisions made by the Austrian corporal with no formal strategic military training doomed Germany, especially when he decided to double cross Stalin and invade the USSR. Did not learn anything from Napoleon's blunder.
That is why you need good spies. A famous russion spy in Japan could inform that Japan will not attack USSR , so could russian forces be transported from the east to the front.
Only the decisions which they think were best. Had they been smart enough, they could change the course to whatever they like. Hindsight just makes the average see the best decisions a lot easier.
Very good overall, thank you. Just a couple of corrections though. Friedrich Paulus wasn't a von, he was of humble, not noble birth (like Rommel). Also, Erich von Manstein was a Generalfeldmarschall, not a General, as he'd been promoted in July 1942 after his victory in Crimea.
And I don't think that Manstein was present among the force (was it called "Winter Storm"?) led by Hermann Hoth that tried to relieve Sixth Armee.
@@davidpowell3347Manstein was tasked by Hitler to breakthrough to the 6th army.
This is a good summary of Operation Blue. Identifies the battle of Stalingrad as a "high tide mark" rather than the traditional "turning point" and correctly determines the outcome to have been decided by resources and supply rather than "one vital decision" by Hitler. Doesn't dwell too much on the cruel decision to keep 6th Army from retreating, a retreat which, I believe, would have risked cutting off the entire Army Group A.
This video has very high biases for the OKW and blamed Hitler for everything.
That is a common misunderstanding of ability of 6th army to rescue itself during the winter 1942. Germans had numerous cases of dying from starvation or/and freezing to death. No one would do that if he has fuel to burn and horse to eat. So germans had no fuel for their tanks and trucks and no horses to pull artillery pieces which means in case of breaking out attempt they would have to walk on foot in a frost and deep snow just with rifles and hand grenades, leaving all seek an injured behind against tank and artillery fortified positions of Soviets
The gap between the 6th army and and the rest of the german army was massive. I dont think it was possible to relieve the 6th army
The 6th Army could not have retreated if it wanted to, nor would Mianstien be able to relieve them.
@@insideoutsideupsidedown2218 , They might have been able to retreat at an early stage before the encirclement was well established. Of course, we cannot be certain of what would have happened. One thing we know is that the encirclement tied down a large number of Soviet troops for two months.
how lucky we are we live in an age where we can watch videos like this
Every event in WWII was affected by the preceding ones. The battle of Malta directly influenced the Battle of Stalingrad. On November 15th, 1941. Luftflotte 2 was pulled off the battle line on the Eastern Front and sent to Italy, to reinforce the beleaguered Axis forces dealing with the RN and RAF onslaught. You cannot pull an entire air fleet out of a combat theatre and not have operations affected.
Germany was too overconfident as well. Hitler biggest mistake was splitting his forces in 1942 on the eastern front. Taking Stalingrad was not a good idea as it didn't provide any benefit other than bragging rights that Hitler took stalins city. Another massive mistake was not finishing the fight with Britain
@@JangoBlader not finishing off britain was a mistake but capturing stalingrad could provide huge benefits. 1: stalingrad was a major center of war production and capturing the city would have dealt immense damage to the soviet economy and its warmaking potential 2: capturing stalingrad puts the volga river in german hands dealing further economic and logistical damage to russia 3: it allows wehrmacht forces to directly threaten moscow and provides a new avenue of attack on the city as well as a relief of logistical pressure via using the river for transport
Also delaying Operation Barbarossa by one month due to Italy's invasion of Greece probably cost them Moscow.
@@maxdurk4624 Most historians tend to disagree with that assessment now.
And many, many historians fail to note that Barbarossa was planned to launch *March* 21, but Mussolini asked Hitler for help in Libya and Greece, and so Wehrmacht units were peeled away to fight in North Africa and the Balkans, and Barbarossa was pushed back three months so that some of those units could be reintegrated once Italy's sector was stable. That's 12 weeks. That's the difference between hitting Moscow and Leningrad before the Autumn rains... or not.
The losses that the Germans had in the First winter of the war is often down played or skipped over. But they were huge, and mostly from freezing to death...
I think the German army lost 25% of their total troops the first year, but 75% of their trained combat troops. The army the following year was made up of more Pioneer (construction) and other reserve troops.
@@BocaoZ
It's understood that the German army did not have Winter equipment. They expected a short war.
@@tylerpace6517 They did have winter equipment, that's just a myth made by the Americans to discount soviet efforts.
Thats not true at all, do you have any source for most casualties being from freezing?
@@chadthundercock4806 There are still many people that like to make excuses on why the Germans lost the war. They cannot accept that the Russians beat them.
Excellent video. Thank you!
Chuikov took over command of the 9th Army after the failures at Suomussalmi and after the order to halt offensive operations in order to reorganise the Red Army for a renewed offensive in 1940.
So not sure why he would need to impress Stalin or anything, he wasn't meant to do anything other than hold position of the 9th army at the border.
Ha. You always needed to impress Stalin..
IMPORTANTLY, precious opportunities were squandered during July 1942. Hitler blundered horribly by micromanaging priorities for a split Army Group A and B. Contradicting orders led to massive traffic jams that caused crucial delays; allowing the Soviets to escape and regroup. Also, Chuikov asked repeatedly to leave the west bank of Stalingrad. Zhukov denied these requests, as he knew the Germans being kept distracted was the most important factor for the encirclement of Sixth Army.
Chuikov wasn't asking for retreat, he was asking for reinforcements. But Zhukov was accumulating forces for the counter-offensive so he could't give much.
This is the propaganda made by the German Generals after the war. The truth is the war was unwinnable and they were all fools. The German Generals were not any smarter than their boss.
@@KenjaTimu Yes there was no clear strategy after the first few months. Gen. Paulus ran the war games and didn't think it was a good idea to invade. I'm just addressing the blunders that made the defeat at Stalingrad worse.
@jjmachuca It wasn't really blunders. Their blunders were fundamental. Being Nazis. They had a land army. Where else could they go after France? They had to do something. It was either invade the Soviet Union or do nothing. Doing nothing wouldn't work. Their Empire was unsustainable and in an unwinnable war.
I wouldn't say that splitting Army Group A and Army Group B was a blunder; it was the least bad option among a set of bad options - the Germans were desperately short on fuel, and they recognized that siezing the oilfields was their only hope. They also recognized that sending all of their forces to the Caucuses would mean the Soviets could launch a counteroffensive from Stalingrad to the Black Sea, cutting off all of Army Group South.
A big contributing factor to the Nazi defeat was Soviet crash industrialization. When Barbaross happened, German armies encountered factories and rail lines that weren't on any of their maps. Hitler himself was alarmed at how in just a decade, Soviet industry had modernized seemingly out of nowhere.
Yeah, and they modernized by starving Ukrainians into holodomor, "Stalin's gold"
The film "Mr Jones" covers that topic.
@@GnosisJapan Modern research that there was no deliberate famine in Ukraine, not to mention that the overall Nazi plan was to kill two thirds of Ukraine and turn the survivors into slave labour. Soviet industralization saved the country from the Nazi warmachine
@@GnosisJapanhey... They intentionally starved Ukranians too. Didn't like the growing Ukranian Nationalism nor how resource rich Ukraine was.
Bad evaluation, lack of informations and german arrogance !
@@Nina-l2l1e
Refusal by the generals to heed their logisticians who warned of the inability of the reich to supply the Wehrmacht in the Soviet Union.
Hitler’s horrendous mistreatment of the Ukrainians achieved something Stalin never could, a pro-soviet Ukraine.
The Soviet opportunity to trade land for time as well as a much, much greater pool of manpower on which to draw.
America’s ability and willingness to supply the Soviets with large quantities of badly needed armaments through the lendlease program.
The 6th army holding out gave Army Group South time to retreat from the Caucasus. Presumably Stalin was asking his generals to attack Rostov thus mostly blocking the escape except a sea crossing into Crimea which would have been an even bigger defeat, the fact that the Russians concentrated on Stalingrad indicates by this time Stalin was listening to the advice from his army, unlike Hitler who constantly intervened.
It gave Army Group "A" not South time to withdraw...
Hitler consistently made better decisions than the OKW
Simply not true when it comes to Hitler's military legacy in world war 2. He listened to his generals when it made sense, and ignored some of them when they offered advice that did not consider the entire strategic picture.
Our impression of Hitler is immensely clouded by his generals who survived, all trying desperately to rescue their reputations and escape further vilification by the West who now found themselves a common enemy. Senior level Wehrmacht post war memoirs are chock full of half-truths, intentional mischaracterizations, lies by omission, and actual fantasy. Manstein swears up and down that Paulus was an immovable coward, but documented communications prove unequivocally that Manstein knew the 6th army was doomed by the time he began his relief attack. He refused to order Paulus to commence the primary breakout operation, because his relief "army," if you could call it that, was already getting bogged down and shortly after pushed back in the south by the Soviets. Just one small example, but relevant nonetheless.
It would be more correct to say that Stalin finally began to listen to his generals in the later half of 1942. During the first year of the war, Stalin dictated strategy for the Red Army and disaster after disaster was the result.
@@vonbennett8670 he probably listened to them from the beginning but mostly rejected their plans. He heeded them later. I would say it’s likely he first accepted their plans during the winter offensive to drive the Germans back from the gates of Moscow in December 1941 when Stalin wanted a larger counter offensive but his officers seemingly persuaded Stalin that a limited counter would be strategically better as the Russians didn’t have the resources.
Much in the same way that I'd attribute Allied failure in Market Garden to a lack of foresight, and lack of a 'back-up' plan, I'd say a similar thing for the Germans in the East. The logistical backbone of Barbarossa did not take into account an alternative where the Wehrmacht failed to beat the Soviets into submission in those first crucial two months. This is HIGHLY overlooked, in a lot of historiographies, and especially popular media that surrounds the war. Stalingrad is often hailed as the turning point, which it certainly was from the perspective of the Soviets gaining the initiative along the front, but the writing was on the wall for the Germans much sooner.
I have read a ton of books and seen 1,000 documentaries and I totally agree with you. One book I read said at those crucial early stages the germans had the russians beat, but they didn't pursue it at the right time because they didn't know how close their army was to collapse. So they waited a few crucial days and by then the russians got enough backup support that they didn't collapse. There were two instances of this, had they just kept on attacking at crucial times, the red army may have collapsed, but they waited.
The Germans lost the war on December 11th 1941 and the Japanese on December 8th when the US declared war on them.
The Germans and the Japanese were in the ascendancy so long as Americas foreign policy ain’t to wage war on the axis powers. Yes there were some early setbacks for the allies, but just after 6 months after Pearl Harbor the battle of the Coral sea, Midway then Guadalcanal and that same year Stalingrad.
If Germany and Japan wanted to solidify their gains the best thing they could’ve done was stay out of a war with the US.
The US joining the war fastened the demise of the Third Reich, but it was not necessary for their downfall. @@Person0fColor
@@mattgames7543 lol. ussr survived only thanks to lend-lease. russia had lost previous world war even though its allies continued without russians and had won.
btw, all this happened only because japan had lost khalkhin gol and instead of attacking ussr decided it would be easier to attack pearl harbor
@@SergePavlovsky So, because Russia lost a historic war, they were by default going to lose a new one? The Germans won the Franco Prussian war so surely they must win WWI! What a foolish argument.
And you are simply wrong about lend-lease. The German advance stopped, and the Soviets had conducted their first successful counter-offensive before the lend-lease even began arriving in meaningful amounts. Between 1941 and the end of 1943, lend-lease had accounted for no more than roughly 4% of Soviet wartime production, and therefore despite having made the transportation of goods and the production of certain materials easier, the Soviet troops were still, by and large enabled by a national industry.
The lend-lease ramped up (some historians claim as high as 10% of Soviet production, however some estimates state a lower figure, its hard to tell) in 1944 and 1945, however by this point the tide had turned in the conflict. The Germans had lost Stalingrad and were ejected from their furthers extent, and 1944 would signify the removal of the Germans from the pre-war borders.
The ultimate point, however, is the fact that the Germans had lost in the first 4 critical months. Barbarossa failed to achieve its strategic aims, the German army was ill-equipped for future fighting, moved to a predominantly defensive footing bar Army Group South, and were struggling to support their supply lines. Despite the massive Soviet losses, their army was actually bigger by the end of 1941 than when the war started, and had done a good job at stablising most of the front, and even counter-attacking during the winter offensive.
I could go on, but in short, you are wrong.
Good summary. I followed this campaign in great detail on the TIK channel (which I highly recommend) but it was nice to have a recap. There is no doubt in my mind that the fate of the European war was decided in these battles.
The invasion was to have begun in April or May, but the uprising in Yugoslavia stopped that plan. Once over summer had begun and the uprising ended, they were six weeks behind in their plans. Watch the series from the 1970s called The World At War.
Great documentary it is an Oscar winning documentary there is a single volume companion book the cover is that awesome title screen of “the world war war” burning.
World war 2 in color is also a great one but they took it off Netflix. I have both on blue ray.
If Germany had those extra weeks I think they would have captured Moscow before winter set in. But I don't know if that was enough to finish the Soviet Union off. Stalin at one point had his private train packed incase Moscow fell so he was committed to keep fighting from the East. He also had many factories sent to the East by rail. Taking Moscow could have caused a chain reaction and a collapse, but it also might not have. Remember that Napoleon captured Moscow and that still wasn't enough.
This has been "debunked" so to speak; if Barbarossa starts earlier they run into a whole new set of problems which are potentially more severe than starting six weeks behind schedule. There simply is no magic trick which will make Barbarossa work with just one simple, or even a few adjustments in planning and strategy. They really do have to either reach the designated Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line in 1941 thus conquering enough of the Soviet industrial capacity and oil production in one fell swoop as to render them unable to continue the war meaningfully, or the attack has to cause some kind of internal turmoil in the Soviet system which leads to the same result ("kicking in the door"). The latter of course was exactly the same kind of wishful thinking that led the Japanese to believe that Americans were "soft" and awe-inspiring military setbacks such as Pearl Harbor could scare them and make them quickly ask for peace.
If neither of these options come true then it's simply a numbers game of resources and industrial capacity, and in that game Germany simply does not have the cards in hand to win it in the long run. And no amount of tweaking strategy or sending this or that division here or there or changing timetables and producing limited amounts of wunderwaffe is going to change that, it can only delay the inevitable.
@@JGD185 I think the current consensus among what-if historians now is that if Germany manages to capture Moscow in late 1941, the Soviet resources husbanded for the winter counter-attack (they're still there, they don't magically disappear) are simply used to take it back. This means that Stalingrad happens a year early, and at Moscow.
Remember that if the Germans do manage to take Moscow in late 1941 they will do so at the absolute end of their tether. There is no magic trick that will solve their massive logistical problems on the Eastern Front at the same time and allow them to do so while also staying in good shape, and sticking to their other commitments on that massive front and elsewhere.
The far more important 'what if' analysis is what if the Russians and French & British weren't so incompetent at the beginning? Virtually the entirety of German 'success' up until Dec 5 1941 is the result of allied failures ranging from hiding behind the Maginot line and not just walking in to Germany in Sep 39. Total incompetence in assigning French tanks as infantry support and trying to re-fight WWI in 1940. Stalin ignoring intelligence and losing 2 million men and vast amounts of equip in summer 1941...instead of just redeployment them further east. Total war is mostly decided by economics and the economics were massively in the allied favor, but their failures in 1939-41 were epic and far more driven by their incompetence then German genius.
Even had Germany taken the oil fields. They would have been a bigger target than the Romanian fields. Add on top of that the infrastructure needed to make it available to Germany is crazy.
Even so, the operations in Romania failed to achieve full objectives. Instead the allies lost more aircraft than necessary.
Exactly. Had Hitler been more of a realist, he would have prevailed on Romania to remain neutral, assuring an oil supply the allies could not destroy.
German logistics were incredibly poorly organised. The lack of rail infrastructure meant it was impossible to adequately supply German forces as they advanced and, even if the oil fields had been captured and were able to be turned to production, it would have been impossible to move the captured oil back to Germany.
On the plus side, taking the oil fields means the Rooskies lost all that oil for their own economy.
Yes the Germans did not gain any, but the Soviets would have lost a LOT.
@@herschelmayo2727 wouldn't britain then declarere war on Romania?
4:29 Voronezh was under siege for 212 days, but it was not captured. Actually, Voronezh was the only city that had the frontline going thought the city itself except for Stalingrad.
They kicked down the door and it all came crashing down. Only behind that door was another door and another ........ The penny finally dropped when they started liberating factories or what was left of them and were shocked at the scale of production.
there is an obscure interview captured on camera between Hitler and Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim (Finnish leader) where Hitler with horror says that how could have anyone known that Soviets would field 6,000 tanks in 1941..It's monstrous, he said. Hitler sounded truly shocked.
Quoth Bugs Bunny: “I wonder if he’s stubborn enough to open ALL those doors?”
@@mrvk39 Link ? I think you are talking about the 12 minute audio tape ......
@@vespasian606 Ah yes, the one that will help Bruno Gantz hone his “non-speechifying” Hitler voice.
@@mrvk39 35,000 tanks
'funf und dreizig tausend tanks' is what he said verbatim
someone wrote that the real loss to Germany was the highly experienced soldiers that were lost at Stalingrad, which the Wehrmacht never could replace
If the Germans wanted to win ww2 they should’ve never got into a war with the America.
In 194- the only thing keeping the German and Japanese empires alive so the fact that America isn’t waging war on them that all changes at Pearl Harbor and the coral sea and Guadalcanal and yea Stalingrad
"An Army marches and fights on its stomach", Napoleon Bonaparte
This was very good. Thank you.
Definitely doomed from the start. They didn't have enough fuel to get there in force before winter. Trying to reach Baku in the south and simultaneously hit Stalingrad in the east was an impossible task. They advanced on a narrow front with thin flanking support from lesser armies (Romanians and Italians). This operation all but guaranteed their total defeat.
The had neither the manpower or the industrail might to defat the Allies. It's quite simple. That much is obvious and considering that the Allies had broken the Enigma codes and it still took them 6 years to beat the Germans says one of two things, they either were superior or the Allies were totally incompetent! Take your pick...
@@karlheinzvonkroemann2217😂
Dood we systematically destroyed Germany bit by bit and there wasn’t a damn thing the Germans could do to stop it. 😂
You have that old Southern mentality “yea well we took 300,000 Yankees with us”
“Still lost”
😂😂😂
Hitler's logic was faulty. In the summer of 1942, Moscow was a more achievable objective. His obsession with Stalingrad was his undoing 😂
@@karlheinzvonkroemann2217 lol cope.
Great, most illustrative material - most obliged!
A battle on an unimaginable scale, and the one that broke the back of the mighty Wehrmacht.
This is right, encirclement can result to formation for break through or permanent warfare. The germans abandoned lightning warfare and didnt think of mass invasion theory ie Napoleon burned moscow. Encirclement is time consuming. Mass invasion theory doesnt work tactically against formation like in sparta, punic wars, pyrric war or gettysburg so idk. Taking northern russia only only couldve broke moral, split the country hence they had leningrad for 4 years.
If it "broke the back" then why did the war go on for another 2 1/2 years? Either you don't know the eastern front or your bad with metaphors.
@@stalkingcat2684 The war was lost after Stalingrad, no matter what they did after.
There's a speech Hitler gave on September 30 1942 in which he braggs about conquering stalingrad. Its still available online I'm sure. Its one of the rare hitler speeches that is shown translated in its entirety.
I dunno if you’d ever seen the 1960s Soviet adaptation of War And Peace but in the fourth film (yes it’s a LotR-ish quadrilogy) when they made a grand, helicopter-shot pan-over of the French armoes hobbling along in the blizzard, they chose to have Napoleon narrate his intended Victory-in-Moscow speech over the whole debacle, and the results are always laugh-cry inducing to me.
I wonder if the Hitler speech was so comprehensively translated into other languages for the same reason.
Hitler's spoke on November 8 about taking Stalingrad.
@@markprange4386 I have watched the video of the speech about a dozen times and it was definitely September 30. You can Google it to confirm. Also that was my fathers 10th birthday. Maybe he made one in November to. Not only that but by November 8 they were getting their butt's kickeded.
@@markprange4386 I just watched a very good video called the hitler chronicles in which they mentioned hitlers speech at the berger braukeller on November 9, 1942.
Excellent video 📹 👏 thanks ✌
"It was great in theory, but the plan had multiple flaws."
Then it wasn't so great in theory, was it?
Great documentary thank you👍
HI I've seen lots of videos on the Stalingrad campaign. But this one explains it the best. How the change of Plan, and sending units to Army Group North and Army Group Centre was bad mistake. Imagine If all the German resources were give to Army Group South!
Great video, thanks.
Anything in the Soviet Union was doomed to fail if you actually thought you could keep supply lines open through the Russian winter. I know Germany had experienced a lot of successes, but you can't have supply lines that go thousands of miles through enemy territory. And there's plenty of historical empirical data and experience that would have told you the same.
How did it take me so much to find a gem 💎 like this channel fascinating stuff I am hooked 😊
When the Russians launched their pincer attack around Stalingrad, and later on the Don river (held by the Italians) they had a huge advantage in men, armor and artillery. The Italian divisions were infantry (including some mountain infantry: Alpini): they were hit by waves of T-34 and many of them completely destroyed in place, in a futile attempt to hold the line.
The retreat of the remnant of the Italian Army (75000 people strong), which also incorporated many disbanded German units (which provided some armored vehicles) and Romanians, was led by the last combat ready division, the Alpini Tridentina, followed by a huge column of disbanded soldiers. The Russians launched many waves of T-34 units to try to cut the retreat. For countless times the Tridentina (infantry) had to attack the Russian tanks and break the encirclement. There were no trucks, the few anti tank guns they had were horse drawn, the temperature was deadly cold, and many just died because of frozen feet and hands and lack of food.
For those who could not keep the pace of the retreating Tridentina the prospect was to be imprisoned and probably die in Siberia, or being immediately shot dead (the Germans were immediately killed after capture, the Russians were not willing to take German prisoners).
The Tridentina took tremendous losses, they finally managed to breach the last attempt of encirclement mounted by the Russians in the village of Nikolayevka, and could reach the Axis line bringing with them tens of thousands of disbanded Axis soldiers. Most of those that were captured never returned home.
The prisoners died not because something bad was done to them, but because they were captured exhausted, because before that they lived in the cold and without food.
@@Anchelm Some of them for sure. But very few returned alive from imprisonment in Siberia. Including Russian dissidents sent there by Stalin after being taken from their homes in perfectly good shape!
This was a combination of the failure to properaly assess Soviet strength by the Wehrmacht's "Fremde Heere Ost (FHO)" or"Foreign Enemies East" section of German Intelligence under General Reinhard Gehlen (OKH) and Hitler, both believing that the Soviets had to be at the end of their manpower rope. Not only because of the Stalingrad Campaign itself but the "Meatgrinder" of the Rzhev Salient in Army Group Center, a series of Soviet Offensives that cost them another 1.5 Million men between Jan 1942 and March of 1943 against the German 9th and 4th Armies. A way to radically limit the German losses in this Case Blue campaign and the smartest way, was to just drive to the Volga north of Stalingrad and set up artillery positions and (river) minfields over a section of the Volga say only 5 to 10 miles long to bring all of the river trafic from the south flowing to the north to a dead stop! Not having suffered the losses involved in all of the bloody street fighting in Stalingrad would have provided the forces, infantry and assault engieers, necessary to stiffen their minor Allied armies on the Don Front and thus provide those areas with much better defensives capabilities. Additionally, The 14th and 16th Panzer Divs (2 Panzer Divisions and one (the 3rd )Motorized Infantry together with the 24th Pz Panzer Division added a little later on) would have been available along with the 24th Panzer Div to form a mobile reserve of one strong Panzer Corps. This certainly could have been done just by not trying to conquer the city. Just from what I'e shown, this was very possibe to do. That would have avoided all of the insanely heavy street fighting and the huge German Infantry and Assault Engineer (Sturmpioniere) losses suffered by the 6th Army in capturing the city and provided infantry units for the flanks (to stiffen these minor Allies with. I don't know of any other serious way that would have allowed for meeting the objectives of the Campaign (except for unnecessarily taking the city), and providing adequate defense against any Soviet counter attacks that might have occurred on the Don Front.
About one sixth of German POW died in captivity. About 70% of Soviet POW died in captivity - Hitler announced that it would be a War of Annihilation against the Soviet Union (therefore Soviet POW were treated very differently to British or US POW.)
@@marcobassini3576 Two thirds of all German forces captured during the war were sent home.
The Soviets never looked back from battle of Stalingrad and marched to Berlin where they were in a race against Allies to capture it.
Only the Soviets were racing toward Berlin. The division of Germany had already been agreed on.
Yeah but it was not clear who would capture Berlin, the grand prize
They thought they were in a race with the Allies anyway. Stalin believed Ike was lying when he said the US had no interest or plans to take Berlin.
Ike didn’t want Paris either, he let the pompous blowhard de Gaulle pretend to “rescue” it.
@@Holocaustica Patton was almost going to take it. And we know how unstoppable Patton was. Plus the Germans liked to surrender to the western allies and resisting the USSR. So the west could have reached Berlin much easier. Stalin knew why he was rushing.
But of course it was not worth the lives
Hi guys from the IWM. Great video! Just a minor thing that I noticed: it’s not „von Paulus“ just „Paulus“. Not every General in the Wehrmacht had a „Von“ in their surname 😂
Hitler himself said, before Battle of Stalingrad, that he had lost the war. Germany didn't take oil fields and attacking Stalingrad was only about cutting Soviet communication at Volga. It was all over before the end of 1942.
It makes sense , what doesn’t make sense is why he didn’t focus everything on The oil fields.
@@lonemaus562 Stalingrad and the river beyond it was the most defensible line in the area. The next closest defensible line? Yeah...that is all the way back to the Dnieper River back in Ukraine. The Stalingrad line gives you access the the oil fields that are crucial to the long term needs of the Reich. The Dnieper means a long defensive war that you lose anyway.
There is a reason that the Southern flank of the current Russian operation in Ukraine is....the Dnieper River. And it is one of the obvious borders between Russia and Ukraine when this current war is over. (Assuming a negotiated settlement at some point and one side or the other doesn't collapse)
@@lonemaus562 greed and lack of patience - he had the germanization of the east begin the second barbarossa commenced rather than after the war
@@lipscomb3632 russia wont be able to take all the territory east of dnieper.
@@lipscomb3632 assuming you aren't brainwashed by russian tv, obvious borders between russia and ukraine are internationally recognized borders since 1991. dnieper was crossed by ukrainian marines(over bridge, but still) several weeks ago, so now southern flank of russian fascists is located a bit to the southeast of dniper.
btw, stalingrad and the river beyond it is easy to defend only when enemy is beyond the river. when instead all your logistics is beyond the river, it's very hard to defend, like it was hard for russians to defend kherson and they fleed from it. but somehow they managed to defend similarly located stalingrad. maybe because germans weren't on home soil and had even more severe issues with logistics
*Well explained !* ✔
This video is really well made
I think one of the Axis powers biggest mistakes of the war was opening the Eastern front before finishing off us, the British.
It would have ended the bombing campaign, hamstrung the French resistance, given him the North African front and control of the Suez canal. The Americans might have even hesitated join the European part of WW2, instead focusing on Japan.
And give russians time to prepare, time they desperately needed. They made a struck at the very last point , otherwise they would be force to wait until late spring 1942.
At that time it would be too late , that will give russians 10 months to get ready their defence lines. It would be end like Kursk battle and russians was have only 6 months to prepare it.
I believe Hitler should have stayed away from North Africa. Wasted a lot of resourses.
Germans had no means to finish off, you the British, or they would've done so. They need it to launch their own D-Day but for that they 1st, needed air superiority and 2nd navy superiority. And Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain and German navy was in an even weaker navy.
@@mrvk39 Also I read something about southern England having little to no beachhead-worthy spots unlike France when it became a choice of “Calais? Nah too obvious, let’s go for Normandy surprise instead!”
@@davidw.2791 this could've very much complicated German efforts. They probably needed far greater room to maneuver than William the Conqueror - the last one to make a successful amphibious landing from France :) They probably had to sail further North, which would've exposed them even more to allies' navy and aerial attacks. There was simply no way for them to do it.
Hitler: if we take Moscow the Soviet Union will fall!
Stalin: **laughs in surface area**
Actually Adolf knew this, he wanted the food and oil down south but Halder worked behind his back to prioritise Moscow.
Excellent video, well presented and narrated. One minor error: Paulus did not have a "von" as part of his name.
I feel a bit misled. Why was the operation doomed from the start? I was expecting an in depth analysis of the logistical situation. How many trains, transport planes, trucks, got through, the supplies needed and delivered, how the split of army group South affected the logistical situation - if the initial plan has been kept would the logistics of 6th army allow it to fight better. The supply for both army groups seem to have passed through Rostov. Maybe focusing them on one stronger army would have been better, etc. I was expecting to learn why all variations were doomed to failure. Instead the video is just a quick overview of the battle.
You see youtube video clicker, Its doomed from the start because if you followed the battle the EXACT way it happened the result is what happened 🤣🤣
They never think of changing what happened and what results it may have had
@@me-262gamingluftwaffememin2 indeed hindsight is always 20/20, had history played out differently wed have a youtube video "the defense of stalingrad was doomed from the start..."
One thing more : Barbarossa ist postponed because of the war with Yugoslavia, and that had a big impact because there was not enough time for battles before winter.
The battle of Moscow was the end of the war for Germany
Why do you think Moscow was so important? Napoleon took Moscow and still lost. There is no resources to take in Muscow. It was mainly a political objective. The battle was in the south where most of the resources was. Like it or not, but Hitler was correct on going south. He should have allocated troops and resources sooner for the southern push though.
No before that Barbarosa...
And Napoleon
The end of Blitzkrieg sure and the first great battle the Germans lost at the eastern front
I don't know man from history it's the battle of Staligrad is where the tide turned
Great video !
My Dad was part of the 4th panzer division sent to help break out an escape route for Paulus’ army. As we know this failed.
8:52 - add to this that Soviet snipers were deliberately avoiding shooting German soldiers and only going after officers - the snipers surmised that it wasn't worth giving away good position to shoot a common soldier.
Excellent presentation.
1:52 and you know what else is massive?
@@skraxel lol
MY MOM!
The low taper fade
The campaign was doomed to fail when the Germans failed to encircle and annihilate the Soviet forces in front of them at the start of Fall Blau
The whole plan relied on the assumption that Stalin would have forced his soldiers to stand no matter what like in 1941 so, once the bulk of the Red Army was destroyed, they would have had empty roads in front of them towards the Volga and the Caucasus
However this time most of the Soviet forces just routed/retreated (the generals wrote about it as "organized and part of their plan", the soldiers on the fields descrived it as "pure chaos") to fight another day and all the German assumptions about the time, the losses and the resources required to reach their already unrealistic targets (not only Baku is very very far away, but they expected to capture the oil fields almost undamaged) were no more.
Moreover, the German intelligence estimated that the Soviets had enough forces to launch only 1 major autumn/winter offensive and that it would have been in front of Moscow so, despite the several warnings from their allies defending the flanks along the Don, they didn't really see Uranus coming.
Back to Stalingrad itself, especially given the failing of the Germani initial plan, not taking it not only would have just left a dagger pointed at the German back (given the size, the location and the infrastructures of the city, the Soviets could have gathered forces more easily than the Germans outside in the steppes) but would have made it way more difficult for the Germans to face the incoming winter (Stalingrad would have offered them a logistical hub to move supplies and also given their soldiers as many shelters as they needed).
About the breakthrough, Paulus had little to no chances to escape; the Germans were outnumbered, outgunned and lacked transport (good luck walking for dozens of km in the frozen steppes with no supplies, tons of Soviet tanks and artillery ready to plunge into and no heavy weapons to deal with them), not to mention how difficult it would have been to fool the Soviets fighting in the city and prevent them from just moving forward and hit the back+flanks of the reatreating Germans as soon as these left their positions in the city to try their escape.
Even had it succeded, the Germans would have only saved few dozens of k of their soldiers at best (even though none of them would have been able to fight anytime soon) but on the other end the Soviets would have been free to use all their soldiers around the city to just keep pushing and, most likely, to reach Rostov sooner and/or to block Army Group A from escaping from the Caucasus (which would have been the end for the whole German Southern front)
In the end, the outcome would have been no different (and probably even worse) had the Germans ignored Stalingrad (you can't defend in the open steppes), just focused on the Caucasus (their flank/back would have been wide open) and/or allowed Paulus to try a break through
They should have used the 4th panzer to clear up to the Volga River and secure Astrakhan before attacking Stalingrad
@@glennmcquoid it would have been impossible because you need to take Stalingrad first to be able to reach Astrakhan
An army needs railways to be supplied and advance and there was no major one between Rostov/Ukraine and Astrakhan so either you go down to the Caucasus, then right to the Caspian sea and finally up to the city (but still, your left flank remains unsecured as long as you don't secure the area between Rostov and Stalingrad) or you follow the shorter road to Stalingrad and then along the Volga to Astrakhan
@user-ht9pi6ki4p with which navy and which air supremacy?
The Royal Navy ruled the seas and the Luftwaffe got its ass kicked during August and September (Military History Visualized has a very good video about the attrition Germany was suffering in the skies over England and how, on the other hand, the RAF was constantly increasing its numbers during the weeks despite the losses)
As several war games showed later during the Cold War, Sea Lion would have never be successful even had the Germans been able to, somehow, land troops in England
@@glennmcquoid - really general , secure Astrakhan , nothing less.
that mindset you have , is precisely what lead the germans into disaster.
High Command saw the build up of forces in the flanks of the Don armed to the teeth.
when you won and want keep winning, you lose.
when you're losing but not afraid of lose, you win
One of the unsung heroes of the Battle of Stalingrad are the field mice that destroyed panzers by eatinng all the wiring inside
I'm surprised hilter thought this would ever work tbh
Meth is a hell of a drug
Racism is why
Gamblers paradise, the 3rd Rch
@@davidosullivan9817soviet union was weak at that time and without lend&lease it would have worked easily. Russia today cant even take ukraine after 3 years just because ukraine gets the lend&lease now, while germany took ukraine in 2 months.
6:22 "The 6th Army were eating their horses before reaching Stalingrad" 😮 If this is true, they were eating their main means of transportation. Astonishing 😂
9:28 German Logistics problems owing to Railway congestion. 😢 Great video ❤
@@IanCross-xj2gj they probably ate injured horses unfit for transportation.
@karolissavickis10 The narrator said it was because of supply shortages. The locals had destroyed the crops so the soldiers could not live off the land.
Brilliant video.
it still blows my mind how the germans had the soviets defeated down to a small thin zone along the river in Stalingrad and ended up losing the entire city and an entire army in the process.....
it was part of the deception of operation uranus , they needed as many germans in the city as possible
Germany was just outnumbered at the end. British French usa Russia cold. Too much. The nazis gave it their all though.
Russia strikes back, just that. More intelligence, more indurance, more motiv, more love. What do you know about patriotism ?
@@Nina-l2l1e russia got lend&lease. Nothing more. Russia today cant even take ukraine because now ukraine gets lend&lease.
Excellent presentation
Fall Blau suffered from the bane of so many military campaigns: mission creep. The main objective was to capture the resource producing areas, and even that would be difficult due to the distances. But Hitler got distracted by the completely useless objective of capturing Stalingrad and poured all the available resources into that, even weakening the southern thrust to capture the resources which was the main objective in the first place. Keeping to the initial objectives and staying the hell away from the city fights that limited their advantage of mobility and allowed them to be surrounded would most likely have changed everything.
Would not agree that Stalingrad was useless objective. Simple put, that city, if taken, would be ideal place to perform role of logistical base and in general base for defence of Don-Volga front.
Stalingrad was necessary to go further south
capturing stalingrad cuts ussr off of the southern oil fields , removes one of the ussr's major centers of armament manufacturing , removes the russian control of the volga river damaging the ussr's logistics and enhancing germanys logistics and allows germany another avenue to attack moscow
How could the blocking line be defended while Stalingrad was in Stalin's hands?
Hitler's failure to take Moscow doomed Germany's Eastern front campaign. Had he made it a priority from the onset of the invasion, the Soviets would have suffered a major morale blow, Stalin's administration would have been in shambles, and strategically, the Soviets would have lost an essential road and communication network, which would result in the loss of the slender supply line keeping Leningrad alive, and also receiving vital shipments from the Allies.
Russia was just too big for the Germans to encompass and occupy. The distances involved made it a logistical nightmare to supply the army. Soviets partisans made things worse, and soon 1 out of every 5 German soldiers would be committed to guarding their supply lines. The final nail in the coffin was getting into a urban street fight at Stalingrad, negating the Germans fire and maneuver tactics , allowing the Russians to hug the German front lines to nullify their artillery and air attacks.
It was over before it started! Moscow or not.
@@karlheinzvonkroemann2217 It is easy to say that nowdays, it could have happened in a different way.
Ever heard of Napoleon? He took Moscow. Ad0lf needed oil and food for the war not a glorified barracks. His priorities should have been. 1 The Caucus 2. Lenningrad. 3. Moscow.
@@macoooos9204 look they both hurt Russia alot. People speak about Germany losing but Hitler killed so many Russian soldiers. Literally 500 Russian soldiers losing their lives every day. Russia won but at a very high cost. The proof is in the pudding 🍰. Lots of Russian boys without fathers and Russian women looking for foreigners for many years to come.
@@macoooos9204 everybody is wise after result
Interesting/informative/entertaining. Excellent photography job/maps enabling viewers to better understand what/whom the orator was describing. After the failed blitzkrieg invasion attempt into Moscow's perimeters. Forever diminishing plans for a quick fall campaign to end the conflict.
Great documentary. Just one thing „von Paulus“ is not his name. It’s just „Paulus”. In spite of his rank and background, he was not ennobled or born into nobility.
Omar Bradley said it best. "Amateurs talk tactics. Professionals talk logistics."
Logistics was a foreign concept to Germany, whose strategy was still stuck in the 19th Century. Everyone wants to say how GREAT German generals were. They were good at tactics, but they were amateurs.
True.
Georg Thomas predicted how long the fuel would last, to within a week of accuracy!
Not just that, the Germans think analytic and logical. They need a touch of improvisation and originality. That is by them not common.
Excellent summary, there is a 36 hour long documentary for History fans on the subject, the best, most in-depth one I've ever seen, it's on TIK youtube channel for free.
2:18 In comparison, Germany offensive against France, Belgium and the Low Contries assembled 141 divisions…
If the south was their main target, Army Groups North and Center south amount only the force needed to protect South's advance. I think Germany would’ve won if the first two army groups had worked only with the porpuse of conquering the Caucasus.
"Let's declare a war to our enemies"
"Right!, where's our resources come from to start?"
"From our enemies......"
They lost the war
The same thing in the war with Russia now....
German/Canadian coworker of mine told me her grandad lost a leg in Stalingrad but survived. She didnt know how he lost it until she found some old photos of him in her teens I guess.
Sounds like the silver lining for loosing his leg was being evacuated well before the encirclement happened.
At 3:38 the narrator calls the Axis forces “the allied forces”. And yes I understand that the German, Italian and Romanian forces were allied amongst them.
The "Allies" (as in the Western allies) were called the "United Nations" during the war
This was the bloodiest battle in history.
This documentary is pretty good, but there are some important points to remember that it doesn't emphasize that change how one considers this material:
1) Germany was not obligated to declare war on America when America declared war on Japan. The Tripartite or "Axis" Pact did not require joining wars that other parties to the pact had started. Germany declared war on the United States anyways, and a big reason for this was because, from the perspective on many analysts at the time, it looked like Germany was still winning the War. It's easy for us to see all of the serious logistical issues the Germans faced and the dramatic improvement in the British and Soviet armies at the time, but in 1941, that was much tougher to assess.
2) Not only did it look like Germany was winning throughout 1941, but even for most of 1942, it looked like Germany was at least partly winning. While the Americans began to have military success in the Pacific after Midway, they often struggled in Africa, and even to an extent in the U-Boat campaign, against the Germans in 1942. Even at the end of 1942 in Stalingrad, while it's easy for us to say in hindsight that the German army was in serious trouble, lots of analysts expected the Germans to break out of the encirclement still.
3) A huge reason why the Soviets were able to encircle the Germans at Stalingrad with Operation Uranus was because the Italians and Romanians were guarding the Germans' flanks and were poorly trained.
4) Paulus and other Nazi officers just assumed that Hitler would let them break for Baku's oil fields. While the Soviets may very well have routed the Germans in a hypothetical "Battle of Baku", the fact that this is what so many Nazi officers were expecting changes the context.
Very interesting video, thanks :)