Hey there! Yep, I'm aware it's the NKVD and not the NKVW. Truly a slip of the tongue. I'm not reading a script when I do these, and I'm a human capable of misspeaking. Thanks for keeping me on my toes! 😊 - Jared
Hello great video.. I was watching a movie called To Young the Hero. It’s on Netflix but it’s based on a WW2 12yr old who volunteered in the Navy, I think it could be a good video. But I would like some more information if you know anything about it
@ReelHistory Please set into context, who the real live persons of an event were. This would in fact reveal also that the movie is for the very most parts fictional. Which is a concern with the video's overall message seemingly implying that there would be some "minor" deviations from a substantially real story.
In the early 2000s I was dating a Russian woman (now my wife) here in the States, and I took her to see this film. She said very little when we were watching it, and when it was over I asked her what she thought of it. I admitted to her that there were some "Hollywood" elements to it, but I was still unprepared for her answer. She said she absolutely hated it because all we saw was just western actors dressing up in Russian costumes and playing at being Russians without any idea of the way real Russians -- her people -- would have reacted. She compared the movie to the Soviet film "Come and See" and that's something you should see for yourselves. I can't really describe it.
What did she expect? That Hollywood would go and find enough English speaking Russian actors with actual Hollywood level talent to be in a big budget film? 😂
@@LeviBulger no as a Russian the entire film is insulting. To even the legend Vasily. It is a Hollywood love triangle novel. With propaganda of the Soviets are bad at war. The Russian accents are so bad that Arnolds lines are better. The movie is absolutely insulting. It's even more insulting Americans think it is a good movie. Go watch both Stalingrad films. Battle of Sevastopol, I can name a dozen better movies.
@@LeviBulger Well, ya know, The Sopranos was showing at the same time, and there were really good Eastern European actors in it. There was plenty of ex-Soviet acting talent in America at the time to choose from. They just decided to do a Hollywood war romance in Russian costume, as @Robert53area notes.
Ah, yes, the Braveheart (Freeeeeeeeeddddddoooooommmmmm!!!!!) of Ze Ostfront. It gets two things right. 1) There was a Battle of Stalingrad. 2) Vasily Zaitsev existed. The rest is bad propaganda based on the worst pages of a good Stalingrad book. Verdict: This movie warrants a Gulag ticket.
It's a bad idea to use films as a history lesson unless you are running short of anger target practice. As to propaganda, is it Soviet? Bob Hoskins doesn't make Nikita look too good...
I'm so glad you mention the "there are no rifles"-nonsense, early on. I too am an historian, and when I got my degree, one of our series of lectures was called "The Use of History". Basically, it was a two-semester course, where almost everything else was a one-semester course, but this was considered so important, that they set aside two semesters for it. Fifth and sixth, to be precise, meaning you'd be certain to know of this, even if you "only" went for a bachelor's degree. In Denmark, where I am from, a bachelor is a three year thing, and it's considered useless. No one will hire someone with a bachelor's degree. You go for your masters, although you may divide your attention and take a minor during your two master's years. That's quite normal, particularly for historians since you are required to be able to teach two different classes if you want to become the equivalent of a high-school teacher, which is the most common reason for people to study history. I did not take a minor, myself, as I wanted to go the museum-route. "The Use of History" was, basically, a full year of us learning "Hollywood is full of horsemanure. Do not believe what you see in "historical" movies or TV-shows. Just don't. It's not true. It's not history. It's entertainment. AND HERE is how you go about explaining that to people who will, inevitably, tell you that they are experts on ancient Rome because they watched "Gladiator" or World War II on the Eastern Front because they watched "Enemy at the Gates". That's a direct quote, by the way, from my lecturer. He was right, too. I've come across A LOT of people making those exact claims. The lack of rifles was far more common in the absolute beginning of the war, obviously, and it had been a great problem during the FIRST World War, where infamously, General Sokhumlinov, the defense minister for Imperial Russia, declared after the utterly horrific defeat suffered by the Russians at the Marsurian Lakes, that now Russia would increase its daily production of rifle ammunition to forty thousand rounds ... a feat so enormous he then awarded himself a brand new, tailor-made and specially designed uniform to cover his ... considerably circumference ... and a glistening new medal as a reward, while Russian soldiers groaned in the knowledge that that would cover MAYBE two minutes of pretty conservative shooting in a massed, pitched battle. World War One ABSOLUTELY saw desperate shortages of materiel, right down to individual firearms for soldiers. But by Stalingrad, YES ... YES YES YES YES YES!!! The PPSh-41 was introduced the year before, it was easy to produce in large numbers, it was VERY reliable (for its time anyway) and the Germans were terrified of it. If you go back to the classic documentary "The World at War" from the BBC, narrated by Sir Lawrence Olivier, it is even mentioned in the episode about Stalingrad ... there's an excerpt from a letter, written by a German soldier, which is read aloud, which specifically says that "Russian tommy-gunners" are everywhere, and that the writer thinks it's a grossly unfair weapon. I believe he uses the word "barbaric" to describe its use. This is the kind of stuff that keeps me coming back to your channel. You really know what you're talking about, and ... well ... you aren't afraid of criticizing things that aren't good, either, EVEN when it comes to films that portray American victories (personally, I think Roland Emmerich should have his film-making license revoked for "Midway"). I get it. Sometimes a film is just meant to be entertainment. Sometimes a TV-series is just entertainment. And that's fine. For instance, I -love- "Rome" from HBO, in particular because the people behind it were so up-front about saying "Okay, this isn't historically factual stuff, but what we're trying to do is distance ourselves from Holly-Rome, and show what the city might actually have looked like, even away from the Forum Romanum ... the dirty back alleys of the Subura and so on!" and I thought that was amazing. So I do get it. But some films are just ... urgh ... gutwrenchingly awful. Thank you for doing this :)
I mean look at the casualties it isn't that far off as far as willingness to throw lives away. Even now in ukraine they've had insane casualty numbers. I think in this film it was mostly done to convey the little life amounted to in Soviet Russia.
@@silkyjohnson4208 Каждая жизнь бесценна для нас. Варвары с Запада всегда собственную шкуру ценят дороже, это и есть нацизм. Правильнее говорить о самопожертвовании и героизм русских войнов, именно благодаря этим качествам мы положили конец нацизму и вы должны об этом помнить и быть в вечном долгу, а не писать о том что наши жизни менее значимы. Вы сона забыли урок истории и наступили на эти же грабли..
Regarding the intro where there were not enough rifles, the inverse was real. According to books on Stalingrad by Antony Beevor, David Glantz, and William Craig, there were actually a shortage at that moment for sub machine guns for some divisions. The 13th Guards Rifle Division in particular was forced to go into battle with more rifles and less sub machine guns than desired due to a shortage and lack of time to wait (as the division was desperately required to hold back the German advance). The Guardsmen of 13th Guards Rifle Division were forced to cross the Volga with more Mosins than they wanted and fought until around a battalion of around 400 were all that's left of 13'000 men.
An old friend dug up paperwork that evidently cited only 120 automatic questions of any kind in the division. And that they were 1000 rifles short during the crossing, but were re armed as soon as they had crossed.
Russia not having enough guns to go around was something that happened in World War 1 actually according to some books I read, the Czar's Army was so under equipped and plagued with corruption and logistical issues that there would be times they had more men then rifles and the conscripts not given rifles were just given swords instead. Weird for them to take that fact and put it in an entirely different war though.
@@trenteaston3515 The misconception might also come from the end of 1941/early 1942 when factories were being relocated and equipment (and men) were being lost by the tens or hundreds of thousands on a monthly basis. With masses of men and tanks being hurled at the Germans in desperate delaying actions, of course there would be an impression formed of untrained and unarmed meat for the grinder. And German officers were able to mold the perception of the Eastern Front from 1946 to ~2000; misconceptions are still being regurgitated now.
@@trenteaston3515 The only time the Red Army was short of rifles was during the early weeks of 1941 as the Nazis overran the border armies along with their stockpiles. It was less of "we don't have rifles" it's more "we don't have enough rifles in the field, kindly wait as we take more from our stockpiles and distribute it to the troop". Besides, what they lacked was SVTs, the newer semi-auto rifles.. but Mosins? they got plenty of those. But that was 1941... Stalingrad is 1942 - the Red Army is lacking many things but rifles ain't one of those.
@@ericbouchard7547 It's funny when reality is far from that image. The Germans in Ukraine got delayed by weeks as the Germans bash its head against the Red Army. around Smolensk, the German forward divisions got decimated down to less than 40% strength by constant Soviet counter attacks - counter attacks with goddamned TANKS. Even when soviet troops were really lacking in equipment, they still managed to put up an actual fight like how the battered divisions in and around Tula 1941 managed to halt and even obliterate Guderian's panzers, with cavalry divisions armed with old machine guns, rifles, and very little artillery managed to push back Guderian's panzer army. The truth is, the Red Army is far better than what is depicted in western media. Sure, they aren't top notch nor the best.. but they aren't these "red hordes that only won by sheer number"... heck, the Germans outnumbered the Soviets in 1941.. practically, one of the only reasons they won that much in 1941 - numbers, surprise, and the Germany army is battle-hardened by that point. by 1942 when the Red Army is near parity in numbers and equipment, plus with battle-hardened soldiers and officers managed to achieve a complete surprise that overwhelmed the Germans to the point that they can't even fathom that it's possible suffer a defeat that bad. It's 2024 and Nazis still can't move on from 1942 LMAO.
The closed boxcar always bothered me more than anything else in this movie. These people are living and will see/saw all the atrocities that the axis are causing in their homeland. They were motivated and thirsty for revenge, but here they are portrated like cattle being forced into the train against they will. Imagine after Pearl Harbor happened they depicted all American soldiers being treated like they do in this movie...
and the shooting of 14+ thousand soldiers by the soviets is just bull****... based on one source, which s an anti-communist American... Like the Soviets had people to spare, let alone kill... At that time, Germany had conquered a territory where 2/3 of the people in the USSR lived, so Germany and Italy actually had more men available for recruitment and even population. And not to mention that the soviets had a major clash with the Japs a few years prior and had much of the army in the East. And, actually, the Germans shot more of their men, for cowardice, than the Soviets
As a former British Army soldier, I found most of the the sniper scenes quite ridiculous. Casually picking up a bolt-action rifle that isn't zeroed and scoring head shots on various enemies? Shooting a target leaping between buildings based on exactly what understanding of the target's range and angle of jump? A good piece of cinema but pretty fantastical otherwise.
The power of Stalin directed those shots. Seriously they're very bad, I've used PU Mosin before at the range and not zeroing the thing in leads to embarrassing misses.
I guess in this case these two guys are essentially meant to be the two best snipers in the world, so we can suspend disbelief for the moment 🤷 A gap between two broken parts of a building seems like an odd spot to get perfectly zeroed in like that.
@@stevenpolkinghorn4747 No. I think its more like the CoD 2003's Stalingrad missions....and it makes the game worse now we realized the movie which the game sourced from sucks balls.
12:19 My favourite scene of his in the movie is I think a deleted one, where he's on the phone complaining to someone loudly about how they are hanging on, but they'd stand more of a chance if they get more reinforcements and ammunition and instead of German planes in the sky, they saw some of their own - only to realise the phone's been handed to Stalin and he's just been yelling at "the boss"
The scene of the soldiers getting out of boxcars and immediately being rushed across the Volga, and the chaos, are effective at suggesting the brutality (and, often, chaos) of the battle, but in reality most reinforcement was with organized units. The "blocking detachments" of the NKVD did exist, but AFAIK the NKVD units in Stalingrad fairly quickly became regular infantry, as the situation grew desperate. And most deserters were dealt with across the river, where they fled. The Wehrmacht also used blocking detachments and also lavishly applied the ultimate penalty to deserters on the eastern front. As for snipers, there is an interesting account (Sniper on the Eastern Front, Sepp Allerberger) that describes how he became a "sniper" by dint of his marksmanship, an ad hoc arrangement in the field, using mostly captured Mosin-Nagants. Eventually he is recalled for sniper training, in Austria - after already being an accomplished combat sniper.
I love your videos, Jared. Between you and History Buffs, I have ended up learning a lot about history and can even pick stuff out myself now when I watch new stuff set in the same period. I wish I had you two as my professors back in the day.
The one man one rifle one man gets ammo is complete and utter BS The Russian army for all its brutality was never guilty of not arming its soldiers. There was one reported event when a unit arrived before their weapons and were given weapons from those they were replacing. There were blocking units but they simply returned men to the front.
@@Crustaceannationrepresentative As I wrote, there was one case of a unit arriving from across the river without its weapons, however they received some from an NKVD unit and their arms arrived in the end. The problem the Russian army had is more with medical supplies and food etc. They always had guns & ammo during WW2 as far as I have read.
because this is the standard procedure: if unit A is replaced on the front by unit B, unit A (especially if it is not moving to another section of the front but to recover to the rear) will leave the front "without a load". because all those tanks and cannons and mortars...etc. down to the last box of grenades and the last pack of bay leaves in the field kitchen used up the logistics capacity to get to where it is and where it should be used. the commander of unit B will only check the status and sign the handover papers. the unit A is then re-equipped in the rear with new weapons and equipment and unit B is, at least for a while, equipped above the table standards
When I was playing 40K Ork/Grots when this film came out, I was quoting, in my best Ork Nob Boss voice, "The first grot shoots! When the first grot dies, the next grot picks up the blaster and shoots!".
While not a fan of 40K, I do appreciate the sentiment. Do you play Bolt Action also? It's my understanding that in the new edition there is a rule that if a Soviet squad fails its activation role and a Commissar is within 6 inches, he shoots one of the squad and you reroll. How could I not loving playing the Russians!
You missed the whole point of Stalingrad which is not the obsession with the city named after Stalin but it's the River Volga is the main Russian supply route for Russia other than Murmansk. Cutting it would cut oil and other supplies to all fronts. In any case the German forces tasked with taking it were severely depleted to attack the oil fields further east.
Great film, but it does write into the "We were innocent victims too" narrative that Germany has been creating post-war. Military historians diving into the subject these days are... critical of that.
The neck Iron cross is actually a knight's cross. A higher rank medal that was issued on WWII, but not in WWI (back then, they had the Pour le Mérite medal, AKA, the blue max, so no oops here). About the "most important battle of WWII", I think the german defeat at Moscow the previous year was more important.
Both losses were devastating. It's hard to say which was worse strategically, they both were. The Germans came very close to winning. What if they hadn't allowed the British army to escape at Dunkirk or had they invaded the Soviet Union in spring of 42 when they had higher quality tanks. Lots of ifs. Personally I think they should have gone for Ukraine and the oil fields first then go for Moscow and Leningrad in the 2nd year. We'll never know, it's all speculation at this point.
I would dearly love to see a reaction video to the film “The Great Raid,” in which Joseph Fiennes also appeared. It depicts Army Rangers’ effort to rescue POW’s from the Japanese camp at Cabanatuan during the Philippine campaign.
I agree. That's why i love to watch the WW2 short films made by German directors and featured on youtube. Many of them are very well made and give you a sense of how the German nation views the war in hindsight and some of the struggles they went through serving in the Wehrmacht.
Man, you have no idea how hard Ive been waiting for this. You know how long Ive been waiting, but Ive been waiting hard. Tanya (Elizabeth Weiss) was an... awakening for me as a teenage boy. But beyond her, this film doesn't get the attention it deserves for how silly it is.
Sorry to correct you but the actress who played Tanya was Rachel Weisz (of The Mummy and The Mummy Returns fame). Elizabeth Weiss is an American anthropologist (according to Wikipedia). I do agree with you this is an outstanding movie.
Some context for the '13.000' executed by the Soviets is needed. This was the number for the entire 'Stalingrad Front' and the vast majority would have been soldiers fighting outside of the actual city. The reason for this can actually be seen in the movie scene with the ferries who took conscripts over the Volga river, it was very hard to cross the river and the men who survived it was far to valuable to be thrown away needlessly in suicide charges or even worse being executed for cowardice. The vast majority of those Red Army conscripts who showed cowardice during the battle and tried to escape it would simply be made to return to their old units after a stern lecture on how important their sacrifice was to the Motherland. It's true that life was cheap in the Red Army but in this particular battle soldiers where always in short supply for Chuikovs defenders.
Love triangle war movies are ridiculous. Pick either a war movie or a love movie, mixing the 2 ends in trash. Pearl Harbor was completely unwatchable for that reason. I hated the chick in the movie more than the Japanese.
I think a much better movie depicting Russia during World War II is "The Last Stand." The story of a corps of cadets from two of Russia's military academies as a front line unit meant to halt the 1941 German advance is pretty well done in that movie.
You should check out Battle for Sevestapol. It follows the famous Russian sniper Lyudmila Pavlichenko. Russia has some great WWII movies if you don't mind subtitles.
@@NielsenDK-1 There are quite a few with English overdubs as well but I get your point. I tried watching Generation War with a buddy, but he gave up after 20 minutes.
From what I read about the Battle of Stalingrad I think it would've been better if the movie was about the 13th Guards Rifle Division rather than Zaisev. Though given the infancy of the internet at this time the same inaccuracies for the portrayal of the Soviet strategies during the battle would've probably still been there, especially since William Criag's book came out before Russian President Boris Yeltsin opened the Soviet archive. Another book about Stalingrad I would recommend is Stalingrad by David M. granted & Jonathan M. House, it's very matter of fact so it could be exhausting at times but his series about Stalingrad does a good job at showing the strategy from both sides and dispelling the myths.
Good review!!! Can remember when "Call of Duty" (back in the days when they actually made good WWII themed video games) released their version of the Battle of Stalingrad. Yep - your character just got off the boat and was sent immediately into battle AND, of course, your character went through the 1-rifle for every other person line AND, of course, your character was issued the 5-bullets crap. That game was heavily influenced by this movie and "Saving Private Ryan" for virtually every mission, whether American or Soviet, was taken from those movies down to the actual tactics that you needed to do in order to complete each mission.
Hey Mr Frederick ,i immediately looked up the 1993 German movie, Stalingrad. I agree with you that enemy at the gates only redeeming quality is that it was different from typical American movies in that it depicted the Russian experience in ww2.
@ReelHistory At 16 minutes you are very wrong, Major König is wearing a knightscross around the neck, a ww2 medal, and the ribon bar is the memorialcross from ww1, BUT the ribon doesnt tell if he is a combatant or non-combatant as the destinction is only visible on the cross itself, either having swords or no swords for non-combatants ! So its totally feasible for him to have both.
Hollywood doing history is a bit like Swedish pizza; it might be tasty and sure the basic semblance of a "real" pizza is there as are the basic ingredients (dough, cheese, marinara sauce), but an Italian would NOT call most Swedish pizzas (like the one with peanuts, sliced banana and curry powder or the one with kebab meat, and the white and red sauce) a pizza. 😁 Oh and DEFINITELY read Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad, it's amazing.
Still love this movie, despite the historical inaccuracies. Also please make a video on the Siege of Jadotville and The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, they are awesome
Hey Reel History, if you read Anastas Ivanovich Mikoyan's (who was a logistical officer in the Soviet Union during ww2) personal accounts of WW2 in his memoir "Tak Bylo", he does in fact mention a unit where they simply had not had enough rifles for everyone or weapons in general. 'But it turned out that a portion of our divisions had been assembled according to peacetime norms. Divisions that had been equipped with adequate numbers of rifles for wartime conditions held on to them, but they were all close to the front. When the Germans crossed the frontier and began to advance, these weapons ended up in the territory they controlled or else the Germans simply captured them. As a result, reservists going to the front ended up with no rifles at all.'"
So you said about Vasily name not appearing in US newspapers till the 90s I got a quote for a Vietnam era scout sniper who said the only people who heard of Vasily and the finnish guy Simo before then were other snipers
The biggest draw from this movie was that there were so few movies about the Eastern Front of WWII. This scratched an itch war movie fans really needed. It had such an impact, the blockbuster initial Call of Duty video game used the opening scene as it's initial scenario for the Russian campaign in the game.
My Mom and Dad were both Military Police at a nuclear NATO site in the 1980s (where they met). They took us kids to see this movie, and they were both very moved by it. It might not be a very accurate film, but as my Dad put it, it was the first time he realized the Hell Russia really went through, and gained a lot of respect for them.
I very much enjoy your videos. You’re very eloquent and extremely knowledgeable. In particular in this video I’m glad you correctly expressed the fact of the crucial role the Soviet Union played the defeat of Nazi Germany and its allies, and the pivotal role of the battle of Stalingrad. With today’s unfortunate geopolitical tensions, many western politicians and commentators at best down play and at worst refute the role of the Soviet Union in WW2.
"… it's almost impossible for me to separate Bob Hoskins from his role as…" Harold Shand in The Long Good Friday? Eddie Valiant in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Oh, gawd, no.
I enjoyed this movie when it came out but I recognized at the time that it probably was not very historically accurate. I felt like this was trying to be Saving Private Ryan at times but there was too much melodrama injected, as you pointed out, with the romance and subplot with the younger Sasha. The portrayal of Russian leadership also seemed almost comically over the top. I did know that it was very loosely based on a real person and I knew a little about the battle for Stalingrad. It was an entertaining movie but it was hard to take it very seriously unlike Private Ryan, etc…
Major Konig was a hunter, Seitzev a plotarmed good looking Mary Sue. That Konig went over to check his "prey" clearly shows he´s a hunter and not an army sniper. Also major is a very high rank for a sniper. And if he was an instructor, why did he went alone? On the other hand famous snipers like Hetzenauer and Allerberger often fought without spotters. They were more lone fighters who came from hunting. Hetzenauer said in his book that he had significantly more kills than the official 345. Sniper kills had to be observed by an officer or at least another soldier but these guys went out alone and often away from the main troops. I know someone who is a very good shooter but has the disturbing habit of not shooting at targets that are on display but always choosing the difficult shots. He also gives away his hunting prey, he only does it for the "perfect shot". I once asked him what he thinks about before and after he shoots...and the answer was: Nothing Guess some snipers are these kind of guys...
Honestly, I appreciate I watched this movie when I was young, made me want to learn about that period of time (alongside Saving Pvt Ryan) and after finding out there was a lot of inaccuracies, ended up appreciating the 1993 Stalingrad a lot more when I finally got around to see it.
If there is some question as whether Major Konig was a real figure, it follows that every scene he is in is of questionable authenticity. Changing topics, if one wants to read about the fighting on the Eastern Front from the German perspective, I direct you to The Forgotten Soldier by Guy Sajer. His descriptions of the cold are truly chilling (forgive the pun).
Good review of the most expensive movie ever made in Europe, at the time. If nothing else, this movie depicted the absolute carnage and killing on the Eastern Front. My dad was in the US 99th Infantry Division that was located in the northern shoulder of the Ardennes forest when the Battle of the Bulge broke out. That division was in almost continuous combat from mid-December until the end of the war. As much fighting as the Allied forces on the Western Front encountered, it pales in to comparison to the fighting between the Russians and Germans on the Eastern Front. There literally was no quarter given. POWs between Russia and Germany also suffered the most of any captured combatants in Europe. Good points about Bob Hoskins. You’re too young to remember his character in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”. It must have been hard acting opposite a X-rated cartoon character!
The source material of the same title written by William Craig is perhaps the seminal work on this battle. The film uses only 14 pages from the book concerning the sniper activity, completely ignoring depictions of Pavlov's House and virtually every other aspect of the pivotal months long campaign. It's tough for me to take much of the film seriously.
Almost positive those were supposed to be Heinkle He-111's not Ju-88's. Ju-88's could dive bomb. The crashed plane used later is a He-111. But I could be wrong. Haven't seen in a long time.
My introduction to Stalingrad was by way of a table top war game called Perfect General. That scenario is brutal. All you have is infantry units to take on German tanks. It's winnable if you are careful bt it got me interested in the history.
Great look at the film Jared thank you. Re Bob Hoskins to many Brits he is most well known for the film the long good Friday made circa 1979/80 where he plays a London gangland boss who is plunged into a world he doesn’t understand involving the IRA. Also starring in it are a young Helen Mirren and Pierce Brosnan in one of his very first film roles. Well worth watching if you haven’t seen it 👍
16:16 maybe not? I’ve read a few things about the WW1 sniper training schools that crafted the next generation of Wehrmacht Jaeger troops. Perhaps teaching at one of those schools was considered Staff duty over being a combatant ? Particularly as his Iron Cross indicates that he did serve in the Great War.
One rifle for three men is actually a theme of WW1, where Imperial Russia army was severely lacking in infantry weapons. As for NKVD: blocking detachments were used to prevent falling back from defensive positions. Shooting people returning from failed attack is utter BS of cosmic proportion.
I adore Bob Hoskins's performance in this on an entertainment level, but I think he would've been a phenomenal choice to play Lavrentiy Beria instead of Khrushchev. Simon Russell Beale's portrayal of Beria in "The Death of Stalin" is a marvel and worthy of all acclaim, but imagine Hoskins in a serious and grounded film about that monstrous man.
Like most Hollywood movies, they get more wrong then right. But I do remember my old neighbor, a Russian veteran who got out of Europe in the late 40’s. He said it was the “political officers” that were more dangerous than the Germans. I guess he wasn’t a good communist.
I have a theory that post-Saving Private Ryan and post-Band of Brothers film producers sought to give audiences a handful of less historically accurate but otherwise edge-of-our-seats entertaining endeavors. Enemy at the Gates and U-571 immediately come to mind. Honorable mentions are also due to “A Very Long Engagement”, “Enigma” “Atonement” and “Flyboys” all imminently watchable without getting too bogged down in accuracy.
@@misterpinkandyellow74 thank you for the compliment. Whether you like it or not, those are the facts. Which is a bit sad, Zaitsev does seem to have been a nice guy and good soldier. His actual story would have probably been more interesting to read.
@@misterpinkandyellow74 it is. To anyone believing in freedom and liberal democracy. Apparently that does not include you. Which just tells me you are f*ing insane. But then, you have to be to believe Muscowite Vranyo. How is the glorious three day SMO going for you?
@@misterpinkandyellow74 Well te guy made a video about the "Urkainian summer counter offensive" and he predicted it will take 6 weeks to Ukraine to take back the territory. With several other prven false statements. Not to mention his Kurks video. He doesnt even have the brains to delete these videos.
5:00 commisars were indeed used routinely as portrayed in the movie, Kruzchev was one at stalingrad. now they are called 'blocking units', russian army still using them currently in Ukraine
Actually, commissars were part of the Communist Party structure, whereas blocking units were part of the Red Army or the security services, which (for the purpose) were under military command. These were two different institutions, even though they both served to uphold discipline among reluctant soldiers.
I enjoy this movie for it's entertainment and look at the Eastern Front. Forgotten Weapons did an episode on the guns in the movie, including both sniper setups.
Krushkchev was the political leader put there by Stalin as his man on the ground whereas the generals were appointed by the Stavka headed by Stalin for the military operation. Khrushchev as a direct link with Stalin was the major power in the sector on the political level with direct access to Stalin. His survival of the post Stalin succesion tells you all you need to know.
About your comment at 2', you could have pointed out that Switzerland was not occupied by the Axis powers either. Speaking of maps, look at one of Russia. Stalingrad is not at all the gateway to the Caucasus. Pushing in the direction of Stalingrad was a way for the Germans to protect the flank of the advance towards the Caucasus.
Ok at 17:59 you state “Junkers 88 bombers” where in fact those were clearly Heinkel HE 111 H bombers. The front “greenhouse” style nose is a dead giveaway plus the overall shape of the fuselage.
The name of the movie is actually a subtle foreshadowing that the director added for Red Army reenactors who will forever more have to deal with their own enemy at the gate in the form of stupid people at events referencing the movie as fact to them.
There were instances where Soviet soldiers were sent forward without enough ammunition. They might have 10 or 20 rounds instead of 50 and we're told to pick up from the dead and wounded. There were also penal battalions where there are absolutely were machine guns set up. There were also penal battalions where men were taken out of gulags and thrown into the front line with very little training to do things like clear minefields or other suicidal acts. They absolutely had machine guns set up behind them. In fact, one of the officers in charge of a penal battalion was Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin, father of the current president of Russia.
This is quite a fantasy movie, although quite enjoyable. After read several Stalingrad books by Glantz, Beevor, Jason d marks and few others is hard to say people who never read anything that this is historically bad.
Hey there! Yep, I'm aware it's the NKVD and not the NKVW. Truly a slip of the tongue. I'm not reading a script when I do these, and I'm a human capable of misspeaking. Thanks for keeping me on my toes! 😊
- Jared
Netflix is making a series about Stalingrad. Vasily is played by Beyonce.
Hello great video.. I was watching a movie called To Young the Hero. It’s on Netflix but it’s based on a WW2 12yr old who volunteered in the Navy, I think it could be a good video. But I would like some more information if you know anything about it
They needed chuikov in the movie
I have not seen the movie...yet. Will look for it. The beginning scene reminds me of the start of the "Call of Duty," game on Play Station.
@ReelHistory Please set into context, who the real live persons of an event were. This would in fact reveal also that the movie is for the very most parts fictional. Which is a concern with the video's overall message seemingly implying that there would be some "minor" deviations from a substantially real story.
In the early 2000s I was dating a Russian woman (now my wife) here in the States, and I took her to see this film. She said very little when we were watching it, and when it was over I asked her what she thought of it. I admitted to her that there were some "Hollywood" elements to it, but I was still unprepared for her answer. She said she absolutely hated it because all we saw was just western actors dressing up in Russian costumes and playing at being Russians without any idea of the way real Russians -- her people -- would have reacted. She compared the movie to the Soviet film "Come and See" and that's something you should see for yourselves. I can't really describe it.
Come and See gives you PTSD by proxy.
What did she expect? That Hollywood would go and find enough English speaking Russian actors with actual Hollywood level talent to be in a big budget film? 😂
@@LeviBulger no as a Russian the entire film is insulting. To even the legend Vasily. It is a Hollywood love triangle novel. With propaganda of the Soviets are bad at war. The Russian accents are so bad that Arnolds lines are better.
The movie is absolutely insulting. It's even more insulting Americans think it is a good movie.
Go watch both Stalingrad films. Battle of Sevastopol, I can name a dozen better movies.
Come and See is not for the weak.
@@LeviBulger Well, ya know, The Sopranos was showing at the same time, and there were really good Eastern European actors in it. There was plenty of ex-Soviet acting talent in America at the time to choose from. They just decided to do a Hollywood war romance in Russian costume, as @Robert53area notes.
Ah, yes, the Braveheart (Freeeeeeeeeddddddoooooommmmmm!!!!!) of Ze Ostfront. It gets two things right.
1) There was a Battle of Stalingrad.
2) Vasily Zaitsev existed.
The rest is bad propaganda based on the worst pages of a good Stalingrad book. Verdict: This movie warrants a Gulag ticket.
It's a bad idea to use films as a history lesson unless you are running short of anger target practice. As to propaganda, is it Soviet? Bob Hoskins doesn't make Nikita look too good...
Actually, the GULAG was the ministry located in Moscow.
I'm so glad you mention the "there are no rifles"-nonsense, early on.
I too am an historian, and when I got my degree, one of our series of lectures was called "The Use of History". Basically, it was a two-semester course, where almost everything else was a one-semester course, but this was considered so important, that they set aside two semesters for it. Fifth and sixth, to be precise, meaning you'd be certain to know of this, even if you "only" went for a bachelor's degree. In Denmark, where I am from, a bachelor is a three year thing, and it's considered useless. No one will hire someone with a bachelor's degree. You go for your masters, although you may divide your attention and take a minor during your two master's years. That's quite normal, particularly for historians since you are required to be able to teach two different classes if you want to become the equivalent of a high-school teacher, which is the most common reason for people to study history. I did not take a minor, myself, as I wanted to go the museum-route.
"The Use of History" was, basically, a full year of us learning "Hollywood is full of horsemanure. Do not believe what you see in "historical" movies or TV-shows. Just don't. It's not true. It's not history. It's entertainment. AND HERE is how you go about explaining that to people who will, inevitably, tell you that they are experts on ancient Rome because they watched "Gladiator" or World War II on the Eastern Front because they watched "Enemy at the Gates". That's a direct quote, by the way, from my lecturer. He was right, too. I've come across A LOT of people making those exact claims.
The lack of rifles was far more common in the absolute beginning of the war, obviously, and it had been a great problem during the FIRST World War, where infamously, General Sokhumlinov, the defense minister for Imperial Russia, declared after the utterly horrific defeat suffered by the Russians at the Marsurian Lakes, that now Russia would increase its daily production of rifle ammunition to forty thousand rounds ... a feat so enormous he then awarded himself a brand new, tailor-made and specially designed uniform to cover his ... considerably circumference ... and a glistening new medal as a reward, while Russian soldiers groaned in the knowledge that that would cover MAYBE two minutes of pretty conservative shooting in a massed, pitched battle. World War One ABSOLUTELY saw desperate shortages of materiel, right down to individual firearms for soldiers.
But by Stalingrad, YES ... YES YES YES YES YES!!! The PPSh-41 was introduced the year before, it was easy to produce in large numbers, it was VERY reliable (for its time anyway) and the Germans were terrified of it. If you go back to the classic documentary "The World at War" from the BBC, narrated by Sir Lawrence Olivier, it is even mentioned in the episode about Stalingrad ... there's an excerpt from a letter, written by a German soldier, which is read aloud, which specifically says that "Russian tommy-gunners" are everywhere, and that the writer thinks it's a grossly unfair weapon. I believe he uses the word "barbaric" to describe its use.
This is the kind of stuff that keeps me coming back to your channel. You really know what you're talking about, and ... well ... you aren't afraid of criticizing things that aren't good, either, EVEN when it comes to films that portray American victories (personally, I think Roland Emmerich should have his film-making license revoked for "Midway").
I get it. Sometimes a film is just meant to be entertainment. Sometimes a TV-series is just entertainment. And that's fine. For instance, I -love- "Rome" from HBO, in particular because the people behind it were so up-front about saying "Okay, this isn't historically factual stuff, but what we're trying to do is distance ourselves from Holly-Rome, and show what the city might actually have looked like, even away from the Forum Romanum ... the dirty back alleys of the Subura and so on!" and I thought that was amazing. So I do get it. But some films are just ... urgh ... gutwrenchingly awful.
Thank you for doing this :)
Entertaining movie, some really nice visuals, pretty good acting but "historically" it's pretty much trash.
This is how reddit thinks the Russian army fights in every battle.
Best comment on the video
I mean look at the casualties it isn't that far off as far as willingness to throw lives away. Even now in ukraine they've had insane casualty numbers. I think in this film it was mostly done to convey the little life amounted to in Soviet Russia.
@@silkyjohnson4208 you must not do your own research huh
@AlmazZGruppa im not saying it's accurate. I'm saying it's an artistic choice to convey the low value of the average Russian life.
@@silkyjohnson4208 Каждая жизнь бесценна для нас. Варвары с Запада всегда собственную шкуру ценят дороже, это и есть нацизм. Правильнее говорить о самопожертвовании и героизм русских войнов, именно благодаря этим качествам мы положили конец нацизму и вы должны об этом помнить и быть в вечном долгу, а не писать о том что наши жизни менее значимы. Вы сона забыли урок истории и наступили на эти же грабли..
Regarding the intro where there were not enough rifles, the inverse was real.
According to books on Stalingrad by Antony Beevor, David Glantz, and William Craig, there were actually a shortage at that moment for sub machine guns for some divisions. The 13th Guards Rifle Division in particular was forced to go into battle with more rifles and less sub machine guns than desired due to a shortage and lack of time to wait (as the division was desperately required to hold back the German advance). The Guardsmen of 13th Guards Rifle Division were forced to cross the Volga with more Mosins than they wanted and fought until around a battalion of around 400 were all that's left of 13'000 men.
An old friend dug up paperwork that evidently cited only 120 automatic questions of any kind in the division. And that they were 1000 rifles short during the crossing, but were re armed as soon as they had crossed.
Russia not having enough guns to go around was something that happened in World War 1 actually according to some books I read, the Czar's Army was so under equipped and plagued with corruption and logistical issues that there would be times they had more men then rifles and the conscripts not given rifles were just given swords instead. Weird for them to take that fact and put it in an entirely different war though.
@@trenteaston3515 The misconception might also come from the end of 1941/early 1942 when factories were being relocated and equipment (and men) were being lost by the tens or hundreds of thousands on a monthly basis.
With masses of men and tanks being hurled at the Germans in desperate delaying actions, of course there would be an impression formed of untrained and unarmed meat for the grinder. And German officers were able to mold the perception of the Eastern Front from 1946 to ~2000; misconceptions are still being regurgitated now.
@@trenteaston3515 The only time the Red Army was short of rifles was during the early weeks of 1941 as the Nazis overran the border armies along with their stockpiles. It was less of "we don't have rifles" it's more "we don't have enough rifles in the field, kindly wait as we take more from our stockpiles and distribute it to the troop".
Besides, what they lacked was SVTs, the newer semi-auto rifles.. but Mosins? they got plenty of those. But that was 1941... Stalingrad is 1942 - the Red Army is lacking many things but rifles ain't one of those.
@@ericbouchard7547 It's funny when reality is far from that image. The Germans in Ukraine got delayed by weeks as the Germans bash its head against the Red Army. around Smolensk, the German forward divisions got decimated down to less than 40% strength by constant Soviet counter attacks - counter attacks with goddamned TANKS. Even when soviet troops were really lacking in equipment, they still managed to put up an actual fight like how the battered divisions in and around Tula 1941 managed to halt and even obliterate Guderian's panzers, with cavalry divisions armed with old machine guns, rifles, and very little artillery managed to push back Guderian's panzer army.
The truth is, the Red Army is far better than what is depicted in western media. Sure, they aren't top notch nor the best.. but they aren't these "red hordes that only won by sheer number"... heck, the Germans outnumbered the Soviets in 1941.. practically, one of the only reasons they won that much in 1941 - numbers, surprise, and the Germany army is battle-hardened by that point. by 1942 when the Red Army is near parity in numbers and equipment, plus with battle-hardened soldiers and officers managed to achieve a complete surprise that overwhelmed the Germans to the point that they can't even fathom that it's possible suffer a defeat that bad.
It's 2024 and Nazis still can't move on from 1942 LMAO.
The closed boxcar always bothered me more than anything else in this movie. These people are living and will see/saw all the atrocities that the axis are causing in their homeland. They were motivated and thirsty for revenge, but here they are portrated like cattle being forced into the train against they will.
Imagine after Pearl Harbor happened they depicted all American soldiers being treated like they do in this movie...
and the shooting of 14+ thousand soldiers by the soviets is just bull****... based on one source, which s an anti-communist American... Like the Soviets had people to spare, let alone kill... At that time, Germany had conquered a territory where 2/3 of the people in the USSR lived, so Germany and Italy actually had more men available for recruitment and even population. And not to mention that the soviets had a major clash with the Japs a few years prior and had much of the army in the East. And, actually, the Germans shot more of their men, for cowardice, than the Soviets
As a former British Army soldier, I found most of the the sniper scenes quite ridiculous. Casually picking up a bolt-action rifle that isn't zeroed and scoring head shots on various enemies? Shooting a target leaping between buildings based on exactly what understanding of the target's range and angle of jump? A good piece of cinema but pretty fantastical otherwise.
There were 4 other shots before that, and the distance was about 30 yards only, so should be doable if you keep track of each shot
The power of Stalin directed those shots. Seriously they're very bad, I've used PU Mosin before at the range and not zeroing the thing in leads to embarrassing misses.
I guess in this case these two guys are essentially meant to be the two best snipers in the world, so we can suspend disbelief for the moment 🤷 A gap between two broken parts of a building seems like an odd spot to get perfectly zeroed in like that.
Sometimes Hollywood doesn't portray history accurately.
@@rembrandt972ify Are you telling me someone else destroyed the Death Star?
The movie that inspired the call of duty missions.
Vendetta, yeah, probably the best COD mission of the WW2 CODs.
@@stevenpolkinghorn4747 No. I think its more like the CoD 2003's Stalingrad missions....and it makes the game worse now we realized the movie which the game sourced from sucks balls.
12:19 My favourite scene of his in the movie is I think a deleted one, where he's on the phone complaining to someone loudly about how they are hanging on, but they'd stand more of a chance if they get more reinforcements and ammunition and instead of German planes in the sky, they saw some of their own - only to realise the phone's been handed to Stalin and he's just been yelling at "the boss"
This video is about to be fire!
The scene of the soldiers getting out of boxcars and immediately being rushed across the Volga, and the chaos, are effective at suggesting the brutality (and, often, chaos) of the battle, but in reality most reinforcement was with organized units. The "blocking detachments" of the NKVD did exist, but AFAIK the NKVD units in Stalingrad fairly quickly became regular infantry, as the situation grew desperate. And most deserters were dealt with across the river, where they fled. The Wehrmacht also used blocking detachments and also lavishly applied the ultimate penalty to deserters on the eastern front.
As for snipers, there is an interesting account (Sniper on the Eastern Front, Sepp Allerberger) that describes how he became a "sniper" by dint of his marksmanship, an ad hoc arrangement in the field, using mostly captured Mosin-Nagants. Eventually he is recalled for sniper training, in Austria - after already being an accomplished combat sniper.
@@lesmoore6443 I read Sepp's memoir and enjoyed it thoroughly. Made you realize how bad the Eastern front, including the use of explosive ammo.
Stalag 17 and Great Escape would be some good ones to look at
I love your videos, Jared. Between you and History Buffs, I have ended up learning a lot about history and can even pick stuff out myself now when I watch new stuff set in the same period. I wish I had you two as my professors back in the day.
Thanks for watching!
The one man one rifle one man gets ammo is complete and utter BS The Russian army for all its brutality was never guilty of not arming its soldiers. There was one reported event when a unit arrived before their weapons and were given weapons from those they were replacing. There were blocking units but they simply returned men to the front.
I mean it's not inaccurate, the Soviets had immense problems with logistics, they had plenty of rifles, but no way to get them to the front
@@Crustaceannationrepresentative As I wrote, there was one case of a unit arriving from across the river without its weapons, however they received some from an NKVD unit and their arms arrived in the end. The problem the Russian army had is more with medical supplies and food etc. They always had guns & ammo during WW2 as far as I have read.
because this is the standard procedure: if unit A is replaced on the front by unit B, unit A (especially if it is not moving to another section of the front but to recover to the rear) will leave the front "without a load". because
all those tanks and cannons and mortars...etc. down to the last box of grenades and the last pack of bay leaves in the field kitchen used up the logistics capacity to get to where it is and where it should be used. the commander of unit B will only check the status and sign the handover papers. the unit A is then re-equipped in the rear with new weapons and equipment and unit B is, at least for a while, equipped above the table standards
When I was playing 40K Ork/Grots when this film came out, I was quoting, in my best Ork Nob Boss voice, "The first grot shoots! When the first grot dies, the next grot picks up the blaster and shoots!".
While not a fan of 40K, I do appreciate the sentiment. Do you play Bolt Action also? It's my understanding that in the new edition there is a rule that if a Soviet squad fails its activation role and a Commissar is within 6 inches, he shoots one of the squad and you reroll. How could I not loving playing the Russians!
@@dougearnest7590 No, haven't played it. But I am tempted to pick up this new edition.
Your final comments were an excellent summary and reality check to viewers used to Hollywood's version of WW2. Thank you
Well at least they got that there was a battle at Stalingrad correct.
You missed the whole point of Stalingrad which is not the obsession with the city named after Stalin but it's the River Volga is the main Russian supply route for Russia other than Murmansk. Cutting it would cut oil and other supplies to all fronts. In any case the German forces tasked with taking it were severely depleted to attack the oil fields further east.
This was mentioned in the episode I think.
@@gettysburgguy No it wasn't. The focus was as per my first sentence.
And stalingrad at Case blue start wasnt even objective at first
Never saw this movie but I enjoy watching your commentary on things like this.
Thanks for watching!
@@ReelHistory still waiting for the Patton review you said was in the pipeline! 😅 Keep up the good work! 👍🏻
@@ReelHistory Its NKVD not NKVW
All things aside, the musical score in this is 🔥. Also the performances by the actors are very good.
If you want a better depiction of the battle, check out the 1993 German movie Stalingrad.
Great movie. Watched it for the first time last week. And I don’t even understand German or Russian. Can read subtitles fast helps
Stalingrad (1993) is a disturbingly good film. You can almost feel the hunger, fear and hopelessness in Joseph Vilsmaier's direction.
Also great if you want to feel super depressed! Bonus!
Great film, but it does write into the "We were innocent victims too" narrative that Germany has been creating post-war. Military historians diving into the subject these days are... critical of that.
@@PalleRasmussen True.
Great video really enjoyed it. Stalingrad or Cross of Iron next please!
Glad you enjoyed! Thanks for watching.
@@ReelHistory Cross of Iron totally yes, even though its very fiction it has great eastern front vibe in it
I agree 100% that movies like this, although somewhat inaccurate, bring light to some important battles. NICE review.
No they don't, movie us slander
Thanks for watching!
The neck Iron cross is actually a knight's cross. A higher rank medal that was issued on WWII, but not in WWI (back then, they had the Pour le Mérite medal, AKA, the blue max, so no oops here). About the "most important battle of WWII", I think the german defeat at Moscow the previous year was more important.
Both losses were devastating. It's hard to say which was worse strategically, they both were. The Germans came very close to winning. What if they hadn't allowed the British army to escape at Dunkirk or had they invaded the Soviet Union in spring of 42 when they had higher quality tanks. Lots of ifs. Personally I think they should have gone for Ukraine and the oil fields first then go for Moscow and Leningrad in the 2nd year. We'll never know, it's all speculation at this point.
I would dearly love to see a reaction video to the film “The Great Raid,” in which Joseph Fiennes also appeared. It depicts Army Rangers’ effort to rescue POW’s from the Japanese camp at Cabanatuan during the Philippine campaign.
The only thing I remember out of that movie is the rip off Saving Private Ryan scene where the US and Japanese soldiers end up in a knife scuffle.
@@johnbeauvais3159 All I remember is being so bored I don't remember anything.
I agree. That's why i love to watch the WW2 short films made by German directors and featured on youtube. Many of them are very well made and give you a sense of how the German nation views the war in hindsight and some of the struggles they went through serving in the Wehrmacht.
Man, you have no idea how hard Ive been waiting for this. You know how long Ive been waiting, but Ive been waiting hard.
Tanya (Elizabeth Weiss) was an... awakening for me as a teenage boy. But beyond her, this film doesn't get the attention it deserves for how silly it is.
Yes, she was very attractive in this movie.
Sorry to correct you but the actress who played Tanya was Rachel Weisz (of The Mummy and The Mummy Returns fame). Elizabeth Weiss is an American anthropologist (according to Wikipedia). I do agree with you this is an outstanding movie.
Jared I would love to see you do a breakdown of HBOs the pacific!! That would be amazing
1:39 Germany also never invaded Switzerland and yet it too turns grey on the map.
This history guy made a few mistakes but not as many as the movie did.
@@Waterford1992 Switzerland was more than happy to take Nazi money which are still in Swiss Banks to this day.
Some context for the '13.000' executed by the Soviets is needed. This was the number for the entire 'Stalingrad Front' and the vast majority would have been soldiers fighting outside of the actual city. The reason for this can actually be seen in the movie scene with the ferries who took conscripts over the Volga river, it was very hard to cross the river and the men who survived it was far to valuable to be thrown away needlessly in suicide charges or even worse being executed for cowardice.
The vast majority of those Red Army conscripts who showed cowardice during the battle and tried to escape it would simply be made to return to their old units after a stern lecture on how important their sacrifice was to the Motherland. It's true that life was cheap in the Red Army but in this particular battle soldiers where always in short supply for Chuikovs defenders.
I’ve been waiting for this one
Fantastic video, cheers Professor Fredrick!!
Thanks for watching!
Enemy at the Gates might go down as one of the greatest disappointments I’ve ever experienced in a movie theater. And I went and saw Napoleon too.
Ouch.
It was definitely a disappointment. Then again, so was Masters of the Air.
Love triangle war movies are ridiculous. Pick either a war movie or a love movie, mixing the 2 ends in trash. Pearl Harbor was completely unwatchable for that reason. I hated the chick in the movie more than the Japanese.
@@JayTide - On the other hand: Casablanca.
Dunkirk was a real disappointment to me.
Very glad Jared has now 100% promised and guaranteed an episode breaking down the 1993 film "Stalingrad"... Before Christmas of course! 😉👍
I think a much better movie depicting Russia during World War II is "The Last Stand." The story of a corps of cadets from two of Russia's military academies as a front line unit meant to halt the 1941 German advance is pretty well done in that movie.
You should check out Battle for Sevestapol. It follows the famous Russian sniper Lyudmila Pavlichenko. Russia has some great WWII movies if you don't mind subtitles.
The English-speaking part of the world finds it very difficult to watch anything other than English-language films.
Awesome film
@@NielsenDK-1 There are quite a few with English overdubs as well but I get your point. I tried watching Generation War with a buddy, but he gave up after 20 minutes.
@NielsenDK-1 : I've been trying to get Finnish films (Talvisota, Tali-Ihantala, The Unknown Soldier), but they're hard to find in America.
@@Lonovavir It is in a 5 episode tv-show, also. And blue-ray, too😃
From what I read about the Battle of Stalingrad I think it would've been better if the movie was about the 13th Guards Rifle Division rather than Zaisev.
Though given the infancy of the internet at this time the same inaccuracies for the portrayal of the Soviet strategies during the battle would've probably still been there, especially since William Criag's book came out before Russian President Boris Yeltsin opened the Soviet archive.
Another book about Stalingrad I would recommend is Stalingrad by David M. granted & Jonathan M. House, it's very matter of fact so it could be exhausting at times but his series about Stalingrad does a good job at showing the strategy from both sides and dispelling the myths.
Good review!!! Can remember when "Call of Duty" (back in the days when they actually made good WWII themed video games) released their version of the Battle of Stalingrad. Yep - your character just got off the boat and was sent immediately into battle AND, of course, your character went through the 1-rifle for every other person line AND, of course, your character was issued the 5-bullets crap. That game was heavily influenced by this movie and "Saving Private Ryan" for virtually every mission, whether American or Soviet, was taken from those movies down to the actual tactics that you needed to do in order to complete each mission.
Hey Mr Frederick ,i immediately looked up the 1993 German movie, Stalingrad. I agree with you that enemy at the gates only redeeming quality is that it was different from typical American movies in that it depicted the Russian experience in ww2.
Another great video! Thanks for all the work you put in!
Never really thought about that attempt to get the Saving Private Ryan thing at the beginning.. Clever, never caught that..
Those were Heinkel H111s not JU88s. They're totally different.
He 111
@ReelHistory At 16 minutes you are very wrong, Major König is wearing a knightscross around the neck, a ww2 medal, and the ribon bar is the memorialcross from ww1, BUT the ribon doesnt tell if he is a combatant or non-combatant as the destinction is only visible on the cross itself, either having swords or no swords for non-combatants ! So its totally feasible for him to have both.
Rifle marksmanship contests were common in Russian young before the war, so they had a ready supply of snipers for the war.
That's a Knight's Cross, not an Iron Cross. Those are Heinkels, not Junkers.
A Knight Cross is an Iron Cross.
LOL Bob Hoskins in Hook? You're younger then me. I remember him as Eddie Valiant in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
Hollywood doing history is a bit like Swedish pizza; it might be tasty and sure the basic semblance of a "real" pizza is there as are the basic ingredients (dough, cheese, marinara sauce), but an Italian would NOT call most Swedish pizzas (like the one with peanuts, sliced banana and curry powder or the one with kebab meat, and the white and red sauce) a pizza. 😁
Oh and DEFINITELY read Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad, it's amazing.
Good one Jared!
Thanks for watching!
Still love this movie, despite the historical inaccuracies. Also please make a video on the Siege of Jadotville and The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, they are awesome
Obligatory request for the film When Trumpets Fade!
I don't think you'll have to wait as long as you think
Hey Reel History, if you read Anastas Ivanovich Mikoyan's (who was a logistical officer in the Soviet Union during ww2) personal accounts of WW2 in his memoir "Tak Bylo", he does in fact mention a unit where they simply had not had enough rifles for everyone or weapons in general.
'But it turned out that a portion of our divisions had been assembled according to peacetime norms. Divisions that had been equipped with adequate numbers of rifles for wartime conditions held on to them, but they were all close to the front. When the Germans crossed the frontier and began to advance, these weapons ended up in the territory they controlled or else the Germans simply captured them. As a result, reservists going to the front ended up with no rifles at all.'"
The book “Enemy at the Gates” is amazing. Not sure how this movie went askew
They took a small portion of the book and made an American war movie out of it.
The Junkers Ju-88 aircraft had many uses during the war, one of which was as a "dive bomber"
So you said about Vasily name not appearing in US newspapers till the 90s I got a quote for a Vietnam era scout sniper who said the only people who heard of Vasily and the finnish guy Simo before then were other snipers
The biggest draw from this movie was that there were so few movies about the Eastern Front of WWII. This scratched an itch war movie fans really needed. It had such an impact, the blockbuster initial Call of Duty video game used the opening scene as it's initial scenario for the Russian campaign in the game.
My Mom and Dad were both Military Police at a nuclear NATO site in the 1980s (where they met). They took us kids to see this movie, and they were both very moved by it. It might not be a very accurate film, but as my Dad put it, it was the first time he realized the Hell Russia really went through, and gained a lot of respect for them.
I very much enjoy your videos. You’re very eloquent and extremely knowledgeable. In particular in this video I’m glad you correctly expressed the fact of the crucial role the Soviet Union played the defeat of Nazi Germany and its allies, and the pivotal role of the battle of Stalingrad. With today’s unfortunate geopolitical tensions, many western politicians and commentators at best down play and at worst refute the role of the Soviet Union in WW2.
"… it's almost impossible for me to separate Bob Hoskins from his role as…" Harold Shand in The Long Good Friday?
Eddie Valiant in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Oh, gawd, no.
I enjoyed this movie when it came out but I recognized at the time that it probably was not very historically accurate. I felt like this was trying to be Saving Private Ryan at times but there was too much melodrama injected, as you pointed out, with the romance and subplot with the younger Sasha. The portrayal of Russian leadership also seemed almost comically over the top. I did know that it was very loosely based on a real person and I knew a little about the battle for Stalingrad. It was an entertaining movie but it was hard to take it very seriously unlike Private Ryan, etc…
Major Konig was a hunter, Seitzev a plotarmed good looking Mary Sue. That Konig went over to check his "prey" clearly shows he´s a hunter and not an army sniper. Also major is a very high rank for a sniper. And if he was an instructor, why did he went alone?
On the other hand famous snipers like Hetzenauer and Allerberger often fought without spotters. They were more lone fighters who came from hunting. Hetzenauer said in his book that he had significantly more kills than the official 345. Sniper kills had to be observed by an officer or at least another soldier but these guys went out alone and often away from the main troops.
I know someone who is a very good shooter but has the disturbing habit of not shooting at targets that are on display but always choosing the difficult shots.
He also gives away his hunting prey, he only does it for the "perfect shot".
I once asked him what he thinks about before and after he shoots...and the answer was: Nothing
Guess some snipers are these kind of guys...
I would like to see what you make of the 1993 ? German version of Stalingrad.
Same. An excellent movie.
Another movie to consider is "Come and See." It is very hard to watch. Maybe you could review that one at some time.
This movie inspired one of the best, if not the best, Call of Duty missions: Vendetta.
9:25 American filmmaker: No, he has to be a frontiersman!
Honestly, I appreciate I watched this movie when I was young, made me want to learn about that period of time (alongside Saving Pvt Ryan) and after finding out there was a lot of inaccuracies, ended up appreciating the 1993 Stalingrad a lot more when I finally got around to see it.
The level of disorganization …as troops thrown into battle,” while not realistic for Stalingrad, seems like reality of current Ukraine war.
Not even Ukrainian military is this wasteful
No it doesn't? Small squad attacks doesn't equal "disorganized troops thrown into battle"
Legend says the Russian people don't actually talk with a British accent
If there is some question as whether Major Konig was a real figure, it follows that every scene he is in is of questionable authenticity. Changing topics, if one wants to read about the fighting on the Eastern Front from the German perspective, I direct you to The Forgotten Soldier by Guy Sajer. His descriptions of the cold are truly chilling (forgive the pun).
The number of bodies that were lying all over the place I thought was very good detail.
Good review of the most expensive movie ever made in Europe, at the time.
If nothing else, this movie depicted the absolute carnage and killing on the Eastern Front. My dad was in the US 99th Infantry Division that was located in the northern shoulder of the Ardennes forest when the Battle of the Bulge broke out. That division was in almost continuous combat from mid-December until the end of the war. As much fighting as the Allied forces on the Western Front encountered, it pales in to comparison to the fighting between the Russians and Germans on the Eastern Front. There literally was no quarter given.
POWs between Russia and Germany also suffered the most of any captured combatants in Europe.
Good points about Bob Hoskins. You’re too young to remember his character in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”. It must have been hard acting opposite a X-rated cartoon character!
The source material of the same title written by William Craig is perhaps the seminal work on this battle. The film uses only 14 pages from the book concerning the sniper activity, completely ignoring depictions of Pavlov's House and virtually every other aspect of the pivotal months long campaign. It's tough for me to take much of the film seriously.
Love your videos 😊
Almost positive those were supposed to be Heinkle He-111's not Ju-88's. Ju-88's could dive bomb. The crashed plane used later is a He-111. But I could be wrong. Haven't seen in a long time.
A video regarding the movie Operation Mincemeat would be very interesting. Thanks for the video.
My introduction to Stalingrad was by way of a table top war game called Perfect General. That scenario is brutal. All you have is infantry units to take on German tanks. It's winnable if you are careful bt it got me interested in the history.
Great look at the film Jared thank you.
Re Bob Hoskins to many Brits he is most well known for the film the long good Friday made circa 1979/80 where he plays a London gangland boss who is plunged into a world he doesn’t understand involving the IRA. Also starring in it are a young Helen Mirren and Pierce Brosnan in one of his very first film roles. Well worth watching if you haven’t seen it 👍
I always watch this film not as a historical war movie but more as a fairy tale set in WWII and enjoy it very much that way.
16:16 maybe not? I’ve read a few things about the WW1 sniper training schools that crafted the next generation of Wehrmacht Jaeger troops. Perhaps teaching at one of those schools was considered Staff duty over being a combatant ? Particularly as his Iron Cross indicates that he did serve in the Great War.
One rifle for three men is actually a theme of WW1, where Imperial Russia army was severely lacking in infantry weapons.
As for NKVD: blocking detachments were used to prevent falling back from defensive positions. Shooting people returning from failed attack is utter BS of cosmic proportion.
I adore Bob Hoskins's performance in this on an entertainment level, but I think he would've been a phenomenal choice to play Lavrentiy Beria instead of Khrushchev. Simon Russell Beale's portrayal of Beria in "The Death of Stalin" is a marvel and worthy of all acclaim, but imagine Hoskins in a serious and grounded film about that monstrous man.
Like most Hollywood movies, they get more wrong then right. But I do remember my old neighbor, a Russian veteran who got out of Europe in the late 40’s. He said it was the “political officers” that were more dangerous than the Germans. I guess he wasn’t a good communist.
I have a theory that post-Saving Private Ryan and post-Band of Brothers film producers sought to give audiences a handful of less historically accurate but otherwise edge-of-our-seats entertaining endeavors. Enemy at the Gates and U-571 immediately come to mind. Honorable mentions are also due to “A Very Long Engagement”, “Enigma” “Atonement” and “Flyboys” all imminently watchable without getting too bogged down in accuracy.
One of my first movies seen in theater was the Lion King original.
I am a military historian, and I read Zaitsev's book. It is as full of lies as Muscowy's media is today.
Okay NAFO
@@misterpinkandyellow74 thank you for the compliment. Whether you like it or not, those are the facts. Which is a bit sad, Zaitsev does seem to have been a nice guy and good soldier. His actual story would have probably been more interesting to read.
@@PalleRasmussen you think NAFO is a compliment?
You are lost bro.
@@misterpinkandyellow74 it is. To anyone believing in freedom and liberal democracy. Apparently that does not include you. Which just tells me you are f*ing insane. But then, you have to be to believe Muscowite Vranyo.
How is the glorious three day SMO going for you?
@@misterpinkandyellow74 Well te guy made a video about the "Urkainian summer counter offensive" and he predicted it will take 6 weeks to Ukraine to take back the territory. With several other prven false statements.
Not to mention his Kurks video. He doesnt even have the brains to delete these videos.
5:00 commisars were indeed used routinely as portrayed in the movie, Kruzchev was one at stalingrad. now they are called 'blocking units', russian army still using them currently in Ukraine
Actually, commissars were part of the Communist Party structure, whereas blocking units were part of the Red Army or the security services, which (for the purpose) were under military command. These were two different institutions, even though they both served to uphold discipline among reluctant soldiers.
I enjoy this movie for it's entertainment and look at the Eastern Front. Forgotten Weapons did an episode on the guns in the movie, including both sniper setups.
Krushkchev was the political leader put there by Stalin as his man on the ground whereas the generals were appointed by the Stavka headed by Stalin for the military operation. Khrushchev as a direct link with Stalin was the major power in the sector on the political level with direct access to Stalin. His survival of the post Stalin succesion tells you all you need to know.
The movie was inspirational for the first Call of Duty game.
About your comment at 2', you could have pointed out that Switzerland was not occupied by the Axis powers either. Speaking of maps, look at one of Russia. Stalingrad is not at all the gateway to the Caucasus. Pushing in the direction of Stalingrad was a way for the Germans to protect the flank of the advance towards the Caucasus.
The movie may not be accurate, but I remember enjoying it. I saw it a few times.
Up next; *The Great War* w/Ron Pearlman
Ok at 17:59 you state “Junkers 88 bombers” where in fact those were clearly Heinkel HE 111 H bombers. The front “greenhouse” style nose is a dead giveaway plus the overall shape of the fuselage.
12:00🤦🏻♂️I didn't even recognize him. It's unseeable now .
The name of the movie is actually a subtle foreshadowing that the director added for Red Army reenactors who will forever more have to deal with their own enemy at the gate in the form of stupid people at events referencing the movie as fact to them.
Just keep saying to yourself "the movie got them to the reenactment - the movie got them to the reenactment"
@ 18:28 Ron sounds more like an Aussie!
There were instances where Soviet soldiers were sent forward without enough ammunition. They might have 10 or 20 rounds instead of 50 and we're told to pick up from the dead and wounded.
There were also penal battalions where there are absolutely were machine guns set up. There were also penal battalions where men were taken out of gulags and thrown into the front line with very little training to do things like clear minefields or other suicidal acts. They absolutely had machine guns set up behind them. In fact, one of the officers in charge of a penal battalion was Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin, father of the current president of Russia.
This is not what penal battalions were nor how they functioned. And an attempt to tie it up to current thing™ is just pathetic.
The Danish film April 9 (German invasion of Denmark) and The Kings Choice (German invasion of Norway) Based on real events.
This is quite a fantasy movie, although quite enjoyable. After read several Stalingrad books by Glantz, Beevor, Jason d marks and few others is hard to say people who never read anything that this is historically bad.