I have read in multiple sources that these sirens were rarely actually activated. The pilots hated them as they were uncomfortably loud for them as well.
It's possible that those were Soviet planes, executing troops for having negative thoughts about Stalin. The sirens were meant to inform them of their punishment, but the pilot forget to bring that recording, so he just used the 'Stuka Sound' recording instead...
A lot of people hate on these videos with Dan Snow, but I kind of enjoy that he focuses on what inspired the scenes and situations depicted rather than what the scenes got wrong. We should all know that it's a movie, and it's not accurate. This video is not meant for those of us who already know what the problems are, but rather an explanation of why certain things were included for people who might not know a single thing about the real Battle of Stalingrad. He does dispel certain myths the film presents, but examining the overall feeling and giving a bit more real historical detail is still valuable for the common viewing public...which is really what History Hit is trying to cater to rather than massaging the egos of would-be internet historians.
Not if it's at the cost of further spreading misinformation. This one goes way beyond the typical Hollywood inaccuracies. We are not talking about "but they used the wrong rifle" here. We are talking about basically Nazi propaganda.
Agreed, and he repeatedly points out parts that are not accurate. But what Dan understands well is that perfect historical accuracy is not always the most exciting or entertaining cinema. Sometimes creative license is taken for dramatic effect.
I'm fine with a historical film having inaccuracies, but if you're going to have a historian on here, he better come correct. And he whitewashing parts that were flagrantly untrue, and could be viewed more as anti-Soviet propaganda than just creative license.
the best historians are the ones that understand what is fake and what isnt and can break apart what is right and wrong and understand why they did that etc.
There's a way to point out historical inaccuracies while still acknowledging why they were put in there to make a better movie. Many historians like to point out that flaming projectiles weren't really a thing, but it looks cool. Particularly with WW2, which has so many misconceptions and has been so heavily propagandized I feel it's really harmful to legitimize misinformation by having a historian not acknowledge when Hollywood just leans into lies propagated by actual Nazis. Such as the idea the Soviets would send in unarmed men to pick up guns from the fallen having "a truth to it", when we know for a fact it didn't happen, but people have seen the movie and believe it. The Soviets relying on waves of unarmed conscripts and shooting their own men constantly is just straight up Nazi propaganda, and I don't think that's the kind of thing historians should be propping up even if it makes for a more cinematic experience (because propaganda is designed to be appealing to the masses, and therefore will almost always make for a better movie than the truth).
My grandfather was part of operation Uranus (the soviets that sieged the Germans and took the 6th army). He said when they entered people were eating rats and worse dead bodies. He was shot six times through the stomach they wrote a newspaper article about him in the Western Times after he moved to Wales.
@@AudieHolland The Soviets released all the POWs by 1956 except perhaps hard core war criminals, presumably you could still cross the German border then as the Berlin wall hadn't gone up yet, or maybe he was released earlier. I remember reading in Hans Von Lucks memoir, he wasn't at Stalingrad but was captured by the Soviets in 1945 and released straight into West Germany in 1950.
@@zxbzxbzxb1 I know, it was probably rather easy for former German military personnel to get to the west. But OP's grandfather was part of the Soviet forces that took part in Operation Uranus, the Soviet counter attack that trapped the German 6th Army at Stalingrad. Random Former German soldier at Soviet checkpoint: "So you want to go to the western sector, to see your family again? OK." Random Soviet soldier at same Soviet checkpoint: "You want WHAT!? Arrest him!"
A lot of things bother me about this movie. But two of the big ones are: Depictin Vasily Zaitcev as an illiterate farmhand. As pointed out, Zaitcev had served in the navy for years before going to Stalingrad. But one of his jobs there was to be an accountant. He was fully literate and well educated. Depicting him as a naive, bumbling simpleton does him a great disservice. My second gripe (in addition to all the stuff other commenters have pointed out) is the female sniper, Ludmilla, who loses her nerve in one scene, panics, and is killed because of her own incompetence. This character is apparently inspired by ludmila Pavlichenko. The real Pavlichenko was a top soviet sniper, with over 300vconfirmed kills. She was so feared that the Germans sent out special units to try and hunt her down. She was especially known for her steely resolve. She survived the war, went on a tour of the US, and became friends with Mrs Rooseveldt. One thing that always bothers me about movies like this is the fact they rely on telling myths about ruthless soviet strategy to make the russian forces look crueler. And they don't have to. The soviet union did terrible things to large sections of it's population. You don't have to resort to "blocking batallions" to convince people of that. You can just be accurate.
Exactly. Education is an aspect of the USSR that often gets ignored or forgotten, but it was one of Lenin and Nadezhda Krupskaya's greatest achievements, and one even Stalin's bungling couldn't wholly erase.
@@callumjohnston858 yes. There was a lot wrong with the soviet education system. It was propagandistic, promoted education but was distrusting of intellectual curiosity, and helped forcefully erase the cultural identities of the various less dominant soviet republics. But it did establish a basic literacy standard for the vast majority of the population. It was incredibly effective. It's just that some of the things it was effective at weren't great.
@@songbird5842 To be fair, there's plenty of reasons to be anti-Soviet. The problem is that this movie ignores them in favour of ahistorical invention and reheated nazi propaganda.
My grandfather was a transportation officer in Stalingrad, was wounded and awarded a decoration. He rarely spoke about the war, but from my dad (and general interest, speaking Russian and Ukrainian and having a couple of degrees in history) I know a few points that made me dislike the film. Yes, crossing the river was extremely dangerous, and the Stukas were horrifying (this my grandfather did say: the sirens literally made people lose their minds. The inexperienced soldiers would try to physically dig themselves into the ground in order to hide, they wouldn't listen to any orders)- but this was exactly the reason why the crossings were conducted at night. My grandfather had to go back and forth more than a few times as he had to evacuate equipment and bring repaired equipment back in, so he knew the route pretty well. Usually the whole river would be covered in smoke: whether from the bombs and fires or from smoke screens, so that you could barely see anything while crossing. In general the film kind of lacks the smoke. Yes, there were barrier troops, but no, machine gunners were not placed behind regular troops with orders to kill anyone who retreated, and definitely no commissars would be randomly shooting at soldiers on the boats, as they would not be their commanders and if something like that would happened they would be mobbed by the soldiers and totally lose controls. The barrier troops would usually consist of squads who would "hunt" deserters along the shore and in hideouts and would have permission to shoot anyone who would refuse to go back into fighting. Commissars would rarely use their weapons against soldiers, as they would usually be going along the positions and trenches to boost up morale. Also by October 1942 commissars were no longer commanding ranks but just advisors. Officers would threaten to shoot their own soldiers if they retreated (as far as I know my grandfather witnessed something like that), and would do so sometimes, but this would happen within the detachments themselves. By the time the battle was being fought within the city, the civilians would not have been at the shore but would be hiding underground or in the remaining buildings, often cramped by dozens in single basements. They wouldn't leave since they wouldn't have survived in the street and would not have been allowed to the shore. Also, Khruschchev was Stalin's representative (member of the military council) on the Stalingrad Front since July 1942, he was responsible for a lot of organizational issues and spent much time on the Soviet command posts within the city. He was one ruthless bureaucrat, but he also knew the field, and before the battle in the city, before the Soviet southern fronts collapsed in the Spring of 1942, he tried to convince Stalin to call off the disastrous attack on Kharkov, that cost the Soviets more than the whole Battle of Moscow. Eventually I guess I'm glad people did get to see something about the battle and it might have encouraged them to learn more, but this isn't particularly realistic. Though I'm not sure one can actually make a realistic movie about Stalingrad. My grandfather didn't really speak of it for a reason, and he wasn't on the front line constantly.
@@mikelangford7763 He did, but I think like in many cases at war, a certain part of him stayed there. That generation was very tough, but if even in the free world WWII veterans rarely spoke about the war, many suffered from severe PTSD and had many personal issues thruoghout the years, you can imagined how it was in the Soviet Union, which was a totalitaian society and imposed a lot of limitations and requirements on its citizens. My grandad passed away when I was very young, but I surely owe him, at least in part, my interest in history and specifically in WWII.
Frankly a very controversial review. Enemy at the Gates is notorious for being one of the most inaccurate films about WW2. River crossings were done at night time for reasons that are all too obvious. The 13th Guards division discussed here participated in a defensive operation, not a human wave. The one rifle 2 men is an idiotic myth this movie started. The list goes on.
Yeah, the one rifle two men thing is a myth lol oh wait, Russia is currently doing those exact same attacks in Ukraine. Human wave attacks with blocking forces to kill anyone who retreats as well. Hard to argue that it is a myth when it is currently happening in reality.
I heard that the 1 gun per 2 men was only done in WW1 not WW2 or this battle. Not sure about that either. I know Russia was short of firearms in WW1 more than WW2.
Dan, my father fought through the Pacific Theatre - a Corporal by Guadalcanal, he’d enlisted early and his war ended at Okinawa. I’m not certain what happened to him on Saipan, but it changed him forever, and he had several landings to make after that. I asked him how he had the courage to leave the landing boats again. He swore that a he’d be shot if he didn’t, that there was someone at the back of the boat prepared to shoot if a Marine faltered. This aspect of the war has NEVER been discussed, but it was one of the few things about the war he would discuss, I’ve never doubted him. I do not want to disparage his unit, or his Division, and perhaps it was my Dad’s perception. He was a troubled man late in life, and while he wanted to be happy his past would overcome him from time to time- it was gut wrenching for him, and for us.
I mean yeah. The western Allies had MPs as well. And the US did shoot a single person for desertion. Many more were sentenced to execution but did not actually end up being executed. While it was obviously very rare the expectation was still absolutely there.
I don’t think that this scene 2:38-2:50 is “astonishingly realistic”… It seems to me that the director of the movie didn’t realize what kind of people actually fought in Stalingrad battle, and what was their motivation like. Those terrified faces of the Red army soldiers in the cart make one think that they weren’t aware of the point of their destination and what was awaiting them, which wasn’t true… And the way they were herded to boats, like sheeps… I don’t even mention an evil NKVD officer with a read flag in one arm and a loudspeaker in the other, to me it is “astonishingly” ridiculous and absolutely unrealistic scene…
There's also very little evidence of daytime crossings of the Volga. Most were done under the cover of night. The equipment shortage is also total balls, 0 evidence of a lack of rifles. If anything, they would have been running low on Ammo. 34 Million served in the Red Army throuhout WW2. More than half would have been logistics, artillery, tank crews, drivers so would not have had rifles. 20 Million Mosin Nagants were produced during the war. That doesn't tell me that they would have been running out.
@@Noodle3058 That's because the shortage of equipment as seen in the movie isn't true as you said and is based on old anti-Soviet myths. We actually know now that what the Soviets lacked more of early in the war was larger weapons systems like tanks and other armored vehicles due to heavy losses early on (and also production complications due to the fact that they needed to move their production facilities eastward because of the German advance). However, what they didn't lack was small arms (like rifles etc.) and the ammunition to fire them. As such there would have been plenty of rifles to go around for all the soldiers, and the idea that two men had to share a gun or whatever was nonsense invention for the movie.
But they did shoot their own men in the battle it’s quite well known. Grossman even mentions it. Also just because they know their destination doesn’t mean they won’t be scared
19:40: I don't agree with the idea that the battle was only a "battle of dictators" and that Stalingrad "had no particular military or strategic value". PLease note that: 1- There were heavy industrial facilities in Stalingrad as the "tractors factory", converted to the production of T34 tanks, the arms factory "Barricade" as well as the metallurgical complex "Red October". 2- The Volga river was a very important transportation route from Central Asia allowing oil supply from Baku. 3- Stalingrad was also a railway hub: all high tonnage railway lines from Caucasus to the rest of the country were going through Stalingrad and this was paramount to get reinforcement from Moscow and Siberia. It was an important part of the Soviet military organisation. 4- Last but not least, the famous Soviet spy Richard Sorge had informed Moscow that Japan might attack the USSR as soon as any city on the Volga would have been taken, which would result in stopping allied supply from Iran routes.
Had Stalingrad been captured the Volga River would have been a formidable defensive obstacle. Troops could have been transferred out of the city to strengthen the vulnerable flanks
Exactly the whole idea is just propaganda (used by various sides to push their agenda, Hitler bad, Germans bad, Stalin bad etc. ). Stalingrad and Volga were absolutely strategically vital to both sides.
Stalingrad might have been important to the Soviets, but it was completely irrelevant to what SHOULD have been the overriding German objective - complete capture of the Caucasus.
@@chuckschillingvideos You are right but that's exactly why this battle has been so important: it prevented the nazis to take control fo the Caucasus and more important it stopped the German advance so well that from then on, they never had the initiative again.
the lack of historical facts even more so......there was not a single russian shot by blockingforces in stalingrad, of the roughly 1 million that were stopped by the blocking forces less than 1000 was executed......so there is that. Other than it is set in ww2 which happened and stalingrad which is a place, and the name of commanders and zeitsev then we have NO MORE hostorical facts in the movie at all....but it is a fun movie
I disagree with him when he said Stalingrad had no military or strategic value. It was a major trade, supply and transportation hub and a large industrial town and was a major producer of armored vehicles. It was also very strategically located. He makes it sound like the Germans initiated that entire campaign solely to conquer Stalingrad for no other reason than its name and that it was the be all and end all of the campaign. In fact, the German operational plans do not focus on Stalingrad. The focus of the campaign was the oil producing regions of the Caucuses. Stalingrad was originally to be an anchor or ‘roof’ to cover the northern shoulder of the advance. Taking it would also deprive the Soviets of all its benefits. The fact that it bore Stalin’s name became more important as the fight for it went on and developed into the grinding slugfest that it did, but it had little to do with why the Germans wanted it to begin with.
It would have also anchored the exhausted Axxis forces against the Volga, giving them some much-needed respite. Re-taking the western bank against fortified, established positions would have been orders of magnitude more difficult than shipping reinforcements over while there were Soviet troops holding the far bank.
Wouldn't it make more sense for the Germans to bomb it, if they wanted to deprive the Soviets of it? They had air supremacy. By the end of the battle, the city was a pile of rubble, anyway. Not a major producer of anything anymore.
A better movie about Stalingrad is the German 1993 movie Stalingrad. A lot less "Hollywood 'History' " in that one. Definitely no ridiculous sending Guard units into battle without weapons in that one.
Great film, but only the German-language version. The English-language one most people watch has diabolical dubbing akin to Hong Kong films of the 70s. There's also a Russian Stalingrad war film (2013) which is good in parts but the Red Army characters are glorified in the way US films turn their guys into superheroes.
@@IAmWBeard Not at Stalingrad. The only verified accounts of Soviet troops being sent into battle unarmed were in the earlier phase of the war before the advance on Moscow in December 1941. Some civilians press-ganged into combat roles and punishment battalions on both sides were in front-line roles without weapons.
1993's Stalingrad perpetuates the same myth as the rest of the German films and post-war historiography did, that there was such a thing as the clean Wehrmacht and there were just a few rotten apples, blaming most of the villainy on the SS. Thankfully, lately the accounts of the war, by writers with greater access to the records, documents and letters is revealing a lot more, read David Stahel, Col Glantz etc.
@@IAmWBeard No, there was part of one division that turned up on the other side of the Volga that hadn't been issued weapons, and that's where the myth stems from, but they were issued with gear before being ferried across into action.
I strongly dispute the assertion that Stalingrad had "no particular military or strategic value" (19:37). It was crucially located between the bends of two of the most important rivers in Russia (the Don and the Volga) and was by far the largest city in the area. If the Germans effectively controlled Stalingrad there would have been little to stop them from cutting off communications to the Caucasus, and if properly manned and fortified it could have formed the lynchpin of a near impregnable defensive line. Some pundits postulate that if the Germans had focused all their attacking armies on first surrounding Stalingrad, then quickly securing it once it was unable to receive reinforcements (thus avoiding months of urban warfare), and only THEN turning south to the Caucasus, the campaign could have ended very differently. Obviously that's a lot of if's, but the point is that Stalingrad had a LOT of military value, maybe more so than any other Soviet city besides Moscow or Leningrad, precisely because its geography made it such a difficult city to capture.
@@BrianMarcus-nz7cs I disagree. They wanted to take Astrakhan, thus preventing shipment from Baku over the Caspian Sea, but the only railway that went to Astrakhan went through Stalingrad. They needed the city to logistically support an advance towards Astrakhan, their end goal
@@BrianMarcus-nz7cs Cutting the line? The Germans needed the line for their logistics for when they would go for Astrakhan. The line went from say Rostov-on-Don to Stalingrad, and from Stalingrad to Astrakhan. They'd need Stalingrad to get to Astrakhan
@@kuidaorekitchen5850 Do you like watching blurred out videos? Are you Canadian? or are you just used to the powers that be tell you what you can and can't see.
Only 0.1% of retreating troops were fired on by NKVD blocking detachments (and most of that was overhead) 90% were reorganized. 9% were penalized. 1% were executed. (4 yr span)
Yeah, the whole blocking detachment thing is quite the misunderstood thing and literally 99% of its due to movies like this or German authors telling us that’s what the Soviets did… you know… the guys who lost to them and probably have a bit of a bias to make em look bad. Blocking detachments were for one usually made up of the worst soldiers in a division - worst being in worst trained and physical and such - and while allowed to fire on retreating troops if promoted, the best they were actually known for was rounding up stragglers and deserters and getting them back into the fight - we joke about Soviet manpower but even by Stalingrad the Soviets were starting to feel the burn on manpower. As such yes execution on the Eastern front can be best said to be 1% and even if you consider that a Soviet lie, your only pushing at lost 2-3% which was quite common for armies that relied on large conscript forces (Look to the WW1 powers). Plus the whole “no retreat order” isn’t a thing that says you can’t actually tactically retreat/retire in battle, what it means is that you can’t just abandon your position for zero reason. - the reason this was implemented was actually due to this very thing. Many Soviet commanders during both Barbarossa and Operation Cold Blue retreated in the face of German opposition without ever giving fight. They would actually give up full on fighting positions and natural defensive barriers because they were afraid of being surrounded - and when one unit detests every other has to, to avoid having their flanks being wide open. As such, due to the large number of Soviet high ranking generals and officer calling their forces into retreat even when set up in proper defensive positions supporting other defensive positions, the order was given as to make sure said units wouldn’t retreat without firm order, officers who continued to would be either arrested and sent to a penal battalion or shot. Did this mean it didn’t apply to the lower ranks? No. However, again justice was a lot different there too. Say a company was sent into an attack against a German position, it’s going ok, yes their suffering casualties but seem to be doing well but soon everyone starts retreating, the Soviet blocking detachment wouldn’t just spray down everyone, no they’d cover the unit back into cover before finding out who were the main instigators of said retreat and then judge them on the severity of the situation - I.e. sent to penal or shot or even forgiven if there was legit concern (maybe spotted a unit of German vehicles approaching the flank that would of caused the unit to be massacred so ordered everyone back to save casualties and so they could reassess).
He points that out; only one day in the entire battle was someone sent into battle without proper equipment - or at least rifles. The USSR may have had a shortage of tanks and planes, but they HAD rifles. My god they had a lot of rifles.
There is a big difference between "enough rifles out of the factory / at the armory" and "enough rifles at a given place and time". Which is true also for any type of equipment and supply. In 1945 you had many cases where German soldiers had a complete "ammunition hunger" in one critical spot, while 10 kms from there quartermasters were burning depot of ammunition and supply before abandoning their posts (yes. I know Germany in 1945 is no USSR in 1942). Logistics is always slower than any "need" in urgent times. That is not saying this specific scene (time & place. Stalingrad 1942) is true.
@@galshaine2018 You're comparing 1945 Germany with 1942 USSR. USSR in 1942 did not have ammo hunger nor problems with Mosin Nagants. We have historians who collected the facts about Stalingrad. This movie is utter shite and this "historian" should eat his diploma.
This movie depict "soviet" propaganda as bad, while being itself a bad propaganda piece depicting all the myths and lies about the eastern front. Of course, the soviet regime wasn't a day in the park, but this portrayal is horrible considering the fact that was the Soviet Union the one who actually won the war. What Ernest Hemingway said is true "Anyone who loves freedom owes such a debt to the Red Army that it can never be repaid."
Are we not going to mention how they’re crossing the Volga in broad daylight? It’s well known that night crossings were how they got over, going by day was suicide
That's propaganda that the russians only crossed in the daytime. Yes they mostly went in the night, but if the line was about to break they would send them in anytime.
Michael K. Jones used primary sources to argue that after Chuikov received the 4 PM desperation missive that he moved up the 13th Guards jump to 5 PM. Even these accounts cite smoke, artillery, and whatever insufficient air cover they could get. Glantz gives the official party documents of 8 PM.
9:14 -12:55 is not historiclly accurate russians mass human wave attacks was not common, espcially in Stalingrad. And not being able to give everyone as rifle is also false. The sovietunion was and industrial power house ofc they could give everyone a weapon. As soon as the invasion started russia went into full war economy doubling how much workers had to work and so on. There was definetly no shortage of weapons infact both sides adapted germans adopted new squad compositions and the use of submachine guns flamethrowers etc was problay as common or more common than the rifle. Russians used avtomachikis squad full 10 men smgs squads. While 227 was issued the Soviets did not want to waste lives espically when the fighting reached its peak around this time and they were losing the battle but building forces to surround the city. Remember the russian held hard pressed defence and could not afford to take unnecerary casulties in this time. around barrikady and the genereal factory complex fighting was brutal infact during 1 day alone the main train stationed changed hands over 14 times! and the tractor factory changed hands multiple times sometimes several times a day. After this battle russians became expert in street fighting and cqc and specialed assault regiments were created. The sthurmoviki squads. October 14th when the germans launched and attack all hells broke loose 5 germans divison 300 tanks assaulted russian positions in northern stalingrad with hvy air support german artillery fires for 90th minutes however russian troops creep close to german troops around 15 meter wich mean if the germans opens fire they will risk hitting there own troops. Fighting is so violent and hvy that visiblity drops to just few meters from all the smoke and debris the fighting is stupendos brutal while the soviets lines are breached they hold in the end. Infact all there telephones lines are cut becuse they either melt or are blown from the intense fighting and they are forced to use radios. I dont often hear about them so i want to talk about them omsbon and osnaz the prerunner to spetsnaz throughout the war trained russian partisan, destroyed around a 1000 trains and railway lines, aswell as ambushing german reinforcements blowing up dumbs etc infact they are well over responsible from what ive heard of destroying 145 tanks throughout there combat history they had a crucial role in operation bagration where they were most active. I forgot to mention russian commisars had the authority to basiclly kill for being slighly disheartend.even tho they were never abolished much of there power and abilities were taken away from them and they became much less present from 1942. ua-cam.com/video/0J4X-usANNo/v-deo.html A good video on it he can tell much more than i can.
Yes, even Squire debunked the 'Soviet troops went into battle without guns' notion, which was reported to have happened in some sectors in 1941 but definitely did not at Stalingrad.
And the fact that a lot fewer Soviet Soldiers surrendered to the Germans in the 1942 Summer Offensive, compared to the opening months of Op Barbarossa, in spite of "NOT A STEP BACK"!
well done m /uppet another two cent worth ''expert'' armchair general , i'm sure dan show will appreciate your expertise and critique of Dan show well respected historian of note your hilarious chum
Shooting your own troops in the back was something the French army practised in WWI in the worst moments of the war (1914-1917). Usually the gendarmerie would do that, they were hated by the rest of the soldiers, a few gendarmes were shot in the back in the dark as a retaliation.
I don't know about Stalingrad but I have heard stories from American Korean war vets talking about attacks from Chinese troops where not all of the soldiers were armed and when an armed soldier fell an unarmed soldier would pick up the weapon and carry on the attack
Why give commentary on movie/series which everyone knows and which have been commented a dozen times over? Why not talk about old movies/series that are generally not or rarely the subject of a talk?
There are dozens of deep dive UA-cam videos about Band of Brothers to choose from already. If you want to go deeper I recommend reading the book by Stephen E. Ambrose.
@@JZsBFF You realize band of brothers is a good 20 years old now right.....plenty of younger gen z's who have fuck all clue about them....Band of Brothers/Pacific was more soo seen by Millennials and Gen X....odd boomer im sure
Ian at “Forgotten Weapons” did a video on what they got right and wrong on the sniper rifles used in “Enemy at the Gates” a few months ago. Very interesting by those of us that collect WWII firearms.
00:15 I dunno about this being "the most famous" but Stalingrad (1993) is definitely historically more accurate and, in my view, better! I can't even believe that they didn't use that movie as background .
1000% Stalingrad 1993 is phenomenal, great production value, and extremely harrowing and heartbreaking, love and hate the ending, but its honestly shot so beautifully and on an epic scale, another one of those ww2 where a German filmmaker does it best
@@leoa4c both really, like there are plenty of things that actually try to be historical but just end up being goofy as they are shown without context (as in he falls asleep where he couldve just killed the antagonist with no context with no explaination as to how tiring a sniper job was), there is a far joke, a sex scene, etc. Who the fucks makes a sex scene in a movie about someone that really was alive back then, let alone a fart joke in the bloodiest battle of history? The plot is just bad as a whole if you dont count these point, theres like a few moments it shines but its like "oh no we are losing, look at how shit we are at fighting" and then they just win the whole battle off screen?
31:25 - As a student at Cambridge University in 1943, my late mother was tasked with being a companion for a Soviet lady sniper from Stalingrad, sent to speak in factories and promote the Soviet cause. Mum recalled that the damp cold of the wind off the North Sea made the unheated college made the poor lady complain "my bullet wounds, my bullet wounds ache."
My reading says that the Soviets were not inferior in equipment. In tactics, at this point; yes. So soviet losses were horrendous compared to the Germans. It is not true that Stalingrad had no strategic value. It was a major rail hub and transhipment point. (Astrakhan is SE, head of oil region).
And the key city in Southern Russia along the Volga Waterways. Zee germans probably expected an attack and supplies to support it on Edelweiss to come via Stalingrad, they probably wanted to flank it and protect the march towards Baku, they got sucked in bit by bit and the attritional fighting depleted their forces. The purpose was to secure oil in the Caucasus, the poor bastards got none of it, not even from Maikop, which they took early on.
They were inferior in artillery. The Germans had several times the amount of artillery pieces than the Soviet at the time. This is what lead to the horrendous Soviet losses in Stalingrad (though not THAT bad compared to the axis forces, 1.1 million Soviet casualties/captured vs 900k axis) and is also why they heavily relied on deep battle doctrine which is basically the Soviet forces hugging the German lines as tight as possible to prevent the Germans from using their artillery effectively (as they would risk hitting their own troops)
It's a mixed bag, the USSR's gear might not have had the same quality as the Germans but it was more reliable and easier to teach conscripts to use. When you're fighting a massive war affordability and ease of use are major assets.
@@Lonovavir To extend a little the Russian equipment was generally easier to repair and far more standardized than German gear. Which counts for a lot in an attrition war.
To this day almost every movie that shows a plane go down plays the sound of the StuKa sirene because it is so characteristic. One can only imagine the effect it had on the allied troops, when even 80 years later everyone associates that sound with a diving plane.
When at a ceremony for British veterans of WW2, one of the organisers stupidly played the sirens of Stukas, many veterans were deeply upset at hearing that noise again.
@@Inquisitor6321 AFAIK Stalingrad is the largest land battle in history regarding losses. And a lot of the Soviets' strength is estimated because the of the number of partisans within the city not part of the actual military forces drawn from the local population or from people fleeing from the west.
@@nekrataali You should read up on the Battle of Rzhev Salient. Russia lost 2.3 MILLION men in a 15 month period. 12 of those months were in 1942. This completely eclipsed Stalingrad.
That's key to the Soviets wanting to keep it, but Germans advancing on it would have little use for it. Their rolling stock used a different gauge, and the Russians destroyed any rolling stock that they couldn't move. As the Germans advanced, they were forced to lay track to be able to use their own trains.
That rifle in the first sniping scene was the venerable Mosin Nagant. It was very dependable, but the stroke was a bit unlike most other bolt actions. They're so dependable, they're still commonly owned today. It wasn't firing for the commisar simply because it wasn't loaded.
When it was invented in 1891, it was an absolute game-changer. However, by the 1940s, it was one of the least appreciated of its peers. The main issue with the rifle is how the bolt handling is rough, even when properly cleaned and lubed, and the placement of the bolt. Compared to the operation of the Enfields, Mausers, Carcano or the Springfield, it is pretty unforgiving. The main reason they caught on in the US, at least, before 2012-14, they were exceedingly cheap, less than a hundred dollars for a nearly mint refurbished rifle. They fire a great cartridge for hunting anything under rhino, elephant, etc. The ammo was dirt cheap. Nowadays, with almost no milsurp rifle being less than 450 USD due to moronic buyers, the Mosin still commands respect as a rugged rifle with acceptable accuracy, but the popularity has certainly decreased.
Nah, he's just a shitty pop historian who operates in the world of cliches he learnt in his youth and never bothered to correct his misinformation. It's fucking 2024, the whole meme of "one soldier gets a rifle, the other gets a clip" and the general idea soviet frontal attacks on prepared german positions with kommisars machine gunning down everyone who retreats was debunked so many times by so many historians (incl. most modern pop historians) that you have to either willfuly ignorant or just incredibly lazy to still propagate these myths. For fuck sake, he even mistaken PM 1910/30 for "ww1 maxim gun" when you have to be blind not to notice there was a giant fucking snow cap on top of the water jacket (which was a ww2 modification) instead of original ww1 spec with small water filler hole.
There are two things about enemy at the Gates that are historically accurate: 1) There was a Battle of Stalingrad. 2) Vasily Zaitsev was a real person.
Nonsense. Blocking units never shot anybody. Period. Their job was to arrest people who retreated not shoot them. Shooting people would have provoked a mutiny in ten seconds flat
From what I can find, there's maybe 2 cases where they opened fire, and it was just over their heads to scare them back into fighting. They also generally only punished officers for ordering retreats, not soldiers
So much wrong... This guy is far from being an "Expert". This movie is highly inaccurate with pretty much everything. He should be pointing out that: - Crossing of the Volga was done at night and did not suffer that much casualties as a result. (Only a few exception happened) - Order 227 was not enforced to shoot retreating troops from a failed attack. It was used mostly to execute officers or leaders that allowed or ordered a non approved retreat. - Rifle shot can't be muted by distant explosion especially in the direction you are firing towards. - Sniper don't aim for the head like every shot in this movie. - Vasily was not a conscript but an already established sniper trainer when the battle of Stalingrad started.
The headshot count of German soldiers was extraordinary in Stalingrad (not a woodland environment). "Island of Fire: The Battle for The Barrikady Gun Factory in Stalingrad" Jason Mark
@@69JONESYrugby What I meant is nobody purposely aim for the head unless it's the only thing you see. In the movie there are many occasion where a chest shot would make much more sense. I can hear the unreal tournament "Headshot" every time a sniper rifle is fired.
If you are to do more on the Eastern Front movie, Come and See would be a brilliant movie to win. What is called the most horrifying non horror movie. Very accurate especially the fact a lot of war is waiting about and matching, they actually fired real machine guns over the heads of the actors. The presentation of the movie is quite unique. It is based off one of the writers real life experience as a partisan in WW2 and apparently this was not even the half of the horrors he saw.
@@Thecrazyvaclav Fortress of War is remarkable. There are many thrilling Russian/Soviet war films including Battle for Moscow, Come and See, Battle of Sevastopol, 321st Siberian, Rhzev, The Final Stand and Stalingrad (2013 version). Not always historically accurate but superior to most western WW2 films.
Absolutely horrendous video. If the idea was to break down the myths of this movie, it utterly failed. Enemy at the Gates is one of the most inaccurate ww2 movies ever made yet this video didn't even address the most BLATANT of inaccuracies like the Soviet not using human wave tactics nor had any shortages of rifles in Stalingrad. Retreating troops were only VERY rarely shot as well. The entire movie is based on myths of the eastern front born during the cold war when the only accounts that existed in the west was written by the German generals who were eager to portray a superior force overwhelmed by an Eastern horde. It wasn't until the 90's when the USSR collapsed and when western historians finally got access to the Soviet archives which ENTIRELY changed our view of the conflict. I would recommend reading the work of David Glantz, he has written several wonderful books on the subjects of the eastern front and has dedicated decades going through the Soviet archives and interviewing people.
Exactly, blocking detachments would actually regroup fleeing soldiers and send them back to their units. Occasionally, they would shoot them or arrest them, but these were not the norm . These detachments would only shoot penal batallion units who were forced to fight on the most dangerous parts of the front because of their crimes. Also, retreats were allowed as long as they were tactical retreats.
@@PageIsYourGod The good, clean, Wehrmacht was lead by a dictator and all the Generals agreed that Hitler and the SS were bad. They would've won the war in hours, if they had been allowed to do whatever it was they wanted.
They cannot show it! This is UA-cam. They will get demonetized. How you don't realize this is beyond me. This channel is a business it's goal is to make money.
This movie is about as accurate as Inglorious Bastards. It portrays the soviet soldiers as a flock of cheep only useful as cannon fodder. In fact the soviets where very capable as shown in the winter offensive that turned the tide on the eastern front.
The Volga crossing was Incredibly unrealistic accorting to many ww2 soviet vets who have seen this movie and even according to the memoirs of the sniper hinself, where they traveled across at night, fully armed and landed without little to no losses. Ps( also just read that the scene with one rifle between 3 men is also wrong, as site of served in the Soviet Navy so they came there already armed. Also, this is Stalingrad, Soviet Union sent as much equipment there as they possibly could. So much that sometimes they had more rifles and actual ammo.)
Vasily Zaitzev did cross during the day, which itself was an oddity, but at a point well behind Soviet lines where the crossing occured without incident. Funny enough, the only other instance where an hurried crossing had to be done during the day, they did face direct artillery fire and suffer losses while crossing, but this crossing was able to reinforce Soviet troops enough to push back the Germans and prevent them from establishing a position on the Volga river in this part of the front, in other words, the Soviets won.
The crossing of the Volga scene seemed to be inspired by an illustration in the book Battles that Changed the World by Phyllis Jestice. I think the filmmakers used that as artistic direction.
3:10 ok one small call out here History Hit. No documents relating to the Battle of Stalingrad by both German or Soviet records ever noted a unit going into the city unarmed. There were troops who arrived on the otherside of the Volga un-equipped, however were quickly issued equipment and then sent in. The whole “one rifle between two men” may come from the fact that troops who did come equipped later into the battle were actually stripped of most of their rifles and had them replaced with sub-machine guns and other equipment that was better suited to street fighting. As such instead of it being “one man gets the rifle, one man follows the rifle” it’s more “one man gets the rifle, one man gets the submachine gun” This is also widely documented as storm/assault troops were being formed. - a storm/assault troop was essentially a small platoon formed around regular and veteran soldiers equipped with sub-machine guns and large numbers of grenades. Added on would be flame-throwers, AT Rifles (occasionally light AT Guns) or whatever was considered mobile and in need for that unit. - the objective of these men were to usually blow holes in the upper or lower walls of a building, toss grenades into the breech, and run through gunning anything down that wasn’t Soviet, before proceeding to secure every floor up or down from there. Flamethrowers and grenades would be used to clear cellars, and grenades would be used to clear every room and stairway. In addition, a common tactic for multiple assault/storm groups on large building would be to attack from both upper and lower levels at the same time. Why do I note this? Because as the battle went on and these units proved effective in this type of warfare, many reinforcing guard units would be equipped to actually form and replace these losses in these units, meaning that most guard “rifle” units actually got stripped of the majority of their rifles in favour of PPsH and PPD sub-machine guns. 5:05 also if I’m not mistaken, by this point those Stuka sirens had actually been stripped from them for this exact reason - not the fear thing but because it was so notable it actually gave away what was happening and allowed AA units to prepare for the attack and it allowed infantry and vehicles to move for cover or begin evasive manoeuvres to avoid being hit.
2:50 "One of the greatest scenes of all time" That's when you can turn that video off if you care even little about historic accuracy. Bullshit film and bullshit review. Vasily Zaitsev actually wrote memoirs, "For us there were no land beyond the Volga". Not only everyone was eager to fight the enemy (unlike the scared youths in the movie), they received several weeks of training before combat (not thrown into the fire right off the train) and crossed the river at night in small groups with no losses (and without "evil commisars", standing behind them with a handgun) 🤡
@@timfriesen3079 And my comment is about this "historian's" review, not about the movie🤦 It's a known fact that the movie is inaccurate, but somehow not for this guy. It was his job to point out all of the above, he didn't.
Lol. Attacks like that did happen. The Red Army just gets away with it because they weren't always proper army units but civilians and prisoners they forced into cannon fodder units. And despite the tankies in these comments claiming otherwise, they had units specifically set up to shoot and capture retreating men, "barrier" or "blocking" units. Tactics that they are confirmed to still be using to this day in Ukraine (same with sending men into battle with next to no weapons), we have literal undeniable footage of them shooting men that refuse to advance and those that retreat. And we have footage of Russian mobiks whining online about being sent against Ukrainian lines with shovels and little else. But sure, totally unlikely they would have used those 70+ years ago in more desperate times under an even more brutal dictatorship, lol.
@@Nyx_2142 I hope you have something to write that down. The Soviets did not suffer a shortage of rifles in World War 2. What we can say is that, at worst, their rifles were outdated ( being leftovers from world war 1 and produced before that ). But no soldiers had to be afraid of going into battle without weapons. Linked with the manpower shortages, the Soviet Union could not afford to simply throw lives away. The Soviet Army would only gain manpower parity, and eventually number superiority 1943 and beyond.
It wasn’t just because it bore Stalins name. It was something the Germans were prepared to fight for so Zhukov was able to use it as the cheese in a big rat trap. For the Stavka it was a point to be held so that its force would be pinned down at the end of a salient where it could be encircled and destroyed. They also tried to do the same to the whole of Army Group South by a breakthrough to Rostov on Don in Little Saturn.
@@ciamciaramcia99 Well, if I understand what I read from the Imperial War Museum, you're mostly right. Its initial attack and defense really didn't have anything to do with its name. Hitler's insane insistence on staying there probably was.
A "historian" who studied history by watching "Enemy at the Gates" rates "Enemy at the Gates" as historically accurate. Color me surprised. 1) He doesn't know about Stalingrad's tractor factory that produced T-34 even when Germans were approaching the city. 2) He didn't read Vasiliy Zaytsev's memoirs. He wrote about composition and training of his regiment, equipment, morale, how they crossed Volga etc. Everything is basically the exact opposite of the garbage shown in the movie. 3) He doesn't know the operations of the real blocking detachments. For example, there are real documents saying that in august and half of october 1942 (months after order 227) 140 755 soldiers were detained by these detachmens (everywhere, not just Stalingrad). 93.14% of them were sent back to the frontline and only 1189 (0.84%) were shot after trial. And among those arrested and executed were maradeurs and enemy spies. No shooting retreating troops with machineguns. At all. And so on and so forth.
This video is more concerned about making the soviets the bad guys rather than the Nazis lol. It's a very modern european way of looking at things, I feel like.
Despite the inaccuracies and propaganda-level fictionalization of the "famous" sniper duel, I really do like this movie. It does a good job at brining the absolutely enormous scale of this battle down to a human level. I wonder how many different individual experiences, sacrifices, struggles, and heroic actions will never be known simply because they've been drowned out by the size of this battle and lost to history.
Agreed they wants scenes of movies censored but allow people targeting kids with talk about puberty blockers and sexual conten to spew their predatory propaganda.
Not a myth, it happened and is still happening today in Ukraine and before you deny it, its been caught on video multiple times. Barrier troops shooting their own retreating soldiers
The statue of the children holding hands was on the cover of the non-fiction history of the battle called Enemy At The Gates by William Craig which I read decades ago. The novel the movie was based on was called War Of The Rats but its name was later changed to match the film. Craig’s history was excellent but has been superseded by Anthony Beevor’s masterpiece.
My problem with this movie is that everybody seems miscast. Left a bad taste in my mouth when I saw it in theaters, but since then I’ve always wanted to give it another chance, and this breakdown is perfect as a kind of enhanced version of the movie, which from the sequences I can still see my issues with it, but this commentary turns it into a whole new experience. Thank you!
That movie take the title of the William Craig book “Enemy at the Gates”. The book is wonderful. The movie uses less than a page of that book to make the movie. And it’s a story that has been questioned forever.
If anything can be gleamed on how Russia treats its troops it's Ukraine in the 21st century. I see no change in the tactics shown here as WW2 and the murderous brutality against their own troops in Ukraine.. Stalin was a mentally unhinged escaped murderer from Georgia. Many should remember the murderous Purges and the 25 years of Gulags, created by Starlin, that murdered over 40 million of his own people. There is no controversy about this film, regarding how little life is worth in Russia, then or now.
I like the movie but the start is utter fiction, it gives the german generals made up version of the war to excuse why they had lost. The casualty ratio in stalingrad was around 1.7x so not even 2 russians to the german. Whereas in this movie it's about 600 to 1 ratio. Same with the number of troops fielded by each side, the germans had more at times and when the russians had more it was at most 1.8x more. The Russian didn't attack and the germans didn't defend like that, remember it is the Russians defending the city, yet all we see is them on the attack this early on. Many russian soldiers were unequipped and under trained but they were on the defensive.
Of all the people, its the anglos who have a special hatred towards the Russians, or Poles, or the rest of the Slavs for that matter, they are just keen to use the Slavs, whoever they can brainwash, into fighting the Russians, of course there is much intra-Slav bloodletting that makes the anglos' job a lot easier. Ergo, this movie is propaganda bs for the most part.
Overall it may have 1.7 but at the start of the battle the casualty rate was overwhelmingly in favor of the Germans. Towards the end it was overwhelmingly in favor of the Russians after having encircled the Germans.
@@sailinghopes3943 stalin's fault. The purges of 37-38 destroyed the Red Army's leadership almost entirely with senior commanders either being troglodytes like Budyony or total clowns like Pavlov. And then the unwillingness to retreat even when the situation was totally hopeless, thereby allowing encirclement and total annihilation by the Nazis, even the surrendered Red Army soldiers did not have a great survival rate, with two-thirds dying in captivity. And then frontal assaults and strong german positions through 1941 and through most of 1942, in the Leningrad sector and Rzhev, where for every german casualty there were nearly 4 to 5 Soviet casualties.
Dan is a little bit off the mark saying that sending unarmed soldiers to the other side of the river is "extremely realistic", but to be fair, the editors are cutting out most of what he really is saying. A good overview of how this movie is extremely unrealistic, and even purposefully deceitfull, is this: ua-cam.com/video/p6y_TUoOdfQ/v-deo.html&ab_channel=KayAndSkittles
He does say that there wasn't really a shortage of rifles, or any unarmed soldiers going into battle. I think he's refering to it as well-shot, realistic-looking, etc. Not necessarily historically accurate.
Edit: Stalingrad was more like World War I 'tactics' with the same results. *Why don't we call the 'Sommes Offensive' - British Human Wave tactics?* Edit: German Luftwaffe destroying the entire city of Stalingrad and reporting 'there were no more targets to destroy' is a bit naive in hindsight. Before the Luftwaffe had turned the whole of Stalingrad into a labyrinth of ruins and anti-tank traps, the city was less defensible than it was after. So the Luftwaffe attacks actually worked in the favour of the defender. They created the multiple of snipers' nests. Same thing happened later with the Allies at Monte Cassino. The narrator should have said, when describing the Stukas 'Jericho' sirens 'You must have heard this sound a thousand times before, from WW2 news reels to Disney comic shorts. When I was watching clips of 'Masters of the Sky,' I noticed that many commenters talked about the 'Stuka noise' that had become a cliché. And they were right. In nearly every WW2 piece of newsreel, documentary or what not, if there's diving planes involved, even if they're not Stukas, you always get to hear the 'Jericho' sirens. It appears that most German pilots stopped using these as their effectiveness wore off and after it became clear the Stuka was extremely vulnerable to enemy fighter actions so after a staggering loss of a dozen Stukas in a single attack during the Battle of Britain, the German dive bombers were pulled back from 'front line service' except in areas where the Luftwaffe still had (local) air superiority, parts of the East Front.
They didn’t need to. Switzerland was holding all their gold and buying their warplanes. Why conquer a nation that was helping you. They pretend to be neutral but profited.
Also you can just see them entering Spain and Turkey, which I'm pretty sure were neutral and on good terms with the Germans at the time of the battle. In fact Spain send the Blue Division to fight alongside them in the Eastern Front ,while Turkey was seriously considering declaring war against the Soviets if they were successful in taking the Caucasus.
Got some more for ya !! 1. Das Boot- Director's Cut, watch w/German sound & English subtitles; a must !! 2. Saving Private Ryan 3. 1917 4. Downfall, again German w/English subtitles ! 5. Tora! Tora! Tora! These are, IMO, among the best out there, HTH... 🚬😎👍
I was a Scout Sniper in the US Army back in the 90's and this film was one of the few that at least tried to show how miserable it really was. Hours spent sitting in your own filth, not able to move to pee, suffering bug bites and worse, waiting for the "green light" to take the shot. The only person I trusted was my Spotter PFC Erb, that guy could read the environment better than anyone I ever knew. If he told me 1 click down, 2 left, I didn't question him, he was ALWAYS spot on. This film got a lot wrong, but the overall feeling of it was pretty solid. Being a sniper was terrible at times, your own men loved you for protecting them, the enemy despised you and considered you scum. Our squad motto was "Shoot em in the back!" and being able to take out the enemy without being shot back at was fine by me. At least in the US military you could sometimes rely on your Chain of Command backing you up, but those Russian soldiers were on their own. The German officer exposing himself was a sign that he didn't respect the enemy, and considered them "worthless", Vasily proved him wrong. Koenig either got cocky or excited, thinking he'd taken out Vasily, and it cost him everything. The one strength I had was that I was a runt, and could weasel my way into hide sites that were miserable for bigger guys, and that allowed me to pick spots with little chance of being spotted. Carlos Hathcock might have picked the wrong branch (love you jarheads, no real offense intended) but he was IMO one of the best snipers that ever lived in the Vietnam era or WWII. WWII was a nightmare, the men and women that survived it were truly some of the best. Infantry grunts hate artillery and snipers more than anything else, neither allows you much warning or protection. Don't know if there are any WWII veterans still kicking around today, but by GOD I salute you, whether you were the enemy or ally, you fought well and deserve respect.
This movie does a perfect job at showing the back and forth between two sides in a battle till one gives way. It is a truly beloved film despite its imperfections.
Another interesting point about the battle for Stalingrad is that the command post of the Red Army unit doing the fighting was actually on the EAST bank, the same side the Germans were coming from. The reasoning was double. Firstly, the question of morale. The soldiers are more likely to keep on fighting when they can see their superiors in the trenches with them. Secondly, the tactical reality at this stage in the war of the Red Air Force being inferior to the Luftwaffe. By staying really close to the German lines it would be too risky for them to bomb the positions (and the same goes for indirect fire artillery support).
If anything can be gleamed on how Russia treats its troops it's Ukraine in the 21st century. I see no change in the tactics shown here as WW2 and the murderous brutality against their own troops in Ukraine.. Stalin was a mentally unhinged escaped murderer from Georgia. Many should remember the murderous Purges and the 25 years of Gulags, created by Starlin, that murdered over 40 million of his own people. There is no controversy about this film, regarding how little life is worth in Russia, then or now.
I spat my coffee out when he referred to the opening scene of this movie as "one of the greatest scenes" and "astonishingly realistic." I literally couldn't take him seriously after that.
Nope but UA-cam will remove it which is why we can’t comment certain words like R£pe, s£xual ass£lt and other such words. Also why you can’t show private parts and other such things. Anyone could be watching it.
@@katj3443 No, it will not remove it. It will prob demonitise or age-restrict, which means it usually doesn't get recommended to as many people. Don't decrease the impact of words like rape and sexual assault by inserting other characters. If we want to talk about WWII films or war in general, I don't think it's acceptable to blur the scene, just to make more money. UA-cam's ad policies are shithouse, but really, we shouldn't be accepting this BS and asking the advertisers to get serious and stop pulling ads from graphic/non PC/tame videos. They somehow tolerate it on TV, which has declining numbers. UA-cam just needs to get a little bold, take a risk, and say 'If you want to advertise with us, you can't pick and choose sterilised videos, like cute dog videos or tech reviews'. It's all about money.
Jude Law was excellent in The Road To Perdition. Didn't get much screen time actually but he played one of the most disturbing characters I've ever seen in a film.
The 'untrained and unarmed' Soviet soldiers being offered either a rifle or ammo is a myth. Several historians have come to same conclusion. It was simply German propaganda that was over-used by everyone. Several contemporary accounts by Soviet soldiers who were there state the opposite. All left the trains fully armed and although training was often brief (1 month or so), the scene as depicted in the movie is simply based on myth.
3:14 "Astonishingly realistic..." yup, thank you, don't need to see any further... Soviet soldiers endured a lot of shit, done a lot of shit but there is no historical account of them going without rifles. Rifles were not enough and thus soldiers (rightfully) complained they had no machine guns or artillery, but no weapons at all is a complete fabrication and discredits this pro in a second.
The fact that this man presents himself as a historian focused on Soviet Union and then first thing he does is that he calls the scene of unarmed soviet troops being sent into Stalingrad as realistic is a complete joke. The idea that Soviets sent unarmed troops into battle is complete hogwash mostly based on this movie.
It's not totally inaccurate. Maybe not with Red Army troops, but they did send half armed 'worker battalions' against the Germans at Leningrad and Stalingrad. Other than that, the movie sucked. More fiction than historical reality.
@@scottkrater2131 The tankies and vatniks purposefully ignore that part, or claim it never happened. The army forced civilians and "prisoners" into cannon fodder units to be sent at German lines, often with little to no weapons. Its amusing that so many people that provide "sources" against the human wave tactics and other horrid Soviet atrocities try to directly cite Soviet sources. Soviet sources that, I shouldn't need to say, were heavily altered and fictionalized to be very favorable to the Soviets. Shocker.
My grandfather fought in Stalingrad for the Germans. He never spoke much about that part of the war other than it was so bad, words couldn't describe the horrors
19:30 The Soviet Anthem with lyrics wouldn't exist until after the Battle of Stalingrad Since one of the lyics literally reads: "Banner of the Soviets, the banner of the people, May it lead from victory to victory!" Hard to seriously sing that when you're going from defeat to defeat. The lyrics were officially published in November '43 and first played in '44
You say that Stalingrad had no strategic value. That is not true Taking Stalingrad would have blocked the Volga, a vital route for resources to the Soviets.
The sovjets weren't stupid. They crossed the Volga during the night, not day. Not one step back was very common and only meant that soldiers could not reatreat on their own. If the commander chose he could command an organized retreat just fine. As evil as Stalin and sovjet russia where, you don't have to lie about it.
My biggest issue with this film is that it shows snipers aiming for the head. Most snipers were trained to shoot at the torso because it's a larger target. Constantly hitting headshots would be a supernatural feet especially on moving targets.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Apparently the Stuka siren was so terrifying that it's become a trope of any diving airplane regardless of its actual engine type.
Even non military movies...when a regular plane is crashing in a movie somehow its Jericho siren time
engine type doesn't matter, the sound was made from externally mounted sirens. not all stukas had them either
why would you try to move troops across in daylight?....the Stukas can't fly at night...
I have read in multiple sources that these sirens were rarely actually activated. The pilots hated them as they were uncomfortably loud for them as well.
It's possible that those were Soviet planes, executing troops for having negative thoughts about Stalin. The sirens were meant to inform them of their punishment, but the pilot forget to bring that recording, so he just used the 'Stuka Sound' recording instead...
A lot of people hate on these videos with Dan Snow, but I kind of enjoy that he focuses on what inspired the scenes and situations depicted rather than what the scenes got wrong. We should all know that it's a movie, and it's not accurate. This video is not meant for those of us who already know what the problems are, but rather an explanation of why certain things were included for people who might not know a single thing about the real Battle of Stalingrad. He does dispel certain myths the film presents, but examining the overall feeling and giving a bit more real historical detail is still valuable for the common viewing public...which is really what History Hit is trying to cater to rather than massaging the egos of would-be internet historians.
Not if it's at the cost of further spreading misinformation. This one goes way beyond the typical Hollywood inaccuracies. We are not talking about "but they used the wrong rifle" here. We are talking about basically Nazi propaganda.
Agreed, and he repeatedly points out parts that are not accurate. But what Dan understands well is that perfect historical accuracy is not always the most exciting or entertaining cinema. Sometimes creative license is taken for dramatic effect.
I'm fine with a historical film having inaccuracies, but if you're going to have a historian on here, he better come correct. And he whitewashing parts that were flagrantly untrue, and could be viewed more as anti-Soviet propaganda than just creative license.
the best historians are the ones that understand what is fake and what isnt and can break apart what is right and wrong and understand why they did that etc.
There's a way to point out historical inaccuracies while still acknowledging why they were put in there to make a better movie. Many historians like to point out that flaming projectiles weren't really a thing, but it looks cool. Particularly with WW2, which has so many misconceptions and has been so heavily propagandized I feel it's really harmful to legitimize misinformation by having a historian not acknowledge when Hollywood just leans into lies propagated by actual Nazis. Such as the idea the Soviets would send in unarmed men to pick up guns from the fallen having "a truth to it", when we know for a fact it didn't happen, but people have seen the movie and believe it.
The Soviets relying on waves of unarmed conscripts and shooting their own men constantly is just straight up Nazi propaganda, and I don't think that's the kind of thing historians should be propping up even if it makes for a more cinematic experience (because propaganda is designed to be appealing to the masses, and therefore will almost always make for a better movie than the truth).
My grandfather was part of operation Uranus (the soviets that sieged the Germans and took the 6th army). He said when they entered people were eating rats and worse dead bodies. He was shot six times through the stomach they wrote a newspaper article about him in the Western Times after he moved to Wales.
Salute
So how did he end up in Wales, instead of behind the Iron Curtain?
@@AudieHolland The Soviets released all the POWs by 1956 except perhaps hard core war criminals, presumably you could still cross the German border then as the Berlin wall hadn't gone up yet, or maybe he was released earlier. I remember reading in Hans Von Lucks memoir, he wasn't at Stalingrad but was captured by the Soviets in 1945 and released straight into West Germany in 1950.
@@zxbzxbzxb1 I know, it was probably rather easy for former German military personnel to get to the west.
But OP's grandfather was part of the Soviet forces that took part in Operation Uranus, the Soviet counter attack that trapped the German 6th Army at Stalingrad.
Random Former German soldier at Soviet checkpoint: "So you want to go to the western sector, to see your family again? OK."
Random Soviet soldier at same Soviet checkpoint: "You want WHAT!? Arrest him!"
@@AudieHolland True lol 😁
A lot of things bother me about this movie. But two of the big ones are: Depictin Vasily Zaitcev as an illiterate farmhand. As pointed out, Zaitcev had served in the navy for years before going to Stalingrad. But one of his jobs there was to be an accountant. He was fully literate and well educated. Depicting him as a naive, bumbling simpleton does him a great disservice. My second gripe (in addition to all the stuff other commenters have pointed out) is the female sniper, Ludmilla, who loses her nerve in one scene, panics, and is killed because of her own incompetence. This character is apparently inspired by ludmila Pavlichenko. The real Pavlichenko was a top soviet sniper, with over 300vconfirmed kills. She was so feared that the Germans sent out special units to try and hunt her down. She was especially known for her steely resolve. She survived the war, went on a tour of the US, and became friends with Mrs Rooseveldt.
One thing that always bothers me about movies like this is the fact they rely on telling myths about ruthless soviet strategy to make the russian forces look crueler. And they don't have to. The soviet union did terrible things to large sections of it's population. You don't have to resort to "blocking batallions" to convince people of that. You can just be accurate.
Exactly. Education is an aspect of the USSR that often gets ignored or forgotten, but it was one of Lenin and Nadezhda Krupskaya's greatest achievements, and one even Stalin's bungling couldn't wholly erase.
@@callumjohnston858 yes. There was a lot wrong with the soviet education system. It was propagandistic, promoted education but was distrusting of intellectual curiosity, and helped forcefully erase the cultural identities of the various less dominant soviet republics. But it did establish a basic literacy standard for the vast majority of the population. It was incredibly effective. It's just that some of the things it was effective at weren't great.
currentv events show that the russians can be cruel brutes
This movie is so hilariously anti-soviet, it's incredibly disrespectful to the veterans of the red army who saved europe from nazism.
@@songbird5842 To be fair, there's plenty of reasons to be anti-Soviet. The problem is that this movie ignores them in favour of ahistorical invention and reheated nazi propaganda.
My grandfather was a transportation officer in Stalingrad, was wounded and awarded a decoration. He rarely spoke about the war, but from my dad (and general interest, speaking Russian and Ukrainian and having a couple of degrees in history) I know a few points that made me dislike the film. Yes, crossing the river was extremely dangerous, and the Stukas were horrifying (this my grandfather did say: the sirens literally made people lose their minds. The inexperienced soldiers would try to physically dig themselves into the ground in order to hide, they wouldn't listen to any orders)- but this was exactly the reason why the crossings were conducted at night. My grandfather had to go back and forth more than a few times as he had to evacuate equipment and bring repaired equipment back in, so he knew the route pretty well. Usually the whole river would be covered in smoke: whether from the bombs and fires or from smoke screens, so that you could barely see anything while crossing. In general the film kind of lacks the smoke.
Yes, there were barrier troops, but no, machine gunners were not placed behind regular troops with orders to kill anyone who retreated, and definitely no commissars would be randomly shooting at soldiers on the boats, as they would not be their commanders and if something like that would happened they would be mobbed by the soldiers and totally lose controls. The barrier troops would usually consist of squads who would "hunt" deserters along the shore and in hideouts and would have permission to shoot anyone who would refuse to go back into fighting. Commissars would rarely use their weapons against soldiers, as they would usually be going along the positions and trenches to boost up morale. Also by October 1942 commissars were no longer commanding ranks but just advisors. Officers would threaten to shoot their own soldiers if they retreated (as far as I know my grandfather witnessed something like that), and would do so sometimes, but this would happen within the detachments themselves.
By the time the battle was being fought within the city, the civilians would not have been at the shore but would be hiding underground or in the remaining buildings, often cramped by dozens in single basements. They wouldn't leave since they wouldn't have survived in the street and would not have been allowed to the shore.
Also, Khruschchev was Stalin's representative (member of the military council) on the Stalingrad Front since July 1942, he was responsible for a lot of organizational issues and spent much time on the Soviet command posts within the city. He was one ruthless bureaucrat, but he also knew the field, and before the battle in the city, before the Soviet southern fronts collapsed in the Spring of 1942, he tried to convince Stalin to call off the disastrous attack on Kharkov, that cost the Soviets more than the whole Battle of Moscow.
Eventually I guess I'm glad people did get to see something about the battle and it might have encouraged them to learn more, but this isn't particularly realistic. Though I'm not sure one can actually make a realistic movie about Stalingrad. My grandfather didn't really speak of it for a reason, and he wasn't on the front line constantly.
Wow, great insight,, glad your grandfather made it through it all,, and I suppose if not, you wouldn't be sharing with the rest of us,, thks
@@mikelangford7763 He did, but I think like in many cases at war, a certain part of him stayed there. That generation was very tough, but if even in the free world WWII veterans rarely spoke about the war, many suffered from severe PTSD and had many personal issues thruoghout the years, you can imagined how it was in the Soviet Union, which was a totalitaian society and imposed a lot of limitations and requirements on its citizens. My grandad passed away when I was very young, but I surely owe him, at least in part, my interest in history and specifically in WWII.
Frankly a very controversial review. Enemy at the Gates is notorious for being one of the most inaccurate films about WW2. River crossings were done at night time for reasons that are all too obvious. The 13th Guards division discussed here participated in a defensive operation, not a human wave. The one rifle 2 men is an idiotic myth this movie started. The list goes on.
Its not a documentary
@@torarildhenriksen371 yet no need to falsify history so completely.
Yeah, the one rifle two men thing is a myth lol oh wait, Russia is currently doing those exact same attacks in Ukraine. Human wave attacks with blocking forces to kill anyone who retreats as well. Hard to argue that it is a myth when it is currently happening in reality.
@@torarildhenriksen371 You'd an expect a historian's breakdown to do a better job with the history, even if this video is not a documentary.
I heard that the 1 gun per 2 men was only done in WW1 not WW2 or this battle. Not sure about that either. I know Russia was short of firearms in WW1 more than WW2.
Dan, my father fought through the Pacific Theatre - a Corporal by Guadalcanal, he’d enlisted early and his war ended at Okinawa. I’m not certain what happened to him on Saipan, but it changed him forever, and he had several landings to make after that. I asked him how he had the courage to leave the landing boats again. He swore that a he’d be shot if he didn’t, that there was someone at the back of the boat prepared to shoot if a Marine faltered. This aspect of the war has NEVER been discussed, but it was one of the few things about the war he would discuss, I’ve never doubted him. I do not want to disparage his unit, or his Division, and perhaps it was my Dad’s perception. He was a troubled man late in life, and while he wanted to be happy his past would overcome him from time to time- it was gut wrenching for him, and for us.
I mean yeah. The western Allies had MPs as well. And the US did shoot a single person for desertion. Many more were sentenced to execution but did not actually end up being executed. While it was obviously very rare the expectation was still absolutely there.
I don’t think that this scene 2:38-2:50 is “astonishingly realistic”… It seems to me that the director of the movie didn’t realize what kind of people actually fought in Stalingrad battle, and what was their motivation like. Those terrified faces of the Red army soldiers in the cart make one think that they weren’t aware of the point of their destination and what was awaiting them, which wasn’t true… And the way they were herded to boats, like sheeps… I don’t even mention an evil NKVD officer with a read flag in one arm and a loudspeaker in the other, to me it is “astonishingly” ridiculous and absolutely unrealistic scene…
You should write a first hand account so that future directors know as much as you do
There's also very little evidence of daytime crossings of the Volga. Most were done under the cover of night. The equipment shortage is also total balls, 0 evidence of a lack of rifles. If anything, they would have been running low on Ammo. 34 Million served in the Red Army throuhout WW2. More than half would have been logistics, artillery, tank crews, drivers so would not have had rifles. 20 Million Mosin Nagants were produced during the war. That doesn't tell me that they would have been running out.
@@ray.shoesmith Read a book on the battle and you will learn 100 times more than than any drama movie or pop youtube video could tell you.
@@Noodle3058 That's because the shortage of equipment as seen in the movie isn't true as you said and is based on old anti-Soviet myths. We actually know now that what the Soviets lacked more of early in the war was larger weapons systems like tanks and other armored vehicles due to heavy losses early on (and also production complications due to the fact that they needed to move their production facilities eastward because of the German advance).
However, what they didn't lack was small arms (like rifles etc.) and the ammunition to fire them. As such there would have been plenty of rifles to go around for all the soldiers, and the idea that two men had to share a gun or whatever was nonsense invention for the movie.
But they did shoot their own men in the battle it’s quite well known. Grossman even mentions it. Also just because they know their destination doesn’t mean they won’t be scared
19:40: I don't agree with the idea that the battle was only a "battle of dictators" and that Stalingrad "had no particular military or strategic value". PLease note that:
1- There were heavy industrial facilities in Stalingrad as the "tractors factory", converted to the production of T34 tanks, the arms factory "Barricade" as well as the metallurgical complex "Red October".
2- The Volga river was a very important transportation route from Central Asia allowing oil supply from Baku.
3- Stalingrad was also a railway hub: all high tonnage railway lines from Caucasus to the rest of the country were going through Stalingrad and this was paramount to get reinforcement from Moscow and Siberia. It was an important part of the Soviet military organisation.
4- Last but not least, the famous Soviet spy Richard Sorge had informed Moscow that Japan might attack the USSR as soon as any city on the Volga would have been taken, which would result in stopping allied supply from Iran routes.
Had Stalingrad been captured the Volga River would have been a formidable defensive obstacle. Troops could have been transferred out of the city to strengthen the vulnerable flanks
Exactly the whole idea is just propaganda (used by various sides to push their agenda, Hitler bad, Germans bad, Stalin bad etc. ). Stalingrad and Volga were absolutely strategically vital to both sides.
Stalingrad might have been important to the Soviets, but it was completely irrelevant to what SHOULD have been the overriding German objective - complete capture of the Caucasus.
@@chuckschillingvideos You are right but that's exactly why this battle has been so important: it prevented the nazis to take control fo the Caucasus and more important it stopped the German advance so well that from then on, they never had the initiative again.
I find the lack of bayonets in this movie to be extremely disturbing.
totally
You sound like Corporal Jones
@@maxkennedy2800 They don't like it up 'em!
As I find your lack of faith.
the lack of historical facts even more so......there was not a single russian shot by blockingforces in stalingrad, of the roughly 1 million that were stopped by the blocking forces less than 1000 was executed......so there is that. Other than it is set in ww2 which happened and stalingrad which is a place, and the name of commanders and zeitsev then we have NO MORE hostorical facts in the movie at all....but it is a fun movie
I disagree with him when he said Stalingrad had no military or strategic value. It was a major trade, supply and transportation hub and a large industrial town and was a major producer of armored vehicles. It was also very strategically located. He makes it sound like the Germans initiated that entire campaign solely to conquer Stalingrad for no other reason than its name and that it was the be all and end all of the campaign. In fact, the German operational plans do not focus on Stalingrad. The focus of the campaign was the oil producing regions of the Caucuses. Stalingrad was originally to be an anchor or ‘roof’ to cover the northern shoulder of the advance. Taking it would also deprive the Soviets of all its benefits. The fact that it bore Stalin’s name became more important as the fight for it went on and developed into the grinding slugfest that it did, but it had little to do with why the Germans wanted it to begin with.
Exactly,
It would have also anchored the exhausted Axxis forces against the Volga, giving them some much-needed respite. Re-taking the western bank against fortified, established positions would have been orders of magnitude more difficult than shipping reinforcements over while there were Soviet troops holding the far bank.
Wouldn't it make more sense for the Germans to bomb it, if they wanted to deprive the Soviets of it? They had air supremacy. By the end of the battle, the city was a pile of rubble, anyway. Not a major producer of anything anymore.
Literally introduces the movie with those details @ 1:01.
I think his knowledge of that particular part is limited so he gives out all what he knows, though I agree with you
A better movie about Stalingrad is the German 1993 movie Stalingrad. A lot less "Hollywood 'History' " in that one. Definitely no ridiculous sending Guard units into battle without weapons in that one.
Great film, but only the German-language version. The English-language one most people watch has diabolical dubbing akin to Hong Kong films of the 70s. There's also a Russian Stalingrad war film (2013) which is good in parts but the Red Army characters are glorified in the way US films turn their guys into superheroes.
But that happened
@@IAmWBeard Not at Stalingrad. The only verified accounts of Soviet troops being sent into battle unarmed were in the earlier phase of the war before the advance on Moscow in December 1941. Some civilians press-ganged into combat roles and punishment battalions on both sides were in front-line roles without weapons.
1993's Stalingrad perpetuates the same myth as the rest of the German films and post-war historiography did, that there was such a thing as the clean Wehrmacht and there were just a few rotten apples, blaming most of the villainy on the SS. Thankfully, lately the accounts of the war, by writers with greater access to the records, documents and letters is revealing a lot more, read David Stahel, Col Glantz etc.
@@IAmWBeard No, there was part of one division that turned up on the other side of the Volga that hadn't been issued weapons, and that's where the myth stems from, but they were issued with gear before being ferried across into action.
I strongly dispute the assertion that Stalingrad had "no particular military or strategic value" (19:37). It was crucially located between the bends of two of the most important rivers in Russia (the Don and the Volga) and was by far the largest city in the area. If the Germans effectively controlled Stalingrad there would have been little to stop them from cutting off communications to the Caucasus, and if properly manned and fortified it could have formed the lynchpin of a near impregnable defensive line. Some pundits postulate that if the Germans had focused all their attacking armies on first surrounding Stalingrad, then quickly securing it once it was unable to receive reinforcements (thus avoiding months of urban warfare), and only THEN turning south to the Caucasus, the campaign could have ended very differently. Obviously that's a lot of if's, but the point is that Stalingrad had a LOT of military value, maybe more so than any other Soviet city besides Moscow or Leningrad, precisely because its geography made it such a difficult city to capture.
Yes agreed, but they didn't need to physically take the city ,! ! They could have cut the supplies from the Volga elsewhere,,, 🕊️
the Germans were on a roll at this point...with little concept of defeat...they had taken city after city with the only exception being Moscow...
@@BrianMarcus-nz7cs I disagree. They wanted to take Astrakhan, thus preventing shipment from Baku over the Caspian Sea, but the only railway that went to Astrakhan went through Stalingrad. They needed the city to logistically support an advance towards Astrakhan, their end goal
@@Aragorn195 yes but they didn't need to cut the line in the city ! When cutting the line in a quiet sector would still cut the line , fact 🐾
@@BrianMarcus-nz7cs Cutting the line? The Germans needed the line for their logistics for when they would go for Astrakhan. The line went from say Rostov-on-Don to Stalingrad, and from Stalingrad to Astrakhan. They'd need Stalingrad to get to Astrakhan
If you're going to blur stuff out, why show it at all?
Yeah, that bugged me too.
Probably down to monetization blame UA-cam.
@@stephenjones7804 Because its a history channel.
You could just not get emotional over it.
@@kuidaorekitchen5850 Do you like watching blurred out videos? Are you Canadian? or are you just used to the powers that be tell you what you can and can't see.
Only 0.1% of retreating troops were fired on by NKVD blocking detachments (and most of that was overhead) 90% were reorganized. 9% were penalized. 1% were executed. (4 yr span)
Source: "Trust me bro"
@JeanLucsNerdBrainThe truth will be forever buried along with all the lies of both fascism and bolshevism
@JeanLucsNerdBrainThe truth will be forever buried along with all the lies of both fascism and bolshevism
Thank you!
Yeah, the whole blocking detachment thing is quite the misunderstood thing and literally 99% of its due to movies like this or German authors telling us that’s what the Soviets did… you know… the guys who lost to them and probably have a bit of a bias to make em look bad.
Blocking detachments were for one usually made up of the worst soldiers in a division - worst being in worst trained and physical and such - and while allowed to fire on retreating troops if promoted, the best they were actually known for was rounding up stragglers and deserters and getting them back into the fight - we joke about Soviet manpower but even by Stalingrad the Soviets were starting to feel the burn on manpower.
As such yes execution on the Eastern front can be best said to be 1% and even if you consider that a Soviet lie, your only pushing at lost 2-3% which was quite common for armies that relied on large conscript forces (Look to the WW1 powers).
Plus the whole “no retreat order” isn’t a thing that says you can’t actually tactically retreat/retire in battle, what it means is that you can’t just abandon your position for zero reason.
- the reason this was implemented was actually due to this very thing. Many Soviet commanders during both Barbarossa and Operation Cold Blue retreated in the face of German opposition without ever giving fight. They would actually give up full on fighting positions and natural defensive barriers because they were afraid of being surrounded - and when one unit detests every other has to, to avoid having their flanks being wide open.
As such, due to the large number of Soviet high ranking generals and officer calling their forces into retreat even when set up in proper defensive positions supporting other defensive positions, the order was given as to make sure said units wouldn’t retreat without firm order, officers who continued to would be either arrested and sent to a penal battalion or shot.
Did this mean it didn’t apply to the lower ranks? No. However, again justice was a lot different there too.
Say a company was sent into an attack against a German position, it’s going ok, yes their suffering casualties but seem to be doing well but soon everyone starts retreating, the Soviet blocking detachment wouldn’t just spray down everyone, no they’d cover the unit back into cover before finding out who were the main instigators of said retreat and then judge them on the severity of the situation - I.e. sent to penal or shot or even forgiven if there was legit concern (maybe spotted a unit of German vehicles approaching the flank that would of caused the unit to be massacred so ordered everyone back to save casualties and so they could reassess).
3:00 rifle shortages in 1942? No, this wasn't the case, this scene is totally unrealistic.
He points that out; only one day in the entire battle was someone sent into battle without proper equipment - or at least rifles. The USSR may have had a shortage of tanks and planes, but they HAD rifles. My god they had a lot of rifles.
@@CallioNyx By the way they didn't have enough rifles in 1941 because they haven't expected so many people to enlist
There is a big difference between "enough rifles out of the factory / at the armory" and "enough rifles at a given place and time". Which is true also for any type of equipment and supply. In 1945 you had many cases where German soldiers had a complete "ammunition hunger" in one critical spot, while 10 kms from there quartermasters were burning depot of ammunition and supply before abandoning their posts (yes. I know Germany in 1945 is no USSR in 1942). Logistics is always slower than any "need" in urgent times.
That is not saying this specific scene (time & place. Stalingrad 1942) is true.
Don't forget the insane numbers of submachine guns that would've been seen. If you didn't have a rifle, you had a PPSh-41.
@@galshaine2018 You're comparing 1945 Germany with 1942 USSR. USSR in 1942 did not have ammo hunger nor problems with Mosin Nagants. We have historians who collected the facts about Stalingrad. This movie is utter shite and this "historian" should eat his diploma.
This movie depict "soviet" propaganda as bad, while being itself a bad propaganda piece depicting all the myths and lies about the eastern front. Of course, the soviet regime wasn't a day in the park, but this portrayal is horrible considering the fact that was the Soviet Union the one who actually won the war. What Ernest Hemingway said is true "Anyone who loves freedom owes such a debt to the Red Army that it can never be repaid."
Are we not going to mention how they’re crossing the Volga in broad daylight? It’s well known that night crossings were how they got over, going by day was suicide
That's propaganda that the russians only crossed in the daytime. Yes they mostly went in the night, but if the line was about to break they would send them in anytime.
@@jamesdunning8650 wouldn’t say it’s propaganda as much as how expensive and cumbersome it is to do such a huge night shoot
@@priestsonaplane2236 I reworded my reply. The russians did carry out day crossings. Just not nearly as many.
Michael K. Jones used primary sources to argue that after Chuikov received the 4 PM desperation missive that he moved up the 13th Guards jump to 5 PM.
Even these accounts cite smoke, artillery, and whatever insufficient air cover they could get.
Glantz gives the official party documents of 8 PM.
It's neither day nor night. Yes, night time was wise and day suicidal but they advanced AS THEY HAD LEARNT FROM THEIR WAR PAST...AT DAWN!
9:14 -12:55 is not historiclly accurate russians mass human wave attacks was not common, espcially in Stalingrad. And not being able to give everyone as rifle is also false. The sovietunion was and industrial power house ofc they could give everyone a weapon. As soon as the invasion started russia went into full war economy doubling how much workers had to work and so on. There was definetly no shortage of weapons infact both sides adapted germans adopted new squad compositions and the use of submachine guns flamethrowers etc was problay as common or more common than the rifle. Russians used avtomachikis squad full 10 men smgs squads.
While 227 was issued the Soviets did not want to waste lives espically when the fighting reached its peak around this time and they were losing the battle but building forces to surround the city.
Remember the russian held hard pressed defence and could not afford to take unnecerary casulties in this time. around barrikady and the genereal factory complex fighting was brutal infact during 1 day alone the main train stationed changed hands over 14 times! and the tractor factory changed hands multiple times sometimes several times a day. After this battle russians became expert in street fighting and cqc and specialed assault regiments were created. The sthurmoviki squads.
October 14th when the germans launched and attack all hells broke loose 5 germans divison 300 tanks assaulted russian positions in northern stalingrad with hvy air support german artillery fires for 90th minutes however russian troops creep close to german troops around 15 meter wich mean if the germans opens fire they will risk hitting there own troops. Fighting is so violent and hvy that visiblity drops to just few meters from all the smoke and debris the fighting is stupendos brutal while the soviets lines are breached they hold in the end. Infact all there telephones lines are cut becuse they either melt or are blown from the intense fighting and they are forced to use radios.
I dont often hear about them so i want to talk about them omsbon and osnaz the prerunner to spetsnaz throughout the war trained russian partisan, destroyed around a 1000 trains and railway lines, aswell as ambushing german reinforcements blowing up dumbs etc infact they are well over responsible from what ive heard of destroying 145 tanks throughout there combat history they had a crucial role in operation bagration where they were most active.
I forgot to mention russian commisars had the authority to basiclly kill for being slighly disheartend.even tho they were never abolished much of there power and abilities were taken away from them and they became much less present from 1942.
ua-cam.com/video/0J4X-usANNo/v-deo.html A good video on it he can tell much more than i can.
Yes, even Squire debunked the 'Soviet troops went into battle without guns' notion, which was reported to have happened in some sectors in 1941 but definitely did not at Stalingrad.
And the fact that a lot fewer Soviet Soldiers surrendered to the Germans in the 1942 Summer Offensive, compared to the opening months of Op Barbarossa, in spite of "NOT A STEP BACK"!
@@rahul.dadwal Not Step Back did happen, but mostly to penal battalions.
Came here to basically post this. If the idea was to debunk the myths in this film, it failed.
well done m /uppet another two cent worth ''expert'' armchair general , i'm sure dan show will appreciate your expertise and critique of Dan show well respected historian of note your hilarious chum
Never knew Michael Bolton knew so much about WW2!
I don't wanna know the price I'm gonna pay for dreaming...
😂😂😂😂
😂 You’ve never heard “When a Man Loves a Nazi”? My personal favourite is “Said I Wouldn’t Invade You, But I Lied”.
@@davidkendall1614 Or "How Am I supposed to live with NATO" that's a goodie.
Shooting your own troops in the back was something the French army practised in WWI in the worst moments of the war (1914-1917). Usually the gendarmerie would do that, they were hated by the rest of the soldiers, a few gendarmes were shot in the back in the dark as a retaliation.
A deep dive on Stalingrad 1993 would be great, one of the most bleak war movies ever made
Or the Russian movie Stalingrad from 2013.
I don't know about Stalingrad but I have heard stories from American Korean war vets talking about attacks from Chinese troops where not all of the soldiers were armed and when an armed soldier fell an unarmed soldier would pick up the weapon and carry on the attack
There are some more Soviet made
ua-cam.com/video/0ydz0d3Ba0o/v-deo.html
@@mitrooper Check the Soviet one from 1989.
It is on You Tube by Mosfilm Stalingrad 2 parts
two guys might spend all day just trying to kill each other often not more than feet apart....
0:45 The "Nazi Tide" washing down Italy is some pretty extreme historical inaccuracy there XD
Would love to see a deep dive on Band of Brothers and or The Pacific
Why give commentary on movie/series which everyone knows and which have been commented a dozen times over?
Why not talk about old movies/series that are generally not or rarely the subject of a talk?
There are dozens of deep dive UA-cam videos about Band of Brothers to choose from already. If you want to go deeper I recommend reading the book by Stephen E. Ambrose.
@@JZsBFF You realize band of brothers is a good 20 years old now right.....plenty of younger gen z's who have fuck all clue about them....Band of Brothers/Pacific was more soo seen by Millennials and Gen X....odd boomer im sure
Ian at “Forgotten Weapons” did a video on what they got right and wrong on the sniper rifles used in “Enemy at the Gates” a few months ago. Very interesting by those of us that collect WWII firearms.
Gun Jesus should always be referred to as such. Ian is but a secondary title.
I’m going to the ER for cringe
@@dmoney8602 don't forget your aids medication
@@tomtom21194 *schlurp schlurp*
to convert the Moison to a sniper rifle a different bolt is required...to clear the scope...the German in this flic of course...had a Mauser
00:15 I dunno about this being "the most famous" but Stalingrad (1993) is definitely historically more accurate and, in my view, better!
I can't even believe that they didn't use that movie as background .
Stalingrad (2013) is not bad either. There is some bias as it is told from the Russian/Soviet perspective, but a great representation in some areas.
1000% Stalingrad 1993 is phenomenal, great production value, and extremely harrowing and heartbreaking, love and hate the ending, but its honestly shot so beautifully and on an epic scale, another one of those ww2 where a German filmmaker does it best
@@leoa4c mate, 2013 is shit
@@flyzart8148 In what sense? Bad as a movie or historically incorrect?
@@leoa4c both really, like there are plenty of things that actually try to be historical but just end up being goofy as they are shown without context (as in he falls asleep where he couldve just killed the antagonist with no context with no explaination as to how tiring a sniper job was), there is a far joke, a sex scene, etc. Who the fucks makes a sex scene in a movie about someone that really was alive back then, let alone a fart joke in the bloodiest battle of history?
The plot is just bad as a whole if you dont count these point, theres like a few moments it shines but its like "oh no we are losing, look at how shit we are at fighting" and then they just win the whole battle off screen?
31:25 - As a student at Cambridge University in 1943, my late mother was tasked with being a companion for a Soviet lady sniper from Stalingrad, sent to speak in factories and promote the Soviet cause.
Mum recalled that the damp cold of the wind off the North Sea made the unheated college made the poor lady complain "my bullet wounds, my bullet wounds ache."
My reading says that the Soviets were not inferior in equipment. In tactics, at this point; yes. So soviet losses were horrendous compared to the Germans. It is not true that Stalingrad had no strategic value. It was a major rail hub and transhipment point. (Astrakhan is SE, head of oil region).
It was also the only point on the Archangel-Astrakhan line the Germans actually reached.
And the key city in Southern Russia along the Volga Waterways. Zee germans probably expected an attack and supplies to support it on Edelweiss to come via Stalingrad, they probably wanted to flank it and protect the march towards Baku, they got sucked in bit by bit and the attritional fighting depleted their forces. The purpose was to secure oil in the Caucasus, the poor bastards got none of it, not even from Maikop, which they took early on.
They were inferior in artillery. The Germans had several times the amount of artillery pieces than the Soviet at the time. This is what lead to the horrendous Soviet losses in Stalingrad (though not THAT bad compared to the axis forces, 1.1 million Soviet casualties/captured vs 900k axis) and is also why they heavily relied on deep battle doctrine which is basically the Soviet forces hugging the German lines as tight as possible to prevent the Germans from using their artillery effectively (as they would risk hitting their own troops)
It's a mixed bag, the USSR's gear might not have had the same quality as the Germans but it was more reliable and easier to teach conscripts to use. When you're fighting a massive war affordability and ease of use are major assets.
@@Lonovavir To extend a little the Russian equipment was generally easier to repair and far more standardized than German gear. Which counts for a lot in an attrition war.
To this day almost every movie that shows a plane go down plays the sound of the StuKa sirene because it is so characteristic. One can only imagine the effect it had on the allied troops, when even 80 years later everyone associates that sound with a diving plane.
When at a ceremony for British veterans of WW2, one of the organisers stupidly played the sirens of Stukas, many veterans were deeply upset at hearing that noise again.
Bob Hoskins depiction of Kruschev was brilliant.
It's true. Anytime I think of Kruschev I hear his voice and see the mannerisms he used in this movie.
Hoskins, not Hopkins.
@@mikebaggott7802 Corrected.
Stalingrad was also a key railhub
I know. I find this guy's knowledge of the war extremely limited (and annoying). Stalingrad wasn't even the biggest battle of 1942. Rzhev was.
Also Stalingrad commanded the Volga, which was a major artery for oil.
@@Inquisitor6321 AFAIK Stalingrad is the largest land battle in history regarding losses. And a lot of the Soviets' strength is estimated because the of the number of partisans within the city not part of the actual military forces drawn from the local population or from people fleeing from the west.
@@nekrataali You should read up on the Battle of Rzhev Salient. Russia lost 2.3 MILLION men in a 15 month period. 12 of those months were in 1942. This completely eclipsed Stalingrad.
That's key to the Soviets wanting to keep it, but Germans advancing on it would have little use for it. Their rolling stock used a different gauge, and the Russians destroyed any rolling stock that they couldn't move. As the Germans advanced, they were forced to lay track to be able to use their own trains.
First scene, only twice was the Russians forced to cross the Volga in daylight.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Pretty sure they would just cross at night, specifically for the reason you see in that scene.
dude it's a movie and the director wanted daylight to show his scene. Still conveys the chaos.
@@MikeyRumi180 try to read the headline of that video DUUDE !!
@@MikeyRumi180 It's a historian failing to do his job in a video.
Only twice you say? Well look at that, this scene must have been one of them
That rifle in the first sniping scene was the venerable Mosin Nagant. It was very dependable, but the stroke was a bit unlike most other bolt actions. They're so dependable, they're still commonly owned today.
It wasn't firing for the commisar simply because it wasn't loaded.
That is true, but the sights were inferior.
When it was invented in 1891, it was an absolute game-changer. However, by the 1940s, it was one of the least appreciated of its peers.
The main issue with the rifle is how the bolt handling is rough, even when properly cleaned and lubed, and the placement of the bolt. Compared to the operation of the Enfields, Mausers, Carcano or the Springfield, it is pretty unforgiving.
The main reason they caught on in the US, at least, before 2012-14, they were exceedingly cheap, less than a hundred dollars for a nearly mint refurbished rifle. They fire a great cartridge for hunting anything under rhino, elephant, etc. The ammo was dirt cheap.
Nowadays, with almost no milsurp rifle being less than 450 USD due to moronic buyers, the Mosin still commands respect as a rugged rifle with acceptable accuracy, but the popularity has certainly decreased.
@@J24-k8f indeed. It allows you to reliably arm a group of people on a budget.
Dan is very kind to the filmmakers in these videos.
Channel really fell off to pop history only commenting on Hollywood movies
Nah, he's just a shitty pop historian who operates in the world of cliches he learnt in his youth and never bothered to correct his misinformation. It's fucking 2024, the whole meme of "one soldier gets a rifle, the other gets a clip" and the general idea soviet frontal attacks on prepared german positions with kommisars machine gunning down everyone who retreats was debunked so many times by so many historians (incl. most modern pop historians) that you have to either willfuly ignorant or just incredibly lazy to still propagate these myths. For fuck sake, he even mistaken PM 1910/30 for "ww1 maxim gun" when you have to be blind not to notice there was a giant fucking snow cap on top of the water jacket (which was a ww2 modification) instead of original ww1 spec with small water filler hole.
Yea he's not very critical especially to the clear innacuracies.
There are two things about enemy at the Gates that are historically accurate: 1) There was a Battle of Stalingrad. 2) Vasily Zaitsev was a real person.
I guess if he pans them people won't let him use their footage
Nonsense. Blocking units never shot anybody. Period. Their job was to arrest people who retreated not shoot them. Shooting people would have provoked a mutiny in ten seconds flat
From what I can find, there's maybe 2 cases where they opened fire, and it was just over their heads to scare them back into fighting. They also generally only punished officers for ordering retreats, not soldiers
So much wrong... This guy is far from being an "Expert". This movie is highly inaccurate with pretty much everything. He should be pointing out that:
- Crossing of the Volga was done at night and did not suffer that much casualties as a result. (Only a few exception happened)
- Order 227 was not enforced to shoot retreating troops from a failed attack. It was used mostly to execute officers or leaders that allowed or ordered a non approved retreat.
- Rifle shot can't be muted by distant explosion especially in the direction you are firing towards.
- Sniper don't aim for the head like every shot in this movie.
- Vasily was not a conscript but an already established sniper trainer when the battle of Stalingrad started.
The headshot count of German soldiers was extraordinary in Stalingrad (not a woodland environment).
"Island of Fire: The Battle for The Barrikady Gun Factory in Stalingrad" Jason Mark
@@69JONESYrugby What I meant is nobody purposely aim for the head unless it's the only thing you see. In the movie there are many occasion where a chest shot would make much more sense. I can hear the unreal tournament "Headshot" every time a sniper rifle is fired.
Steve Buscemi was a better Kruschev I think
The Death of Stalin is a brilliant film
One of my favorite films
Too thin.
If you are to do more on the Eastern Front movie, Come and See would be a brilliant movie to win. What is called the most horrifying non horror movie. Very accurate especially the fact a lot of war is waiting about and matching, they actually fired real machine guns over the heads of the actors. The presentation of the movie is quite unique. It is based off one of the writers real life experience as a partisan in WW2 and apparently this was not even the half of the horrors he saw.
Fortress of war, white tiger, the German version of stalingrad are worth a watch as well
@@Thecrazyvaclav Fortress of War is remarkable. There are many thrilling Russian/Soviet war films including Battle for Moscow, Come and See, Battle of Sevastopol, 321st Siberian, Rhzev, The Final Stand and Stalingrad (2013 version). Not always historically accurate but superior to most western WW2 films.
Disagree it is shit absolute timewasting. Had a few really good scenes but it´s trash
@@jonathanengahl7589 No, it's among the best war movies ever made and you're just stupid
@@jonathanengahl7589yup have to agree there.pretty disjointed I thought
Absolutely horrendous video. If the idea was to break down the myths of this movie, it utterly failed. Enemy at the Gates is one of the most inaccurate ww2 movies ever made yet this video didn't even address the most BLATANT of inaccuracies like the Soviet not using human wave tactics nor had any shortages of rifles in Stalingrad. Retreating troops were only VERY rarely shot as well. The entire movie is based on myths of the eastern front born during the cold war when the only accounts that existed in the west was written by the German generals who were eager to portray a superior force overwhelmed by an Eastern horde.
It wasn't until the 90's when the USSR collapsed and when western historians finally got access to the Soviet archives which ENTIRELY changed our view of the conflict. I would recommend reading the work of David Glantz, he has written several wonderful books on the subjects of the eastern front and has dedicated decades going through the Soviet archives and interviewing people.
I agree about Glantz. I have read several books on stalingrad and his was the best, just according to the documentation done by itself.
You're mistaken friend, you see, Soviet Union bad. Officers of the Whermacht good. Silly old boy.
Exactly, blocking detachments would actually regroup fleeing soldiers and send them back to their units. Occasionally, they would shoot them or arrest them, but these were not the norm . These detachments would only shoot penal batallion units who were forced to fight on the most dangerous parts of the front because of their crimes. Also, retreats were allowed as long as they were tactical retreats.
The video was fine until he said the battle was just what ot was because of city's name. Less than 2 minutues in...
@@PageIsYourGod The good, clean, Wehrmacht was lead by a dictator and all the Generals agreed that Hitler and the SS were bad. They would've won the war in hours, if they had been allowed to do whatever it was they wanted.
3:12 "this scene is astonishingly realistic" are you sure this guy is a historian?
Arguably, Dan Snow's career arose from his father being a BBC presenter for decades rather than his history degree.
Alright, how do you propose the Soviets got their troops across the Volga and into the city?
@@PaIaeoCIive1684that actually explains a lot.
@@karsten11553the crossing isn't the issue, it's everything else lol.
I agree. When I heard that, I switched off. (might go back to it though).
This movie is by no means at any point 'astonishingly realistic.'
That’s why he says scene and not movie
@@frangallego8580 The guy said 'at any point' in his comment, he's clearly implying any scene
there is no point in censoring violence in a War Movie. This is distracting. and ridiculous.
Edit. Now unwatchable.
Only 5 minutes in and I’m already looking at the comments cuz this is ridiculous 😂
They cannot show it! This is UA-cam. They will get demonetized. How you don't realize this is beyond me. This channel is a business it's goal is to make money.
@@h33-q8w Surely they've got sponsors? Otherwise, what's the point of the money making business? Yt alone will hardly sustain them.
This movie is about as accurate as Inglorious Bastards. It portrays the soviet soldiers as a flock of cheep only useful as cannon fodder. In fact the soviets where very capable as shown in the winter offensive that turned the tide on the eastern front.
36:00 is such a well-crafted and acted scene. The cinematography, the sound, Ed Harris going through all 5 stages in 10 seconds lol
The RL Stuka sound evolved into the Space Opera sound of TIE fighters.
The Volga crossing was Incredibly unrealistic accorting to many ww2 soviet vets who have seen this movie and even according to the memoirs of the sniper hinself, where they traveled across at night, fully armed and landed without little to no losses. Ps( also just read that the scene with one rifle between 3 men is also wrong, as site of served in the Soviet Navy so they came there already armed. Also, this is Stalingrad, Soviet Union sent as much equipment there as they possibly could. So much that sometimes they had more rifles and actual ammo.)
Wow - completely different to the film then! 😅 Though it could be the film taking artistic licenses, going for the ‘Saving Private Ryan’ style action?
Thought so, about the night crossing. It would be a lot better…
Vasily Zaitzev did cross during the day, which itself was an oddity, but at a point well behind Soviet lines where the crossing occured without incident. Funny enough, the only other instance where an hurried crossing had to be done during the day, they did face direct artillery fire and suffer losses while crossing, but this crossing was able to reinforce Soviet troops enough to push back the Germans and prevent them from establishing a position on the Volga river in this part of the front, in other words, the Soviets won.
The crossing of the Volga scene seemed to be inspired by an illustration in the book Battles that Changed the World by Phyllis Jestice. I think the filmmakers used that as artistic direction.
@@JR-tl2ym written by a brainwashed anti Russian writer.
3:10 ok one small call out here History Hit.
No documents relating to the Battle of Stalingrad by both German or Soviet records ever noted a unit going into the city unarmed.
There were troops who arrived on the otherside of the Volga un-equipped, however were quickly issued equipment and then sent in.
The whole “one rifle between two men” may come from the fact that troops who did come equipped later into the battle were actually stripped of most of their rifles and had them replaced with sub-machine guns and other equipment that was better suited to street fighting. As such instead of it being “one man gets the rifle, one man follows the rifle” it’s more “one man gets the rifle, one man gets the submachine gun”
This is also widely documented as storm/assault troops were being formed.
- a storm/assault troop was essentially a small platoon formed around regular and veteran soldiers equipped with sub-machine guns and large numbers of grenades. Added on would be flame-throwers, AT Rifles (occasionally light AT Guns) or whatever was considered mobile and in need for that unit.
- the objective of these men were to usually blow holes in the upper or lower walls of a building, toss grenades into the breech, and run through gunning anything down that wasn’t Soviet, before proceeding to secure every floor up or down from there. Flamethrowers and grenades would be used to clear cellars, and grenades would be used to clear every room and stairway. In addition, a common tactic for multiple assault/storm groups on large building would be to attack from both upper and lower levels at the same time.
Why do I note this? Because as the battle went on and these units proved effective in this type of warfare, many reinforcing guard units would be equipped to actually form and replace these losses in these units, meaning that most guard “rifle” units actually got stripped of the majority of their rifles in favour of PPsH and PPD sub-machine guns.
5:05 also if I’m not mistaken, by this point those Stuka sirens had actually been stripped from them for this exact reason - not the fear thing but because it was so notable it actually gave away what was happening and allowed AA units to prepare for the attack and it allowed infantry and vehicles to move for cover or begin evasive manoeuvres to avoid being hit.
33:07 Ed Harris is a great actor IMO
Dan is awesome as always.
The German film circa 1992 Stalingrad was an interesting take on the German perspective on the battle.
2:50 "One of the greatest scenes of all time"
That's when you can turn that video off if you care even little about historic accuracy. Bullshit film and bullshit review. Vasily Zaitsev actually wrote memoirs, "For us there were no land beyond the Volga". Not only everyone was eager to fight the enemy (unlike the scared youths in the movie), they received several weeks of training before combat (not thrown into the fire right off the train) and crossed the river at night in small groups with no losses (and without "evil commisars", standing behind them with a handgun) 🤡
It’s a movie, not a documentary 🤦♂️
@@timfriesen3079 And my comment is about this "historian's" review, not about the movie🤦 It's a known fact that the movie is inaccurate, but somehow not for this guy. It was his job to point out all of the above, he didn't.
Did he call the attack of unarmed soviet conscripts ( which evidentally did not happen ) astonishingly realistic? I hope I have misheard.
Lol. Attacks like that did happen. The Red Army just gets away with it because they weren't always proper army units but civilians and prisoners they forced into cannon fodder units. And despite the tankies in these comments claiming otherwise, they had units specifically set up to shoot and capture retreating men, "barrier" or "blocking" units. Tactics that they are confirmed to still be using to this day in Ukraine (same with sending men into battle with next to no weapons), we have literal undeniable footage of them shooting men that refuse to advance and those that retreat. And we have footage of Russian mobiks whining online about being sent against Ukrainian lines with shovels and little else.
But sure, totally unlikely they would have used those 70+ years ago in more desperate times under an even more brutal dictatorship, lol.
@Nyx_2142 you have no idea what you're talking about
@@Nyx_2142you have no idea what you're talking about
@@Nyx_2142 I hope you have something to write that down. The Soviets did not suffer a shortage of rifles in World War 2.
What we can say is that, at worst, their rifles were outdated ( being leftovers from world war 1 and produced before that ). But no soldiers had to be afraid of going into battle without weapons. Linked with the manpower shortages, the Soviet Union could not afford to simply throw lives away.
The Soviet Army would only gain manpower parity, and eventually number superiority 1943 and beyond.
@@Nyx_2142I see the redditor is claiming to know history because they played video games.
It wasn’t just because it bore Stalins name. It was something the Germans were prepared to fight for so Zhukov was able to use it as the cheese in a big rat trap. For the Stavka it was a point to be held so that its force would be pinned down at the end of a salient where it could be encircled and destroyed. They also tried to do the same to the whole of Army Group South by a breakthrough to Rostov on Don in Little Saturn.
I think he meant that Hitler ordered it attacked because it had Stalin's name.
You know, because Hitler was an idiot.
Stalingrad's name had nothing to do with nazis trying to capture it, and little to do with soviets defending it so fiercely.
@@ciamciaramcia99 Well, if I understand what I read from the Imperial War Museum, you're mostly right.
Its initial attack and defense really didn't have anything to do with its name.
Hitler's insane insistence on staying there probably was.
A "historian" who studied history by watching "Enemy at the Gates" rates "Enemy at the Gates" as historically accurate. Color me surprised.
1) He doesn't know about Stalingrad's tractor factory that produced T-34 even when Germans were approaching the city.
2) He didn't read Vasiliy Zaytsev's memoirs. He wrote about composition and training of his regiment, equipment, morale, how they crossed Volga etc. Everything is basically the exact opposite of the garbage shown in the movie.
3) He doesn't know the operations of the real blocking detachments. For example, there are real documents saying that in august and half of october 1942 (months after order 227) 140 755 soldiers were detained by these detachmens (everywhere, not just Stalingrad). 93.14% of them were sent back to the frontline and only 1189 (0.84%) were shot after trial. And among those arrested and executed were maradeurs and enemy spies. No shooting retreating troops with machineguns. At all.
And so on and so forth.
He doesn't know the anthem played in the scene he showed didn't exist until decades later.
14:50 excellent detail of wrapping the sling around his arm for stability.
You described blocking detachments three times in the first 12 minutes like we had never heard you
This video is more concerned about making the soviets the bad guys rather than the Nazis lol. It's a very modern european way of looking at things, I feel like.
Despite the inaccuracies and propaganda-level fictionalization of the "famous" sniper duel, I really do like this movie. It does a good job at brining the absolutely enormous scale of this battle down to a human level. I wonder how many different individual experiences, sacrifices, struggles, and heroic actions will never be known simply because they've been drowned out by the size of this battle and lost to history.
People complaining about this film are either autistic, or Marxists.
So sick of UA-cam censorship. Blurring out scenes is ridiculous.
Agreed they wants scenes of movies censored but allow people targeting kids with talk about puberty blockers and sexual conten to spew their predatory propaganda.
I always loved Enemy at the gates. Thanks for this one!
5:50 Military history visualized did a good job debunking several Red Army myths, including this one
Not a myth, it happened and is still happening today in Ukraine and before you deny it, its been caught on video multiple times. Barrier troops shooting their own retreating soldiers
In the end, the respect the Major and Vasily had for each other was special.
The statue of the children holding hands was on the cover of the non-fiction history of the battle called Enemy At The Gates by William Craig which I read decades ago. The novel the movie was based on was called War Of The Rats but its name was later changed to match the film.
Craig’s history was excellent but has been superseded by Anthony Beevor’s masterpiece.
My problem with this movie is that everybody seems miscast. Left a bad taste in my mouth when I saw it in theaters, but since then I’ve always wanted to give it another chance, and this breakdown is perfect as a kind of enhanced version of the movie, which from the sequences I can still see my issues with it, but this commentary turns it into a whole new experience. Thank you!
Feels good to be here right after posting.
Sex feels better virgin.
That movie take the title of the William Craig book “Enemy at the Gates”. The book is wonderful. The movie uses less than a page of that book to make the movie. And it’s a story that has been questioned forever.
The rifle with no Ammo is ludicrous
Love when the entire video is blurred out. Really engaging
I hate this movie on so many different levels I don't know where to begin
If anything can be gleamed on how Russia treats its troops it's Ukraine in the 21st century. I see no change in the tactics shown here as WW2 and the murderous brutality against their own troops in Ukraine.. Stalin was a mentally unhinged escaped murderer from Georgia. Many should remember the murderous Purges and the 25 years of Gulags, created by Starlin, that murdered over 40 million of his own people. There is no controversy about this film, regarding how little life is worth in Russia, then or now.
@@davidwhittington7638 Sure. The Germans were So much more civilized
The Germans are now, can't say the same for Russia today..
That's how my father thinks about "Braveheart"
I love watching your videos they are so educational and I learn something new from every video i watch.
I like the movie but the start is utter fiction, it gives the german generals made up version of the war to excuse why they had lost. The casualty ratio in stalingrad was around 1.7x so not even 2 russians to the german. Whereas in this movie it's about 600 to 1 ratio. Same with the number of troops fielded by each side, the germans had more at times and when the russians had more it was at most 1.8x more. The Russian didn't attack and the germans didn't defend like that, remember it is the Russians defending the city, yet all we see is them on the attack this early on. Many russian soldiers were unequipped and under trained but they were on the defensive.
Of all the people, its the anglos who have a special hatred towards the Russians, or Poles, or the rest of the Slavs for that matter, they are just keen to use the Slavs, whoever they can brainwash, into fighting the Russians, of course there is much intra-Slav bloodletting that makes the anglos' job a lot easier. Ergo, this movie is propaganda bs for the most part.
Overall it may have 1.7 but at the start of the battle the casualty rate was overwhelmingly in favor of the Germans. Towards the end it was overwhelmingly in favor of the Russians after having encircled the Germans.
@@sailinghopes3943 stalin's fault. The purges of 37-38 destroyed the Red Army's leadership almost entirely with senior commanders either being troglodytes like Budyony or total clowns like Pavlov. And then the unwillingness to retreat even when the situation was totally hopeless, thereby allowing encirclement and total annihilation by the Nazis, even the surrendered Red Army soldiers did not have a great survival rate, with two-thirds dying in captivity. And then frontal assaults and strong german positions through 1941 and through most of 1942, in the Leningrad sector and Rzhev, where for every german casualty there were nearly 4 to 5 Soviet casualties.
Stalingrad (1992)
Some people have already recommended it, but I want to recommend the following movie as well when it comes to Stalingrad.
Dan is a little bit off the mark saying that sending unarmed soldiers to the other side of the river is "extremely realistic", but to be fair, the editors are cutting out most of what he really is saying. A good overview of how this movie is extremely unrealistic, and even purposefully deceitfull, is this: ua-cam.com/video/p6y_TUoOdfQ/v-deo.html&ab_channel=KayAndSkittles
He does say that there wasn't really a shortage of rifles, or any unarmed soldiers going into battle. I think he's refering to it as well-shot, realistic-looking, etc.
Not necessarily historically accurate.
Ed Harris is one of my favorite actors. He is underrated.
Edit:
Stalingrad was more like World War I 'tactics' with the same results.
*Why don't we call the 'Sommes Offensive' - British Human Wave tactics?*
Edit:
German Luftwaffe destroying the entire city of Stalingrad and reporting 'there were no more targets to destroy' is a bit naive in hindsight.
Before the Luftwaffe had turned the whole of Stalingrad into a labyrinth of ruins and anti-tank traps, the city was less defensible than it was after.
So the Luftwaffe attacks actually worked in the favour of the defender. They created the multiple of snipers' nests.
Same thing happened later with the Allies at Monte Cassino.
The narrator should have said, when describing the Stukas 'Jericho' sirens
'You must have heard this sound a thousand times before, from WW2 news reels to Disney comic shorts.
When I was watching clips of 'Masters of the Sky,' I noticed that many commenters talked about the 'Stuka noise' that had become a cliché.
And they were right. In nearly every WW2 piece of newsreel, documentary or what not, if there's diving planes involved, even if they're not Stukas,
you always get to hear the 'Jericho' sirens.
It appears that most German pilots stopped using these as their effectiveness wore off and after it became clear the Stuka was extremely vulnerable to enemy fighter actions so after a staggering loss of a dozen Stukas in a single attack during the Battle of Britain, the German dive bombers were pulled back from 'front line service' except in areas where the Luftwaffe still had (local) air superiority, parts of the East Front.
15:19 Dan going on about snipers when everybody in that photo is holding a PPSh really cracked me up
0:41 wow that’s an inaccurate map. When did the Nazis conquer Switzerland exactly?
They didn’t need to. Switzerland was holding all their gold and buying their warplanes. Why conquer a nation that was helping you. They pretend to be neutral but profited.
Apparently just before they conquered Italy, apparently :/
Also you can just see them entering Spain and Turkey, which I'm pretty sure were neutral and on good terms with the Germans at the time of the battle. In fact Spain send the Blue Division to fight alongside them in the Eastern Front ,while Turkey was seriously considering declaring war against the Soviets if they were successful in taking the Caucasus.
This movie made me fall in love with the war movie genre
Loser
Got some more for ya !!
1. Das Boot- Director's Cut, watch w/German sound & English subtitles; a must !!
2. Saving Private Ryan
3. 1917
4. Downfall, again German w/English subtitles !
5. Tora! Tora! Tora!
These are, IMO, among the best out there, HTH...
🚬😎👍
Dont forget Flags of our fathers & Letters from Iwo Jima
@@lawrie222 they came many years after enemy at the gates
I was a Scout Sniper in the US Army back in the 90's and this film was one of the few that at least tried to show how miserable it really was. Hours spent sitting in your own filth, not able to move to pee, suffering bug bites and worse, waiting for the "green light" to take the shot. The only person I trusted was my Spotter PFC Erb, that guy could read the environment better than anyone I ever knew. If he told me 1 click down, 2 left, I didn't question him, he was ALWAYS spot on. This film got a lot wrong, but the overall feeling of it was pretty solid. Being a sniper was terrible at times, your own men loved you for protecting them, the enemy despised you and considered you scum. Our squad motto was "Shoot em in the back!" and being able to take out the enemy without being shot back at was fine by me. At least in the US military you could sometimes rely on your Chain of Command backing you up, but those Russian soldiers were on their own.
The German officer exposing himself was a sign that he didn't respect the enemy, and considered them "worthless", Vasily proved him wrong. Koenig either got cocky or excited, thinking he'd taken out Vasily, and it cost him everything. The one strength I had was that I was a runt, and could weasel my way into hide sites that were miserable for bigger guys, and that allowed me to pick spots with little chance of being spotted. Carlos Hathcock might have picked the wrong branch (love you jarheads, no real offense intended) but he was IMO one of the best snipers that ever lived in the Vietnam era or WWII. WWII was a nightmare, the men and women that survived it were truly some of the best. Infantry grunts hate artillery and snipers more than anything else, neither allows you much warning or protection. Don't know if there are any WWII veterans still kicking around today, but by GOD I salute you, whether you were the enemy or ally, you fought well and deserve respect.
This movie does a perfect job at showing the back and forth between two sides in a battle till one gives way. It is a truly beloved film despite its imperfections.
Another interesting point about the battle for Stalingrad is that the command post of the Red Army unit doing the fighting was actually on the EAST bank, the same side the Germans were coming from. The reasoning was double. Firstly, the question of morale. The soldiers are more likely to keep on fighting when they can see their superiors in the trenches with them. Secondly, the tactical reality at this stage in the war of the Red Air Force being inferior to the Luftwaffe. By staying really close to the German lines it would be too risky for them to bomb the positions (and the same goes for indirect fire artillery support).
Entertaining movie but not very accurate
If anything can be gleamed on how Russia treats its troops it's Ukraine in the 21st century. I see no change in the tactics shown here as WW2 and the murderous brutality against their own troops in Ukraine.. Stalin was a mentally unhinged escaped murderer from Georgia. Many should remember the murderous Purges and the 25 years of Gulags, created by Starlin, that murdered over 40 million of his own people. There is no controversy about this film, regarding how little life is worth in Russia, then or now.
@@davidwhittington7638doesnt make the movie accurate
"This scene is astonishingly realistic". What to say really. Not even close to real events.
I spat my coffee out when he referred to the opening scene of this movie as "one of the greatest scenes" and "astonishingly realistic." I literally couldn't take him seriously after that.
He'll be telling the same about Saddam's WMD and Ghost of Kiev in a few years.
Same I'm ten minutes in. I'm finding the comments more interesting than him.
Brilliant story teller a mellow smoothing voice. I could listen to Mr Snow all day. He would be an amazing asset at a party. 🎉
Why is so much footage blurred? Are we so sensitive?
Nope but UA-cam will remove it which is why we can’t comment certain words like R£pe, s£xual ass£lt and other such words. Also why you can’t show private parts and other such things. Anyone could be watching it.
@@katj3443 No, it will not remove it. It will prob demonitise or age-restrict, which means it usually doesn't get recommended to as many people. Don't decrease the impact of words like rape and sexual assault by inserting other characters. If we want to talk about WWII films or war in general, I don't think it's acceptable to blur the scene, just to make more money. UA-cam's ad policies are shithouse, but really, we shouldn't be accepting this BS and asking the advertisers to get serious and stop pulling ads from graphic/non PC/tame videos. They somehow tolerate it on TV, which has declining numbers. UA-cam just needs to get a little bold, take a risk, and say 'If you want to advertise with us, you can't pick and choose sterilised videos, like cute dog videos or tech reviews'. It's all about money.
Jude Law was excellent in The Road To Perdition. Didn't get much screen time actually but he played one of the most disturbing characters I've ever seen in a film.
********** Thankyou !! for a great video, to clarify the little mistakes in a great Movie !! *********
The British Press wasnt a free press either
The first casualty in any war, is the truth.
I have seen this movie many times. I remember some scenes by heart. Epic!
"Your father is dead, your brothers are dead! Avenge us on the Fascists..." Damn, this could've been a great movie
The 'untrained and unarmed' Soviet soldiers being offered either a rifle or ammo is a myth. Several historians have come to same conclusion. It was simply German propaganda that was over-used by everyone. Several contemporary accounts by Soviet soldiers who were there state the opposite. All left the trains fully armed and although training was often brief (1 month or so), the scene as depicted in the movie is simply based on myth.
This man learned from Call of Duty
3:14 "Astonishingly realistic..." yup, thank you, don't need to see any further... Soviet soldiers endured a lot of shit, done a lot of shit but there is no historical account of them going without rifles. Rifles were not enough and thus soldiers (rightfully) complained they had no machine guns or artillery, but no weapons at all is a complete fabrication and discredits this pro in a second.
I guess they had Antoinette Beaver as the consultant for this film. You can count on that Russophobe to come up with that kind of non-sense.
The fact that this man presents himself as a historian focused on Soviet Union and then first thing he does is that he calls the scene of unarmed soviet troops being sent into Stalingrad as realistic is a complete joke. The idea that Soviets sent unarmed troops into battle is complete hogwash mostly based on this movie.
He keeps on repeating the nonsense of the soviet meatgrinder, historian my arse
It's not totally inaccurate. Maybe not with Red Army troops, but they did send half armed 'worker battalions' against the Germans at Leningrad and Stalingrad. Other than that, the movie sucked. More fiction than historical reality.
@@scottkrater2131 The tankies and vatniks purposefully ignore that part, or claim it never happened. The army forced civilians and "prisoners" into cannon fodder units to be sent at German lines, often with little to no weapons. Its amusing that so many people that provide "sources" against the human wave tactics and other horrid Soviet atrocities try to directly cite Soviet sources. Soviet sources that, I shouldn't need to say, were heavily altered and fictionalized to be very favorable to the Soviets. Shocker.
Around minute 8 he states that it is highly unlikely Soviet forces would have been sent into battle without weapons.
My grandfather fought in Stalingrad for the Germans. He never spoke much about that part of the war other than it was so bad, words couldn't describe the horrors
cross of iron says "hold my pint".....
STEINER !!!
*Schnapps
19:30 The Soviet Anthem with lyrics wouldn't exist until after the Battle of Stalingrad
Since one of the lyics literally reads:
"Banner of the Soviets, the banner of the people,
May it lead from victory to victory!"
Hard to seriously sing that when you're going from defeat to defeat. The lyrics were officially published in November '43 and first played in '44
In fact, this Stalinless version didn't exist until decades later.
You say that Stalingrad had no strategic value.
That is not true
Taking Stalingrad would have blocked the Volga, a vital route for resources to the Soviets.
So many Stalingrad experts with almost academic knowledge here. I'll be happy to see their own video's on the subject.
The sovjets weren't stupid. They crossed the Volga during the night, not day.
Not one step back was very common and only meant that soldiers could not reatreat on their own.
If the commander chose he could command an organized retreat just fine.
As evil as Stalin and sovjet russia where, you don't have to lie about it.
My biggest issue with this film is that it shows snipers aiming for the head.
Most snipers were trained to shoot at the torso because it's a larger target. Constantly hitting headshots would be a supernatural feet especially on moving targets.
This is one of the most unrealistic war movie ever
No, I think War & Peace, American version with Audrey Hepburn, where they have a battle on a golf course!
You should review the German Movie Stalingrad... It's such a great film and much better than enemy at the gate. Greetings from Berlin :)