Keitel had more sense than either his fellow generals or indeed history gives him credit for. He was right about Barbarossa and he was right when he commented that Italy was only a burden on Germany p
@@grantsmythe8625, Bullshit!, Keitel had no balls, he spent his whole time during WW2 kissing the feet of Hitler, he was bad general he had no military skills like Guderian, Jold, Manstein etc, Keitel was more an office secretary than a General.
Many intelligent People advise the US State Department to refrain from attacking Russia today. The Investor Class who like profits a bit too much, want the resources inside Russia.
Not really, most of Hitlers generals supported the idea of invading the Soviet union, it had to happen at least from Nazi Germany's viewpoint. It's not that I wouldn't call the whole invasion a mistake, but there were a lot of mistakes committed during the operation that shouldn't have happened.
@@red-gp9ohh Stalin's paranoia killing off Officers was a foolish gesture as well, but Zukov survived and became a Hero of the conflict. Germans who assumed the removal of Hitler seemed to overlook the thought that the Krupps may have found another Painter to fill the position. As the USA insists that lies of Condi Rice and Collin Powell were simple misstatements, that became repeated constantly to enable sending 500,000 prestaged Troops to invade Iraq. The US conflicts since the Spanish American Colonial Conflict, appear to be directed at producing Colonies for production of Cheap Goods. BRICS involvement in assembling many of the USA Colonies into a Trade Union appear to have provoked this conflict. The inflation appeared to increase after the former colonies began to trade among themselves and with BRICS Member Nations. We could discuss the involvement in War plans in 1960 that appeared to influence US involvement in Vietnam? But that is a related but distracting issue.
I think the declarence of war on the US was more of a formality, because they already helped the allies, it was not their intention to invade the us as far as i can tell, but just sink their ships.
@@danielw5466 Nonsense, the Declaration of War on the US was telling. Where were they going to stop. Certainly the the Atlantic Ocean would not keep them in Europe. Their big mistake was poking the Bear. He said if they break down the door the rest of the rotten structure would collapse regarding Russia. How wrong was he. He lost about 80% of his army. And over 75 thousand troops were marched off to Siberia. And that was just the Eastern front.
They both had good points. It's easy to look back and see who was wrong because we know how it turned out, but at the time they probably both made sense.
It was a difficult decision for us to start the war with Russia whilst we were still at war with England and had to occupy large parts of Europe. Every month has shown how right the Fuhrers decision was. If we had not attacked, the Russians, with their concentration of 20,000 tanks would have launched a thrust against us. We must openly admit that no army in the world could have withstood this thrust. Like Attila, the russians would have marched through the whole of Europe. Himmler
@@julianmarsh8384 Germany was blessed with wise and selfless generals, and any such general of any nation will urge their leader to exhaust other alternatives to war, because they know all to well what war does to all sides involved even under the best of circumstances.
Not really. Although I've learned lately that LaKeitel might have had a little more nuance to him than has been generally acknowledged. Still a stooge who wasn't up to the task.
It was a difficult decision for us to start the war with Russia whilst we were still at war with England and had to occupy large parts of Europe. Every month has shown how right the Fuhrers decision was. If we had not attacked, the Russians, with their concentration of 20,000 tanks would have launched a thrust against us. We must openly admit that no army in the world could have withstood this thrust. Like Attila, the russians would have marched through the whole of Europe. Himmler
nah, this was Paulus that warned the high command that the soviets have a lot more armies behind the lines and this was not a good idea, guderian wanted to focus um moscow and leningrad without the oil and fertile lands from south ukraine and the caucasus, the guy would literally make things even horrible if it was him commanding everything
Hitler and high ranking of OKW knew in detail what mean CCCP. From the footsoldiers to the generals. They knew also the chance to win this kind of war are very slim. Last 24 hours comunication of Hitler and henchmen are public today. Even the last call of Hitler. Start with this and you will have a better picture of the 21 June 1941 counterstrike.
Excellent again. Thank You. Halder, The Chief of the General Staff in 1941, said that the Germans never would have got as far as they did if they had attacked earlier as planned. The roads were to muddy.
don't forget!! the reason the Operation was postponed because Italy failed in the Balkans and Greece. took material and manpower from the eastern front. Hence the wait. Italy was burden.. Yes, I do believe Russia was going to attack Germany in 1942, hence all those forces so near the eastern border.
the negativity towards the Wehrmacht always shows the Western Narrative...the Germans were stupid and etc. Yes Russia was going to attack Germany. no doubt.
I had always bought into the theory that the balken delay prior to the invasion was just long enough to cost germany the initiative,hence the war,in 1941. Nicely countered,thank you.
@@aldosigmann419 The weather argument is stupid, winter affects both sides ffs. They invaded at the last possible moment because of oil shortages and 2 weeks they lost on Yugo was irelevant in that sence. They lost the war because of oil shortages.
@@ratkovac7 You’re spouting gibberish. The delay caused by the Balkan incursion has often been cited as shortening the campaign season. My point was it didn’t matter as the weather was foul till late in the spring anyway. As to the ultimate failure of Barbarossa there are numerous reasons - oil was only one of them.
@@ratkovac7 "The weather argument is stupid..." No, actually the weather was bad ( heavy rain) in the spring of 1941 so AH had to wait until late June to invade.
@@ratkovac7 Winter is favorable to a defender since both armies can't maneuver. Plus the logistics aspect kicks in which were also beneficial to the Russians.
They were both right - Keitel from a kind of conventional way of thinking - Hitler from a more intuitive way of thinking. I think the clash of ideologies was inevitable - better to have the battle on someone else's backyard than yours...
It was nothing to do with a clash of ideologies. Stalin had no ambition to export Sovietism to Western Europe at that time. Socialism in One Country was the policy he established stood by. His territorial ambitions grew opportunistically in the wake of Germany’s losses. Likewise, Hitler’s designs on Eastern Europe were not ideologically motivated, but rather driven by his ambition to attain territory for Germany’s ‘surplus population’ (he sought a contiguous German border that would engulf most of Eastern Europe). He did not seek to export National Socialism to the Slavic populations, but rather sought to subjugate them to serve a Germanic racial aristocracy.
@@thebrocialist8300 Stalin proposed twice to Hitler if he could join the axis if he could annex big parts of eastern Europe and Finland. What are you talking about?
Regarding the military campaign against the Soviet Union. First of all it should be clearly understood that at the time of the Balkans campaign in Yugoslavia and Greece in early 1941when we had 10 divisions on the entire length of the Soviet border the Russians had stationed 247 major military formations on our border. After the conclusion of the Balkans campaign we then quickly placed at most 170 major military units on the border with the Soviet Union. The Russians had readied themselves for an attack. The initial successes of our forces against the Soviets were due to the fact that the Russians were not stationed in defensive positions but were instead positioned right at the front for attack which made it possible for us to quickly encircle large Soviet forces. Thus in the first few weeks of the war we were able to capture more than 3 million Soviet prisoners of War as well as enormous quantities of War equipment all of which was on the frontier positioned for attack. That's the truth of the matter which can be proven. I recently spoke with a Mr pencil who was a long-range aerial reconnaissance pilot in the period before the beginning of the Soviet campaign; he flew as far as the Don River and observed and reported on this enormous concentration of Soviet forces on the Border. Soviet foreign minister Molotov demanded the Dardanelles. That is, we were supposed to approve the turning over of foreign territory which belonged to the Turks. Molotov thus made provocative demands which simply could not be met. Hitler was also conscious of the Soviet takeover of territory in Romania at a time of supposed peace. Hitler also knew that the anti-german uprising in Belgrade, Yugoslavia was organized by the Soviets. Tt was the Russians who wrecked the relationship between Germany and the Soviet Union and after he received more and more reports of Soviet preparations for an attack against Germany and Europe Hitler reacted. I am thus absolutely certain that Hitler did not originally plan to attack the Soviet Union instead he acted as the changing situation demanded. I also know from my own experience in the Russian campaign and with the Russian prisoners about the preparations by the Soviets for an imminent attack against Europe. The Russians were hoping that we would move against Britain so that they could take advantage of the situation to overrun Europe.e hoping that we would move against Britain so that they could take advantage of the situation to overrun Europe
Depends. The Russian railroads were a different gage than the German. The rails had to be reset as the Germans advanced. Even if they had started earlier there still was no way to get fuel to put Moscow under siege or encircle it. The winter clothing was in warehouses around Warsaw. No rail capacity to take it to the front. Fuel and ammo only. Russian roads were terrible and bulk logistics had to go by rail. The mistake Hitler made was listening to his Generals and going for Moscow without clothes or fuel. If they had dug in October '41, stocked up supplies, rebuilt their Panzer divisions, Victory in '42 would probably have happened.
Keitel wasn't the only German who had visited the USSR and saw their military capabilities. I believe it was Goering who visited an aircraft plant and witnessed a manufacturing facility that was bigger than all the German aircraft plants combined. Hitler was the classic example of a man promoted far beyond his capabilities, the "Peter Principle" epitomized in one Austrian Corporal. It was like the janitor telling the CEO how to run the company.
I definitely don't agree with this. Just as AH said, if they delayed the attack, the USSR would have only gotten stronger, but war was inevitable either way. I think the more closely you analyze AH's strategic actions, the more you realize that every one of them made complete sense. It's just that - from an outsider's perspective, with 20/20 vision and many decades in the future - it doesn't always seem rational or 'decent'. The sad fact was that both AH and Keitel were completely correct in their assessment of the situation.
Except the first reports after Barbarossa started reported massive formations of aircraft and armor stationed at the borders. War was coming to Germany regardless, and the characterization of Hitler as a simple, incompetent military leader is a parody passed down by history.
Even without the 6 week delay Barbarossa was DOOMED! logistics, climate (winter ), fighting on 2 fronts, Japan attacking USA, ( freed up soviet divisions ) totally Doomed!
Because the Poles seized lands that did not belong to them, these are the lands of Belarus and Ukraine. Poland itself was an invader and an aggressor . Vilnius was also captured by the Poles and returned to Lithuania only thanks to the USSR
Keitel was right. I would go further to say attacking Poland served no other purpose than eliminating a very good buffer Germany had against USSR. Germany could’ve striked France and Britain before Poland, and would be easier to make Britain capitulate without the need to consider a soviet attack, since to get Germany, the soviets would essentially need to go against the Western powers directly by attacking Poland on their own expense.
Poland was part of the plan from the beginning. The Germans wanted their ancestral lands back that they lost after WW1. Prussia was occupied by Poland. So, at least to the Germans, it wasn’t an option to leave Poland alone. General Guderian mentions this in one of his memoirs.
@@pogveteranar9415 Germany still held most Prussia. It was mostly about Kashubia/Eastern Pomerania. Reaquiring this region has been a topic for every German government since 1919. Hitler even tried diplomatic routes, as he offered Slovakia in exchange for it (a very bad trade that Poles declined). Then, he put promises of future anexation of Ukraine If Poland joined against the Soviets, what was even worse of a deal.
Poland was guaranteed by the UK, but it was highly debatable if this guarantee would be enforced against the Soviets. British idea was containment of future German aggression. Neither the UK nor France cared about the unimportant Poland that was left in Soviet sphere of influence after the war, just like Czechoslovakia. A direct war between Soviets and Germans would only benefit the allies.
It’s interesting how England and France backing Poland cause the poles to be less willing to negotiate with Germany. Therefore causing the war that England wanted. Just like Ukraine today the west backed them causing them not to negotiate with Russia. Did the poles really think that the west would save them? Obviously they were stupid enough as history shows.
The other item never asked is what if the Germans focused on North Africa and the Middle East before launching Barbarossa? If they take Malta, Egypt, the Suez Canal and get into the Middle East what does Britain do without the Suez Canal? Doe it make them come to the table being knocked out of the Med and losing the Suez Canal and losing easier access to the Eastern part of the empire? Does Turkey join the Axis with the carrot of getting back territory of the old Ottoman empire and maybe tying Soviet division down in the Caucuses due to Turkey? How much oil does that bring online for Germany?
Germany/Italy did not the shipping capacity nor the ports in Africa necessary to support such a large force as needed to capture the areas you note. That is why Rommel was told to defend and harass the British but not attempt a major offensive. The logistics just weren't there.
I believe 1941 was their best chance. It just didn't work out. It was a gamble and it failed but it was the best option they had under the circumstances. It didn't fall short by much and waiting would only have helped to allow the Soviet Union to be better prepared to defend itself. The UK was not going to be defeated without an invasion and an invasion was not feasible for years. Sea Lion was just a bit of misinformation to fool the Soviets and there is plenty of evidence that no one ever took it seriously due to the Royal Navy. The campaign in Greece and the region was necessary and you go to war with the army and the allies you have. All the rest is from the benefit of hindsight and even the western allies felt the Soviet Union was going to fall just as Hitler and the Wehrmacht had planned during Barbarossa. Few people in the west appreciated the vastness of the country and it's ability to withstand the pressure politically or militarily. I have always felt this was a roll of the dice that gave the highest chance of success. Another problem is that so many Wehrmacht officers changed their stories and their memoirs are completely unreliable as pieces of historical evidence due to Halders cooperation with the US and UK in the post war period. He oversaw the whitewashing of the high command and the falsification of the historical record. A shift of blame and responsibilities onto Hitler and his cronies. This plan was captured on surveillance recording while in custody and is well known.
This is exactly my opinion as well. Without hindsight it was a reasonable plan especially based on the poor performance of Russia in WW1 and then during the War with Poland in the 20’s and the failed invasion of Finland in 1940. However, the very poor level of their knowledge of Soviet military strength should have given pause to German planners.
@@JohnnyAloha69 Yes, it is strange they did not have a better grasp of Soviet military strength due to the way the two secretly collaborated inside the Soviet Union to get around limitations in German military power due to the treaty of Versailles. They seem to have been in the best position to have understood it thoroughly. I think what surprised them was the way the common Soviet citizen rallied to their government and how their industry was able to rapidly crank out materials that rivaled the US and Britain combined.
Russia had 3X the population of Germany & much greater wealth in natural resources, & could produce tanks in much greater quantities than Germany could ever hope to produce. Keitel was correct that Germany's inability to defeat Britain meant that significant manpower would have to remain in the West during Barbarossa. Meanwhile, the number crunchers in the German bureaucracy were trying to warn Hitler & the generals that behind the front lines, the German army would not have sufficient logistics to support 3.5 million soldiers deep within Soviet territory--but their warnings were largely unheeded. Nazi beliefs in the racial inferiority of Slavic people duped most of them into believing that the Russian soldiers would not fight hard. Barbarossa was unnecessary & unwinnable.
@@georgeschaut2178 I strongly dissagree. Barbarossa was Hitlers desperate last option. We constantly forget that the Nazi ideology is the key reason why Hitler was doomed. He was so focused on Russia that he ignored his generals/admirals who advocated to crush the British in the Mediterranian and Middle East first and get oil there. With the war with England going on and on top the Partisan-resistance in Russia due to his terrible extermination-policy, then the war against Soviet Union became unwinnable. But under a different non-nazi leadership the Soviet Union could be crushed for sure: securing Middle East first would make capture of oil rich Caucaus possible and by befriending liberated folks like ukrainians, baltics and cosacs the millions of liberated people would support the war against bloody Communism. On top: Germany had actually double the ammount of coal and steel than Soviet Union but due to terrible mismanagement, no-in-depth-armament-policy and very late willingness to wage total war the german productivity was low and started to catch up by 1944, waaay too late to make a difference. And by 1944, when all big war-waging countries were in total war, the US and USSR were already in such a war economy since 1942. Hitler lost the war in 1940, when he was unable to forge alliances against his foes due to his blind devotion to Nazism and his fear of civil unrest if he demands a full war economy. Even as late as December 1942 the average german factories operated only 8, maybe 10 hours a day, while in other countries it was 16 hours or more. Germany had enough steel to build twice as many tanks as the Soviets and Axis-Europe had twice the population than Soviet Union. War is a team vs team game and luckily the Nazis and Commies both sucked, but the Soviets were lucky to play the victim-card after being attacked by Hitler and they ruled over the largest country in the world, making successful invasion by anybody very difficult and on top were hugely supported by Land-Lease and still they needed more than 3 years to crush Hitler because of terrible tactics...
Contrary to the opinions of some, Keitel wasn't just a paper pushing lackey...he knew what all the others failed to calculate into the equation. I often wondered how a nation that's world renowned for it's mathematical prowrres could fail to see the epic miscalculation here.
Yes Keitel was definitely right. Barbarossa should have never happened in the first place. The war against Soviet Russia was not something that was avoidable, but Germans should have taken a defensive position. They had the whole Europe anyway. That's what happens when you throw ideology into the mold ... "lebensraum". In my opinion, even if Germany had captured Moscow in '41 or '42, they still wouldn't have been able to win the war. One should not forget that Stalin moved his factories in the East, beyond the Urals, and he would have never stopped attacking.
Keitel's reservations about attacking the Soviet Union are overstated here and only regarded timing. Keitel was put on Hitler's staff for being a compliant political hack, not for his military prowess and certainly not for any ability to command large forces anywhere. The main reason Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was doomed from the start was the sheer vastness of the Soviet Union which made any extent of initial military superiority irrelevant. Very simply, regardless of weather the Germans weren't going to be able to adequately supply their forces in such an enormous country, the same problem that doomed Napoleon's Russian invasion in 1812. In addition along with roughly 3,000,000 German troops, among the invaders were roughly 1,000,000 troops allied with the Nazis, including Rumanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians and others. Those 1,000,000 or so troops were of inferior quality to their German counterparts and often more of a liability to the Germans than a help to them. Only the highly militarily competent Finns were not a liability to the Germans. But the Finns wisely limited their participation in the German invasion to retaking territory lost to the Soviets during the 1939-40 Russo Finnish War and to creating a modest buffer against the Soviets. After the tide turned the Finns also wisely withdrew their troops from the Soviet Union thus avoiding the fate of future Warsaw Pact Soviet Satellite nations such as Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Bulgaria.
Initial military superiority becoming irrelavent in the vastness of the Soviet collosus.....you hit the nail on the head! But i still say if it wasn't for the two fronted war and with the the USA as the allied arsenal,Germany and Russia would have fought one another to a standstill!
@@janmale7767I'm not so sure about that though declaring war on the U.S. was even a worse blunder than invading the Soviet Union. The Soviets had far more reason to hate and fear the Nazis than the Russians had to fear Napoleon in 1812. Hitler drew the wrong conclusions from Russia's dismal performances in World War I and in the 1939-1940 Russo Finnish war. Unlike those wars, defending against Hitler's 1941 invasion was literally a war of survival in which falling into German hands was a death sentence for many.
@gumdeo I'm not so sure about that. They were certainly involved later in that war in the Soviet Union though initially the numbers of them may have been quite small. Hitler's war in the Soviet Union involved soldiers from many nations. There were even "volunteer" soldiers from neutral countries like Spain fighting in the Soviet Union although relatively not many from countries like Spain.
Hitler: "I know! Let's invade a country that covers eleven time zones!! I mean, what will they do? Retreat until we run out of steam?" Keital: "Uh, yeah, that's about it."
The success of Operation Barbarossa depended on the collapse of the Soviet government. This was the expectation of German, British and U.S. intelligence and was not unreasonable given the execution of a million people in the Great Terror, including 40,000 Red Army officers, the ongoing crisis of Stalin and henchmen including Stalin’s dismissal of 137 intelligence reports warning of an imminent invasion. Germany could never sustain a long war and after the Battle of Moscow it was only a matter of time.
I would say a civilian leader should make experts speak freely and listen to them with respect and patience. then make a decision and explain it to everyone.
He also didn’t agree with the annexation of Czechoslovakia or Austria nor the invasion of Poland, Belgium, Holland and certainly not France. I don’t think he agreed with anything if I was to hazard a guess. He was however correct about one thing - the Italians 🤣🤣
@@xander9564 Thats not to say it absolves all blame from italy. Mussolini by 1938-40 always bragged how the military was up-to-par with germany and other allied countries plus he didn't hesitate to invade greece thinking it was no match for italy. If he thought italy was not ready for war he wouldn't have had done what he done.
@@stefanchr7715 It appears Mussolini was in denial. Marshall Badoglio told Mussolini the Italian military was in no condition to fight a war, and Mussolini angrily dismissed him.
Exactly, they didn't just call him LACKEYtel for nothing. Besides, despite being the OKW Chief-Of-Staff(equivalent to Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff in the Pentagon), he was held in so low regard that once when he passed across an infantryman and the guy started fearing disciplinary action for not saluting, Army Chief Of Staff Franz Halder came from behind and assured him to relax coz "it's just Keitel". Goering went even further, calling Keitel as "the mind of a Staff Sargent trapped in the uniform of a Field Marshall".
I think it was the right move if America could have been kept out of the war and Germany and its allies had gained the time and focus needed to win in the east in a series of successful summer campaigns, as a backup plan to the hoped-for Barbarossa lightning win. To win it all that first year was basically asking for the impossible, or close to it -- like requiring a bowler to score 300 in order to win a prize.
Germany should never have gone to war with Russia. Because of the fact that there is no proper roads and the size of the Country. And my Father always said that the Italian army was useless and many times,, Hitler had to waste our time on fixing up their problems.
" A permanent alliance with the powers of destiny can never be forged " - Keitel . Has a few meanings for example "forged" as in to hammer out a shape with heat and force in iron or "forged" as in made counterfeit ? wonder what he meant ?
pretty sure he meant forged like with a hammer. Although i couldnt find the original version, in german "forged" (like a blacksmith does) is common when talking about alliances. Thus meaning you cant create an alliance with destiny
7:00 Germany lost the war just in time. If they hadn't surrendered in early 1945 and the war continued and continue fighting another year, instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it would have been Frankfurt and Berlin. I was stationed in Germany during the 70s. Germans who lived through the war told me that everyone knew the was over in 43. German news radio stations at the time were reporting that Germany was being thrown back on the Russian Front, but was actually winning the war by won by attrition. Germans told me everyone knew this was nonsense, because German soldiers were coming back from the Russian front because of a lost arm or leg. They told their families that Germany was losing the war and it was just a matter of time. Germans did not bother to listen to the German Radio stations and would tune in to the BBC. The BBC could be relied upon because it was 100% honest even when the war was not going in the allies favor.
The BBC did not tell lies the way the German news did, but it was not entirely honest. It did not report the loss of RMS Lancastria or HMS Barham. This is important, because it's a strange thing that if news is suppressed at the time, it is forgotten forever. Most people with at least a little interest in WW2 will have heard of the loss of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse, but very few know about the Barham and hardly anyone has heard of the Lancastria, even though it was a shocking tragedy.
You are absolutely correct. Otto von Bismarck, famous for his adroit diplomacy in keeping the peace, once said, never go to war in the east (Russia) for it will be your destruction. They were lucky to win the Battle of Tannenberg in 1914, but not so lucky with Barbarossa. After Stalingrad, I'm sure it was obvious to any thinking German, that it was over.
I think you're correct. There was no way for Germany to achieve a quick blitzkrieg knockout of the Soviet Union which was the only kind of war they could win given their limited resources. So no matter the planning tweaks the war in the east still becomes a war of attrition Germany could not win.
The generals that outlived Hitler liked to argue in interrogation, and later their memoirs, that Hitler always rejected their advice, ultimately causing them to lose the war. But recent scholarship dismisses this take. The generals were fully supportive of Barbarossa, believing the USSR would collapse in a matter of weeks. This belief was fundamental doctrine in high command. But if the USSR failed to collapse, the invasion was doomed, no matter the timing. The Wehrmacht was suoerior, but didn't have enough soldiers, equipment, and oil to win against an collosal enemy that refused to surrender.
this is fantastic the viewers are being asked by the narrator on events that happened before most viewers were born on issues that have no knowledge best video ever
Funny how Keitel was wrong about literally everything regarding Barbarossa: 1. German forces were dispersed and could not launch an effective offensive. Flat out wrong: Barbarossa amassed 3.8 million troops (3 million of which were Germans) and was the largest land invasion in history. 2. The amassed army could not defeat the Red Army. Flat out wrong: 4 million Russian soldiers were either killed or POW's by the end of Barbarossa (that's about all Russian casualties in the three years of WW1 done in four months). The magic of the Soviet Union was not that the Red Army was strong, it was that they were able to amass a second army after the first one had been wiped out: that they had a second Red Army formed out of thin air. Had Keitel written "we cannot defeat [the iron will of the Soviet people/Soviet government/Josef Stalin take your pick] and they will never surrender even if they lose their entire army" he would've been in the ballpark. But he wasn't. He was flat out wrong. The remaining points Hitler debunked himself: "no matter how bad 1941 is, it's only gonna get worse in '42, or '43, or '44, or onwards."
What few people really get, is the threat that the Soviets posed to Germany and how this fear of Bolshevism garnered Adolf so much support. I've read autobiographies of Germans who served in WW2 and they all state they were fighting communism which was a threat at home, with huge riots and brawls occuring in cities between communists and the Freikorps. The Weimar govt. secretly supported the Fk, because of the threat. The German state of Bavaria's govt. was overthrown by communists and the govt. had to send in the army to throw them out. Furthermore, after 1933, Germany was cutting back it's trade in order to escape the world banking system control and this meant they had to conquer Russia for food, raw materials and OIL. From AH pov, he HAD to invade the USSR or die trying. Germany just did not have the resources to ve self sufficient in the modern age. In fact, lack of adequate farmland and opportunity had driven German emmigration for centuries. The eldest son got the family farm as an inheritance, or the farm was broken up, but could not support large families.
I have my doubts about the farmland theory. Germany is quite rich of agricultural land, it's pretty flat all the way to the Alps border. They might have been more dependent of imports and didn't have colonies like Great Britain to cultivate and import cattle food from but sure they weren't starving.
@@wr1120 It's not a question if Germany had enough farmland in total, but whether the farmer's sons had enough land to cultivate and make a living on their own. In the 1800s particularly, there was a population explosion in Germany that drove emmigration. My ancestors came to the US because of this.
@@fazolewhat may be interresting for your perspektive is the meeting in 1939 in Theran between Churchill and Stalin. Churchill made a pencilstrike on a map from europe, streight through Berlin and offerd Stalin the land east from Berlin if he joins Britain. Stalin wanted resources and 4years of preperation. That was the landlease act. Stalins hope was germany will defeat england and he got that for free. After a communication between AH and Stalin later on, AH offered Stalin to share the Kolonies from england with Russia, Stalins answer was it is not nessesary. AH then stoppt the plan invading england and instead went east bevore Stalin can produce enough millitäry equipment. The rest is history.
Germany was militarily not as strong as often described as the historians .. France alone should have been able to defeat Germany. The weak leadership and the unpreparedness have made France capitulated just in a matter of days
Yeah, it's bull. Germany could have never won against the USSR. They had EVERYTHING going for them in the initial drive and still fell well short of Moscow. That last desperate November push was doomed from the start, and, if Stalingrad is any example, getting to a city is nowhere close to capturing it, especially a city as big as Moscow. The moment the USSR stopped the drive to Moscow the war was lost for the Germans.
I agree with Keitel if Italy had stayed neutral it would have free up a lot of troops and air forces that could be used in the east. Ammo fuel and the Africa corp.
The Germans should have constructed more defences in Poland at the beginning of the war .A defensive fighter was required against Britain. The development of a long range bomber to fly against Moscow . At least double the amount of oil capacity .Better winter preparation for the solder. The U Boats were a failure. Only bombed military targets in Britain which was far more effective .The code system was cracked and no one can understand why the Germans didn’t find out .
Battle of Atlantic ,Battle of Britain , Russian Front . North Africa , Didn’t shut down Gibraltar . Normandy defence 4000 miles . In total a minimum of 8000 miles of front against 21 countries with little oil and horse back .
Hitler had no other choice but to invade USSR. He could have stopped before attacking Poland. After that there was no turning back. He made other mistakes and his lack of cooperation with his allies sealed his fate. Japan was fighting its own war, Italy was weak. The problem was that USSR could afford mistakes while Germany could not.
Stalin was planning on attacking Western Europe. The Soviets had been making heavy tanks that exactly fit the width dimensions of roads in Western Europe and many of those heavy tank designs lacked any real cross-country capabilities in their initial engine power.
Read somewhere the German quartermaster general estimated being able supply the German army up to six months. Then there would be insufficient logistical support to maintain the offensive. Not enough motor transport.
The germans did not have enough tanks or aircraft to beat Russia only 3500 of each. This is what caused them delays in their attacks. If they had 6000 they would have won
Germany really had little resources. It’s amazing how they achieved with what little they had. Even if they had conquered Moscow, it would be pointless
@@mikegillihan4546 Germany did not have fuel shortages in 1941. In fact their fuel stores rose until at least late in 1942. By late 1943 shortages began to take a toll on operations and by 1944 they were severe.
The Italians were a burden from start to finish. Both the North African and Balkan campaigns sucked in men and materiel that could have been put to better use.
The whole WW2 was useless for Germany and to invade Poland was a very big geopolitical mistake as it was a strong anti communist buffer between Germany and the Soviet Union. There are geopolitical, strategical and tactical levels. WW2 was disastrous on a geopolitical level for Germany. On other levels, they got success. Hitler thought badly. After Anschluss, the German question was solved at 98%.
Basic rule of military confrontation as stated by Bernard Law Montgomery, 1. Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: never attack Russia. But don't expect little Napoleon in Paris to understand why.
Germany needed the resources that Russia had to continue to fight their wars. They wanted Caspian Oil and Minerals in Russia. Today the G-7 Nations have lost their Colonial Empires to BRICS Trade Union. They want the resources inside Russia, as well as the ability to exploit their former Colonies. The lessons that Hitler was given by Stalin, appear to be ignored by Contemporary Greedy Individuals. Profits are more important than peace.
@@danielhutchinson6604 Operation Barbarossa could not have happened without support from Romania with it's oil industry. This is a reason why the US air force has attacked Ploiesti multiple times. This makes the present anti-russian politics of Romania very disgusting.
@@danieloehler2494 I am sure a few Romanian POW spent a lot of time assembling things in some Russian Industry. The NAZI Attacks on US Troops in Sicily to the Caspian Oil fields the German attacks took a lot of fuel. More than Romania could provide apparently? Yes Romania, like Rome traded sides, and went with the flow. Victoria Nuland may have mentioned that or Romania enjoying shiny Airfields that cost them nothing. Like Sonny and Cher said, "The Beat Goes On."
Thank you for your video. Much stated I agree with. The Italians were definitely a hindrance however, the British were forced to deploy significant forces against them. Without the dispersal of the royal navy, the Uboat effect against Britain would have been much less effective. It was also unrealistic to believe Russia would collapse after the fall of Moscow. Any invasion of Russia would have been a very prolonged campaign. Declaring war on the USA was a significant detriment to the defeat of the USSR. It is questionable if the USA would have declared war on Germany after Pearl Harbor and if it did, it is very doubtful the USA would have had a Germany first approach. The amount of material shipped to the USSR greatly reduced the recovery of the Red Army. The treatment of Ukraine was a mistake, the independence movement would have been much stronger against the USSR and would have made a difference in a prolonged war situation. However, Hitler only saw Ukraine as German living space and the people as serfs. In any case, the USSR would have taken prolonged effort and Japan would never have invaded from the east to help defeat the USSR.
Germany at the start was too weak to such war. They needed about half of the year to begin to attack France after war in Poland in 1939, and they started it with the same amount of medium tanks and light tanks, but for war with two imperia and with a group of smaller countries at the west. Next year (1941) this small taking into account number of tanks, vehicles and planes was pushed against USSR and shortly against USA. Total stupidity. Delay caused by Italy was the next enormous problem.
I'm no expert in military matters but one only has to look at the map of Russia and then ask: how can any army conquer such an immense landmass ? The logistics alone are a nightmare. The Weather, the Geography, the scarcity of good roads an army needs to move huge amounts of armored vehicles and material. Did Hitler ever bother to read what happened to Napoleon when he went there ? Erich Von Meinstein was one of the few Generals who had the courage to call Hitler an idiot to his face.
I would destroy the Russian military in Poland or western Ukraine where I might have a logistical superiority . And after wipeing it out I would move in on broad front into Russia like Germany did in World war 1 when it won the war there. I would also invest resources in roads and railroads. Balts and Ukrainians should not have been mistreated. The Russian military have larger numbers, but Germany can still win if it manages to encircle Russian troops and cut off their logistical supplies and thereby strangle one Russian army to death after another. German superiority in tactics and mobile warfare and its equipment with superior firepower could balance out Soviets superior numbers. And with defeat after defeat would morale in Russian society fall apart. And the economy would fall apart as well with higher inflation and food shortages. People might rise up like it did in 1917 and kick out their ruling regime and install a new one that would accept any peace terms no matter how horrible. When the Swedes invaded Russia in 1707-1709 it probable came close to destroying Russia in that regard. The Russian army had suffered one humiliating defeat after another: Narva, Rauge, Saladen, Jakobstadt, Gemäuerthof, Grodno, Fraustadt, Holowczyn, Malatitze, Rajovka, Veprik etc. So the morale of the Russian army was pretty low in 1709. So had the Russian army been defeated at the battle of Poltava in 1709 it could just have been another of those indecisive victories that Sweden won where Russia lost enormous amounts of men. But a defeat on that scale could also have been the last straw that did break the camels back. The Russian Tsar was unpopular. 9 years of war had led to higher taxes, church bells had been molten down to become iron cannons, manpower losses had been high. People were tired of the war and war exhaustion were high. And Tsar Peter was unpopular among the nobility before the war for his attempts to westernize the country and when he introduced the beard tax. Another crushing military defeat could have made the country rise up in revolution like it did in 1917. Many nobles could see their chance of grabbing power, and a Russian civil war could have been started. And another victory for the Swedes, could have encouraged more of Russias enemies to join the war against Russia. First of all would the Ukrainians who already were pro-Swedish join the Swedes to gain independence from Russia. And Poland which was a Swedish puppet state could see a chance to retake provinces that Russia had stolen from them back in the 1600s. The Ottoman empire had 20 years earlier been at war with Russia and would also be interested in retaking land and destroying one of its most dangerous arch-enemies. And Persia would also be interested in destroying its arch enemy Russia. Sweden did not play its diplomatic cards that well until very late in this war. So here it missed a great oppurtunity, which could have made the odds more even and forced Russia to accepting peace.
Realize, that after Hit. was gone, all the German Generals suddenly agreed that they were against the war, were geniuses and spoke up against the Furhr, but the crazy man didn't listen. IOW, blame the dead guy. Guderian also claims he stood up to the German leader, but of course, he was alone with him at the time! The just forming NATO needed an organized, capable Germany to face the USSR, so the knowledge these generals had about Soviet tactics was deemed invaluable and no one at the time tried to hard to evaluate their claims. You can watch interviews with modern German historians like Söhnke Neitzel and Ralf Ratts who have written on the subject.
The War machine of the third reich was a Formidable fighting force . Had there been a one on one confrontation with the soviets, the war would’ve ended in less than 6 months ( given the speed and precision with which the germans advanced through france and the low countries). We often neglect the fact that the soviets had there entire resources and attention focused on the Germans while the germans had to focus on a thousand other things. Still bravo and salute to the red army for their resolve and strength to fight on.
@@friskyy6989 Watch TIK channel on why the Germans invaded and why they lost. It was about OIL. The German logisticians knew they had enough oil in 1941 for 1000km distance into the USSR. And we see from history, that the invasion stopped at that distance and the German Army had to demotorize and rely more on horses. The choice was Moscow or the drive toward the oil through Ukraine and AH chose to go toward the oil, then double back toward Moscow but using a smaller force, while the rest of his Army sat immobile outside Moscow. Then the bad weather hit and made movement nearly impossible until the freezing winter and by then it was too late.
in my opinion, the idea that Wilhelm Kietel was Hitler's puppet is not correct. On two or three occasions he tried to turn in his resignation and Hitler would not allow him to do that. he was also raised in the tradition of the Prussian field officer corps in that you did what your superiors told you and you kept your mouth shut. that's just the way it was back then, and the way it is in the US Army among officers even to this day. of course nobody wants to admit it, but that is pretty much the way it is. he was a brilliant organizer, and I have very little doubt that as a field Marshal he could have led any division into war that he was given.
For me it will always be a mystery why the germans didn't finish off the englishmen at Dunkirk. How could Hitler invade Russia while not knocking off England like they did to France.
The Germans felt the British were pinned down on the beaches. Always keep in mind the British had no port facilities available at Dunkirk and had to evacuate their soldiers using very small boats to ferry the men out to waiting destroyers. Even the British planners believed that they would only be able to save a maximum of 50,000 men. The German assessment was very similar so they saw no point in throwing their over stretched troops against a well dug in and still numerically superior force. The Germans thought all they had to do was wait a week.
The Germans delayed a major land assault against the British at Dunkirk because their armor was being depleted. The combat losses had been minimal, but mechanical breakdowns were numerous. The Germans still had the bulk of the French army to contend with and did not wish to risk loosing any more armor. Within a fairly short time the German mechanics got most of the armor ready to roll but by then, the evacuation had occurred. This said, I would have attacked full steam against Dunkirk. Germany had only one chance to smash the British EF and that was it. It is even possible that such a complete elimination of the BEF would have led the British to seek some sort of accommodation with Hitler. Peace with Britain means the release of 100 divisions used to occupy France/etc. Additionally there would have been no blockade nor terror bombing of German cities.
"What if" is an addictive mind set. 1941 was the turning point for the WW2 in the west because Germany invaded Russia and later on declared war on the US. Both were strategic blunders which taken together signalled the doom of the Third Reich. It was highly probable that a conflict between Hitler and Stalin would have occurred sometime in the mid 40's. Stalin was certainly preparing for it. There is no certainty that absent Hitler's declaration of war that the US would have made defeating Germany its main priority after Pearl Harbour. The permutations are numerous but in this case we can say that the intentions and decisions of one man made all the difference in world history.
It is easy to see the ‘Catch 22’ situation Hitler had placed himself from this summary. He could not wait longer…but he also could not/should not have attacked then. So, there was never a suitable time. Thus, the failure in the East can be draw right back to its very conception in the mind of Hitler and as clearly laid out in writing in Mein Kampf, as the quest for Lebensraum for the German Herrenvolk; at the expense of the Slavic Untermenschen in the East. The theories, dreams and fantasies of just that…..a fantasist. But, a fantasist clever enough to have dragged a whole nation with him on his fantasy. In essence, this war was always going to lost, at whatever time or date that he ended up in armed conflict against the Soviet Union. Remember the advance had already ground to a terrible halt at the gates of Moscow even BEFORE the USA had enter the fray and BEFORE the US Lend Lease Supplies had started arriving to bolster the Soviet war effort. Once, the USA had entered nothing short of truly discovering a Wunderwaffe (wonder weapon i.e. getting the nuclear bomb) first was going to alter the outcome. (The sheer ability of the USA to produce the amount of war materiel that it did is truly mind-boggling and astounding yet IMHO not recognised or championed enough by the mainstream, popular media/movies who focus endlessly on individual troops or units or actions.) The fantasist then continued dragging Europe, including his own country, through four more bloody years of the worst misery and pain it has known in the entirety of history.
Delaying Barbarossa to 1942 would have made matters worse. By then, Germany's oil reserves would have been depleted, and the Soviets would have been better prepared, while the Brits would have been in a better position to bomb Germany.
Siege of Stalingrad, with shorter supply lines for the germans and a longer supply lines for the russians, didnt end well for Germany. Siege of Moscow would be much worse for the germans in every aspect. Much larger urban area, new definition of the word fanatical, worse logistics and all in all a potential encirclement of an entire army group.
First: Once again, Excellent Scholarship! SALUTE!!! 2nd: It was indeed a blessing, that Keitel & a few others were(was) NOT listened-to, (and that several Fighting-Generals, like the Excellent Rommel!)were ignored or treated-shabbily by 'the-pushy-Staff-Sergent', or,.........! 3rd: ANY German leader or strategist, using the name Barbarossa, in ANY capacity, must have lost his wits; after the One-TRUE-Kaiser drowned on his way into the Holy City, and the catastrophe, of 'the-'Eastern'-front! There simply comes a time, to let a thing go! :(
Just today oil is very very important, we all know the German army used horses for most of their military and the attack on Russia s capital was put on hold because of oil was more important for Hitler and he detected his troops to come back later after the oil was secure, USA helped Russia with trucks and oil after USA entered the war , Germany wasn't ready to go to war against Russia and don't forget about Hitler send his troops to help Mussolini went he needed them in Stalingrad
Politicians should leave war to people who study war and know the difficulty of logistics. Two fronts? Never a good idea. And the logistics for the Soviet Union would be stressed to the breaking point. The Roman Empire understood logistics. Advance, consolidate. Then, slowly advance and consolidate. But the Empire also met their match in different areas of their known world. World domination is next to impossible
i would have never allowed 300k British soldiers trapped defenseless at Dunkirk to escape. then i would've finished off Britain 1st. can you imagine just how difficult for the US to invade Europe then? Hitler even wrote in Mein Kampf, the ultimate sin is to fight a war on two fronts.
Germany could’ve defeated the USSR but it wouldn’t have mattered if they invaded a month earlier. It’s dependent on other factors that arise throughout the campaign
Hitler even commented that had he known the true strength of the Soviet tank numbers at 20,000 rather than the intelligence value of 10,000 tanks they thought the Soviets possessed, he would not have gone ahead with operation Barbarosa. The Germans were very lucky early on but the logistics problems and the lost opportunities to make strategic gains before winter 1941/42 eventually allowed the fighting in the Soviet Union to drag on endlessly to an westerly eventual retreat back to the borders of Germany. Even in the planning of the invasion of the low countries and France the Wermacht high command were hesitant. Fortunately Hitler took the risk of diversionary attacks through Holland and Belgium with the main thrust through the ardenne region, as per the sole high risk strategy put up to him by only one general. The German high command was concerned about a battle of attrition like WW1 again in confronting the British and French. Stalin would have been pleased if the powers in western Europe had ground each other down in a drawn-out battle of attrition.
Well the second world war must have been a disaster for the economy....a few things where positive like the revolution in new machines that evolved during the war....Russia arrived first at Germany changing the destiny of Germany until the Unification later on in time.
Yes, this was a moment of candor on his part during an impromptu discussion with Marshal Mannerheim of Finland, during Hitler's (uninvited) visit to Finland for the Baron's birthday. The Finns placed a microphone in the train car the meeting was being held and for some 30 minutes we have the only taped instance of Hitler engaged in informal conversation.
I think that due to lack of fuel reserves Germany had right from the start of the war Hitler felt he had to attack Russia sooner rather than later but I think he made a mistake believing his Generals when initially trying to win Moscow instead of thrusting to the rich oil fields at Baku in the Caucasus , this would have starved the Soviets of fuel & made them immobile reasonably quickly which was later proved to be correct when the Soviets took the advantage by being able to field massive armoured formations which were very mobile thus beating Germany at they're own game .In the end Russia is a massive country & I think the best Germany could have done was to have forced Stalin to concede defeat giving Germany Western Russia but I think this would have just meant another war further down the line .Hitler did exactly the opposite to what he wrote in Mein Kampf because he ended up fighting on two fronts & declaring war on the USA was a very stupid mistake considering the industrial capacity the USA had.
If Germany had invaded earlier, and managed to get control of the oil fields in the Caucasus in 1941, then things might have turned out differently. However, the whole idea of attacking the Russian bear was preposterous, let alone trying to wage war on two major fronts - three, if you count North Africa.
The Germans couldn't have just let the British be in Greece. The real what if is what if German immediately goes for the Med and the Middle East right after France falls. Therefore, they are in control of the situation and can bring in Greece as an ally before Italy attacks Greece.
Keitel had more sense than either his fellow generals or indeed history gives him credit for. He was right about Barbarossa and he was right when he commented that Italy was only a burden on Germany p
I concur, the area is way too vast to control...the weather too brutal to contend with as well.
Too bad he sat on his hands and decided to play the role of puppet. He was a coward and an incompetent leader. No balls.
@@kingschnitz Keitel had balls. They were just in the dictators pocket but then so were those of every other general.
@@grantsmythe8625, Bullshit!, Keitel had no balls, he spent his whole time during WW2 kissing the feet of Hitler, he was bad general he had no military skills like Guderian, Jold, Manstein etc, Keitel was more an office secretary than a General.
@@zpatrickz81 Tell that to the mongols
Wasn't just Keitel, alot of generals were against it.
Many intelligent People advise the US State Department to refrain from attacking Russia today.
The Investor Class who like profits a bit too much,
want the resources inside Russia.
Not really, most of Hitlers generals supported the idea of invading the Soviet union, it had to happen at least from Nazi Germany's viewpoint. It's not that I wouldn't call the whole invasion a mistake, but there were a lot of mistakes committed during the operation that shouldn't have happened.
@@red-gp9ohh Stalin's paranoia killing off Officers was a foolish gesture as well, but Zukov survived and became a Hero of the conflict.
Germans who assumed the removal of Hitler seemed to overlook the thought that the Krupps may have found another Painter to fill the position.
As the USA insists that lies of Condi Rice and Collin Powell were simple misstatements, that became repeated constantly to enable sending 500,000 prestaged Troops to invade Iraq.
The US conflicts since the Spanish American Colonial Conflict, appear to be directed at producing Colonies for production of Cheap Goods.
BRICS involvement in assembling many of the USA Colonies into a Trade Union appear to have provoked this conflict.
The inflation appeared to increase after the former colonies began to trade among themselves and with BRICS Member Nations.
We could discuss the involvement in War plans in 1960 that appeared to influence US involvement in Vietnam?
But that is a related but distracting issue.
If Keitel had just retired quietely, like his instincs indicated.
The others may have read the tea leaves, leaving Hitler as a liability.
Yet only Keitel, from historical records, was the only General to oppose it directly to Hitler.
Keitel, Jodl, Krebbs, Bugdorf.
Invaded the Soviet Union and then declared war on the U.S. less than six months later-Hitler had a death wish.
I think the declarence of war on the US was more of a formality, because they already helped the allies, it was not their intention to invade the us as far as i can tell, but just sink their ships.
The us practically was at war with them.
To me, Hitler was a gifted lunatic !
@@danielw5466 Nonsense, the Declaration of War on the US was telling. Where were they going to stop. Certainly the the Atlantic Ocean would not keep them in Europe. Their big mistake was poking the Bear. He said if they break down the door the rest of the rotten structure would collapse regarding Russia. How wrong was he. He lost about 80% of his army. And over 75 thousand troops were marched off to Siberia. And that was just the Eastern front.
Japan their ally attacked Pearl.
They both had good points. It's easy to look back and see who was wrong because we know how it turned out, but at the time they probably both made sense.
Well said 👍
Not hardly. Guderian was against it as was Runstedt...and Germany's Minister of Armaments, Dr. Todt, was also opposed...
Anyone can appear to be a genius when applying hindsight
It was a difficult decision for us to start the war with Russia whilst we were still at war with England and had to occupy large parts of Europe.
Every month has shown how right the Fuhrers decision was. If we had not attacked, the Russians, with their concentration of 20,000 tanks would have launched a thrust against us.
We must openly admit that no army in the world could have withstood this thrust. Like Attila, the russians would have marched through the whole of Europe.
Himmler
@@julianmarsh8384 Germany was blessed with wise and selfless generals, and any such general of any nation will urge their leader to exhaust other alternatives to war, because they know all to well what war does to all sides involved even under the best of circumstances.
Keitel was much more capable than he is credited for.
for real
He was very handy with a type-writer, it's true
@@captainhurricane5705 Among other things.
For a pussy, sure.
Not really. Although I've learned lately that LaKeitel might have had a little more nuance to him than has been generally acknowledged. Still a stooge who wasn't up to the task.
Guderian also tried to tell Hitler what he faced in Russia and was against it. Hitler thought he knew more then the Generals.
" he thought he knew more than the generals " that sounds familiar . " I know more than the generals " .
It was a difficult decision for us to start the war with Russia whilst we were still at war with England and had to occupy large parts of Europe.
Every month has shown how right the Fuhrers decision was. If we had not attacked, the Russians, with their concentration of 20,000 tanks would have launched a thrust against us.
We must openly admit that no army in the world could have withstood this thrust. Like Attila, the russians would have marched through the whole of Europe.
Himmler
G, know very well CCCP !
nah, this was Paulus that warned the high command that the soviets have a lot more armies behind the lines and this was not a good idea, guderian wanted to focus um moscow and leningrad without the oil and fertile lands from south ukraine and the caucasus, the guy would literally make things even horrible if it was him commanding everything
Hitler and high ranking of OKW knew in detail what mean CCCP. From the footsoldiers to the generals. They knew also the chance to win this kind of war are very slim. Last 24 hours comunication of Hitler and henchmen are public today. Even the last call of Hitler. Start with this and you will have a better picture of the 21 June 1941 counterstrike.
Excellent again. Thank You. Halder, The Chief of the General Staff in 1941, said that the Germans never would have got as far as they did if they had attacked earlier as planned. The roads were to muddy.
That’s what people don’t understand about good old mother Russia; if the cold don’t get you, the mud and the rasputitsa will.
don't forget!! the reason the Operation was postponed because Italy failed in the Balkans and Greece. took material and manpower from the eastern front. Hence the wait. Italy was burden.. Yes, I do believe Russia was going to attack Germany in 1942, hence all those forces so near the eastern border.
the negativity towards the Wehrmacht always shows the Western Narrative...the Germans were stupid and etc. Yes Russia was going to attack Germany. no doubt.
@@danielb7253 Negativity? I'm getting my information from a book titled, "A Genius For War", written by the U.S. military historian, Trevor N. Dupuy.
In Russia, we don't have roads, only directions))
I had always bought into the theory that the balken delay prior to the invasion was just long enough to cost germany the initiative,hence the war,in 1941. Nicely countered,thank you.
Could have - except the weather as noted nullifies the debate.
@@aldosigmann419 The weather argument is stupid, winter affects both sides ffs. They invaded at the last possible moment because of oil shortages and 2 weeks they lost on Yugo was irelevant in that sence. They lost the war because of oil shortages.
@@ratkovac7 You’re spouting gibberish. The delay caused by the Balkan incursion has often been cited as shortening the campaign season. My point was it didn’t matter as the weather was foul till late in the spring anyway. As to the ultimate failure of Barbarossa there are numerous reasons - oil was only one of them.
@@ratkovac7 "The weather argument is stupid..."
No, actually the weather was bad ( heavy rain) in the spring of 1941 so AH had to wait until late June to invade.
@@ratkovac7 Winter is favorable to a defender since both armies can't maneuver. Plus the logistics aspect kicks in which were also beneficial to the Russians.
The guy had first hand experience of USSR. His opinion should have been listened to
Just like Yamamoto about United States
I'm not aware of any time when Hitler listened, said, 'oh yeah, you're right, better idea than mine. I think you're right, Herr General'.
@@neilmckay8649 He did listen a little bit in 1939/40, when his generals wanted to postpone the invasion of France.
They were both right - Keitel from a kind of conventional way of thinking - Hitler from a more intuitive way of thinking. I think the clash of ideologies was inevitable - better to have the battle on someone else's backyard than yours...
We now know Hitler was wrong, he was an idiot.
Keitel did not deserve hanging
In the end, neither of the two choices allowed them to have the victory
It was nothing to do with a clash of ideologies. Stalin had no ambition to export Sovietism to Western Europe at that time. Socialism in One Country was the policy he established stood by. His territorial ambitions grew opportunistically in the wake of Germany’s losses.
Likewise, Hitler’s designs on Eastern Europe were not ideologically motivated, but rather driven by his ambition to attain territory for Germany’s ‘surplus population’ (he sought a contiguous German border that would engulf most of Eastern Europe). He did not seek to export National Socialism to the Slavic populations, but rather sought to subjugate them to serve a Germanic racial aristocracy.
@@thebrocialist8300 Stalin proposed twice to Hitler if he could join the axis if he could annex big parts of eastern Europe and Finland. What are you talking about?
The shifts at the gates Moscow and the lack of resupply at Stalingrad killed the everything for Hitler
Keitel's view seems logical, because any amount of time before June 22 (such as June 1, 2, 3rd) would have helped them significantly!
Regarding the military campaign against the Soviet Union. First of all it should be clearly understood that at the time of the Balkans campaign in Yugoslavia and Greece in early 1941when we had 10 divisions on the entire length of the Soviet border the Russians had stationed 247 major military formations on our border. After the conclusion of the Balkans campaign we then quickly placed at most 170 major military units on the border with the Soviet Union. The Russians had readied themselves for an attack. The initial successes of our forces against the Soviets were due to the fact that the Russians were not stationed in defensive positions but were instead positioned right at the front for attack which made it possible for us to quickly encircle large Soviet forces. Thus in the first few weeks of the war we were able to capture more than 3 million Soviet prisoners of War as well as enormous quantities of War equipment all of which was on the frontier positioned for attack. That's the truth of the matter which can be proven. I recently spoke with a Mr pencil who was a long-range aerial reconnaissance pilot in the period before the beginning of the Soviet campaign; he flew as far as the Don River and observed and reported on this enormous concentration of Soviet forces on the Border.
Soviet foreign minister Molotov demanded the Dardanelles. That is, we were supposed to approve the turning over of foreign territory which belonged to the Turks. Molotov thus made provocative demands which simply could not be met. Hitler was also conscious of the Soviet takeover of territory in Romania at a time of supposed peace. Hitler also knew that the anti-german uprising in Belgrade, Yugoslavia was organized by the Soviets. Tt was the Russians who wrecked the relationship between Germany and the Soviet Union and after he received more and more reports of Soviet preparations for an attack against Germany and Europe Hitler reacted. I am thus absolutely certain that Hitler did not originally plan to attack the Soviet Union instead he acted as the changing situation demanded. I also know from my own experience in the Russian campaign and with the Russian prisoners about the preparations by the Soviets for an imminent attack against Europe. The Russians were hoping that we would move against Britain so that they could take advantage of the situation to overrun Europe.e hoping that we would move against Britain so that they could take advantage of the situation to overrun Europe
yes , but they still had no winter clothing when winter came
@@christopherstarr8050 No point, once winter came and the Soviets were still standing, Nazi Germany was doomed. The generals knew it too.
Depends. The Russian railroads were a different gage than the German. The rails had to be reset as the Germans advanced. Even if they had started earlier there still was no way to get fuel to put Moscow under siege or encircle it. The winter clothing was in warehouses around Warsaw. No rail capacity to take it to the front. Fuel and ammo only. Russian roads were terrible and bulk logistics had to go by rail. The mistake Hitler made was listening to his Generals and going for Moscow without clothes or fuel. If they had dug in October '41, stocked up supplies, rebuilt their Panzer divisions, Victory in '42 would probably have happened.
@@LanceStoddard thanks for that info. I appreciate it!
and now the plains of eastern europe are once again the scene of some of the heaviest fighting in history
Typical Europeans, fighting, and then making up,...... fighting, and then making up,.....,.......etc.,................
@Bender B. Rodrigues is that what it is ? i always thought its a spam account when that happens
Will we see german tanks heading to east again?
@@kohtalainenaliasand for the same reason.
Over and over again for thousands of years, reincarnation in hell.
Keitel wasn't the only German who had visited the USSR and saw their military capabilities. I believe it was Goering who visited an aircraft plant and witnessed a manufacturing facility that was bigger than all the German aircraft plants combined. Hitler was the classic example of a man promoted far beyond his capabilities, the "Peter Principle" epitomized in one Austrian Corporal. It was like the janitor telling the CEO how to run the company.
According to this logic, alexander the great should not have attacked Persia.
I definitely don't agree with this. Just as AH said, if they delayed the attack, the USSR would have only gotten stronger, but war was inevitable either way.
I think the more closely you analyze AH's strategic actions, the more you realize that every one of them made complete sense. It's just that - from an outsider's perspective, with 20/20 vision and many decades in the future - it doesn't always seem rational or 'decent'.
The sad fact was that both AH and Keitel were completely correct in their assessment of the situation.
Except the first reports after Barbarossa started reported massive formations of aircraft and armor stationed at the borders. War was coming to Germany regardless, and the characterization of Hitler as a simple, incompetent military leader is a parody passed down by history.
@@JamesTaylor-on9nz nonsense , Hitler was determined to invade in the east from Mein Kamph and rationalized any reason to justify it
Politically, he was brilliant. Militarily, he was a moron.
Even without the 6 week delay Barbarossa was DOOMED! logistics, climate (winter ), fighting on 2 fronts, Japan attacking USA, ( freed up soviet divisions ) totally Doomed!
Soviets could just trade men and land for time bogging down the Germans and stretching their poor supply lines
You can also just look at a global map and look at the allies vs Japan/Germany. Speaks for itself.
Germany was demonized and attacked for invading Poland. Russia wasnt demonized and attacked for invading Poland.
Politics
Because the Poles seized lands that did not belong to them, these are the lands of Belarus and Ukraine. Poland itself was an invader and an aggressor . Vilnius was also captured by the Poles and returned to Lithuania only thanks to the USSR
This video certainly goes against what I thought of Keitel....he is always portrayed as nothing but a toady for Hitler and a yes man.
He wrote this after the war!
@@jiritichy7967
Wanted to make himself look good so that he could command a NATO army.
Look at Keitel scratching his nuts 6:14 hahaha right in front of the Fuhrer
Keitel was right. I would go further to say attacking Poland served no other purpose than eliminating a very good buffer Germany had against USSR.
Germany could’ve striked France and Britain before Poland, and would be easier to make Britain capitulate without the need to consider a soviet attack, since to get Germany, the soviets would essentially need to go against the Western powers directly by attacking Poland on their own expense.
Agreed
Poland was part of the plan from the beginning. The Germans wanted their ancestral lands back that they lost after WW1. Prussia was occupied by Poland. So, at least to the Germans, it wasn’t an option to leave Poland alone. General Guderian mentions this in one of his memoirs.
@@pogveteranar9415 Germany still held most Prussia. It was mostly about Kashubia/Eastern Pomerania. Reaquiring this region has been a topic for every German government since 1919.
Hitler even tried diplomatic routes, as he offered Slovakia in exchange for it (a very bad trade that Poles declined). Then, he put promises of future anexation of Ukraine If Poland joined against the Soviets, what was even worse of a deal.
Poland was guaranteed by the UK, but it was highly debatable if this guarantee would be enforced against the Soviets.
British idea was containment of future German aggression. Neither the UK nor France cared about the unimportant Poland that was left in Soviet sphere of influence after the war, just like Czechoslovakia.
A direct war between Soviets and Germans would only benefit the allies.
It’s interesting how England and France backing Poland cause the poles to be less willing to negotiate with Germany. Therefore causing the war that England wanted. Just like Ukraine today the west backed them causing them not to negotiate with Russia. Did the poles really think that the west would save them? Obviously they were stupid enough as history shows.
Very original thinking - and a good sense of humour - thank you!
The poor roads and harsh weather made supplying troops difficult. The soldiers were exhausted. They bit off to much to chew.
I think those two months made a world of difference.
The other item never asked is what if the Germans focused on North Africa and the Middle East before launching Barbarossa? If they take Malta, Egypt, the Suez Canal and get into the Middle East what does Britain do without the Suez Canal? Doe it make them come to the table being knocked out of the Med and losing the Suez Canal and losing easier access to the Eastern part of the empire? Does Turkey join the Axis with the carrot of getting back territory of the old Ottoman empire and maybe tying Soviet division down in the Caucuses due to Turkey? How much oil does that bring online for Germany?
Taking Soviet territory for living space was always paramount. Taking out the Western Soviet Union.
Germany/Italy did not the shipping capacity nor the ports in Africa necessary to support such a large force as needed to capture the areas you note. That is why Rommel was told to defend and harass the British but not attempt a major offensive. The logistics just weren't there.
Keitel was a YES man .
He wasn't called "The nodding donkey " for nothing!
I believe 1941 was their best chance. It just didn't work out. It was a gamble and it failed but it was the best option they had under the circumstances. It didn't fall short by much and waiting would only have helped to allow the Soviet Union to be better prepared to defend itself. The UK was not going to be defeated without an invasion and an invasion was not feasible for years. Sea Lion was just a bit of misinformation to fool the Soviets and there is plenty of evidence that no one ever took it seriously due to the Royal Navy. The campaign in Greece and the region was necessary and you go to war with the army and the allies you have. All the rest is from the benefit of hindsight and even the western allies felt the Soviet Union was going to fall just as Hitler and the Wehrmacht had planned during Barbarossa. Few people in the west appreciated the vastness of the country and it's ability to withstand the pressure politically or militarily. I have always felt this was a roll of the dice that gave the highest chance of success.
Another problem is that so many Wehrmacht officers changed their stories and their memoirs are completely unreliable as pieces of historical evidence due to Halders cooperation with the US and UK in the post war period. He oversaw the whitewashing of the high command and the falsification of the historical record. A shift of blame and responsibilities onto Hitler and his cronies. This plan was captured on surveillance recording while in custody and is well known.
thanks for your comment! interesting
This is exactly my opinion as well. Without hindsight it was a reasonable plan especially based on the poor performance of Russia in WW1 and then during the War with Poland in the 20’s and the failed invasion of Finland in 1940.
However, the very poor level of their knowledge of Soviet military strength should have given pause to German planners.
@@JohnnyAloha69 Yes, it is strange they did not have a better grasp of Soviet military strength due to the way the two secretly collaborated inside the Soviet Union to get around limitations in German military power due to the treaty of Versailles. They seem to have been in the best position to have understood it thoroughly. I think what surprised them was the way the common Soviet citizen rallied to their government and how their industry was able to rapidly crank out materials that rivaled the US and Britain combined.
The logistics of operating in Russia should have been enough to dissuade any idea of attacking Russia. Insanity.
Of course, but if the Germans had focused more on logistics and focused more on the south and seized the oil fields, they may have been successful.
Russia had 3X the population of Germany & much greater wealth in natural resources, & could produce tanks in much greater quantities than Germany could ever hope to produce. Keitel was correct that Germany's inability to defeat Britain meant that significant manpower would have to remain in the West during Barbarossa. Meanwhile, the number crunchers in the German bureaucracy were trying to warn Hitler & the generals that behind the front lines, the German army would not have sufficient logistics to support 3.5 million soldiers deep within Soviet territory--but their warnings were largely unheeded. Nazi beliefs in the racial inferiority of Slavic people duped most of them into believing that the Russian soldiers would not fight hard. Barbarossa was unnecessary & unwinnable.
@@georgeschaut2178 I strongly dissagree. Barbarossa was Hitlers desperate last option. We constantly forget that the Nazi ideology is the key reason why Hitler was doomed. He was so focused on Russia that he ignored his generals/admirals who advocated to crush the British in the Mediterranian and Middle East first and get oil there. With the war with England going on and on top the Partisan-resistance in Russia due to his terrible extermination-policy, then the war against Soviet Union became unwinnable. But under a different non-nazi leadership the Soviet Union could be crushed for sure: securing Middle East first would make capture of oil rich Caucaus possible and by befriending liberated folks like ukrainians, baltics and cosacs the millions of liberated people would support the war against bloody Communism. On top: Germany had actually double the ammount of coal and steel than Soviet Union but due to terrible mismanagement, no-in-depth-armament-policy and very late willingness to wage total war the german productivity was low and started to catch up by 1944, waaay too late to make a difference. And by 1944, when all big war-waging countries were in total war, the US and USSR were already in such a war economy since 1942. Hitler lost the war in 1940, when he was unable to forge alliances against his foes due to his blind devotion to Nazism and his fear of civil unrest if he demands a full war economy. Even as late as December 1942 the average german factories operated only 8, maybe 10 hours a day, while in other countries it was 16 hours or more. Germany had enough steel to build twice as many tanks as the Soviets and Axis-Europe had twice the population than Soviet Union. War is a team vs team game and luckily the Nazis and Commies both sucked, but the Soviets were lucky to play the victim-card after being attacked by Hitler and they ruled over the largest country in the world, making successful invasion by anybody very difficult and on top were hugely supported by Land-Lease and still they needed more than 3 years to crush Hitler because of terrible tactics...
@@andrejguesswho9837soviets Had plans to attacked Hitler în 1941 or 1942 .soviets won bc of Allies -lend-lease .soviet logistics was supported By USA
@@georgeschaut2178soviets Won bc of Allies .in 1 vs 1 Hitler would Had defeated Stalin .soviet logistic was supported By USA
The dude sure has gotten a lot of derogatory flak from an historical standpoint. After seeing this I'm starting to doubt his incompetence.
Contrary to the opinions of some, Keitel wasn't just a paper pushing lackey...he knew what all the others failed to calculate into the equation. I often wondered how a nation that's world renowned for it's mathematical prowrres could fail to see the epic miscalculation here.
Keitel's IQ was 129 he was no dummy.
Maybe it's because Hitler was basically an artist.
@@xander9564 ...with some pent up issues...
@@zpatrickz81 No doubt
Luck was not on their side. They were fighting the entire world. There was no miscalculation.
Yes Keitel was definitely right. Barbarossa should have never happened in the first place. The war against Soviet Russia was not something that was avoidable, but Germans should have taken a defensive position. They had the whole Europe anyway. That's what happens when you throw ideology into the mold ... "lebensraum".
In my opinion, even if Germany had captured Moscow in '41 or '42, they still wouldn't have been able to win the war. One should not forget that Stalin moved his factories in the East, beyond the Urals, and he would have never stopped attacking.
Keitel's reservations about attacking the Soviet Union are overstated here and only regarded timing. Keitel was put on Hitler's staff for being a compliant political hack, not for his military prowess and certainly not for any ability to command large forces anywhere. The main reason Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was doomed from the start was the sheer vastness of the Soviet Union which made any extent of initial military superiority irrelevant. Very simply, regardless of weather the Germans weren't going to be able to adequately supply their forces in such an enormous country, the same problem that doomed Napoleon's Russian invasion in 1812.
In addition along with roughly 3,000,000 German troops, among the invaders were roughly 1,000,000 troops allied with the Nazis, including Rumanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians and others. Those 1,000,000 or so troops were of inferior quality to their German counterparts and often more of a liability to the Germans than a help to them.
Only the highly militarily competent Finns were not a liability to the Germans. But the Finns wisely limited their participation in the German invasion to retaking territory lost to the Soviets during the 1939-40 Russo Finnish War and to creating a modest buffer against the Soviets. After the tide turned the Finns also wisely withdrew their troops from the Soviet Union thus avoiding the fate of future Warsaw Pact Soviet Satellite nations such as Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Bulgaria.
“Only the Finns!” 💩🚽🧻
Initial military superiority becoming irrelavent in the vastness of the Soviet collosus.....you hit the nail on the head! But i still say if it wasn't for the two fronted war and with the the USA as the allied arsenal,Germany and Russia would have fought one another to a standstill!
Zero Bulgarians were involved in Barbarossa.
@@janmale7767I'm not so sure about that though declaring war on the U.S. was even a worse blunder than invading the Soviet Union. The Soviets had far more reason to hate and fear the Nazis than the Russians had to fear Napoleon in 1812. Hitler drew the wrong conclusions from Russia's dismal performances in World War I and in the 1939-1940 Russo Finnish war. Unlike those wars, defending against Hitler's 1941 invasion was literally a war of survival in which falling into German hands was a death sentence for many.
@gumdeo I'm not so sure about that. They were certainly involved later in that war in the Soviet Union though initially the numbers of them may have been quite small. Hitler's war in the Soviet Union involved soldiers from many nations. There were even "volunteer" soldiers from neutral countries like Spain fighting in the Soviet Union although relatively not many from countries like Spain.
Hitler: "I know! Let's invade a country that covers eleven time zones!! I mean, what will they do? Retreat until we run out of steam?"
Keital: "Uh, yeah, that's about it."
The success of Operation Barbarossa depended on the collapse of the Soviet government. This was the expectation of German, British and U.S. intelligence and was not unreasonable given the execution of a million people in the Great Terror, including 40,000 Red Army officers, the ongoing crisis of Stalin and henchmen including Stalin’s dismissal of 137 intelligence reports warning of an imminent invasion.
Germany could never sustain a long war and after the Battle of Moscow it was only a matter of time.
A clear lesson in that politicians shouldn't interfere with the expert opinions of their generals.
I would say a civilian leader should make experts speak freely and listen to them with respect and patience. then make a decision and explain it to everyone.
He also didn’t agree with the annexation of Czechoslovakia or Austria nor the invasion of Poland, Belgium, Holland and certainly not France. I don’t think he agreed with anything if I was to hazard a guess.
He was however correct about one thing - the Italians 🤣🤣
All German partners were a burden from Italy to Romania to Hungary
Italy in 1940 was about as ready for war as Germany in 1935.
They were all against it after the war 😂😂😂 only Hitler was to be blamed
@@xander9564 Thats not to say it absolves all blame from italy. Mussolini by 1938-40 always bragged how the military was up-to-par with germany and other allied countries plus he didn't hesitate to invade greece thinking it was no match for italy. If he thought italy was not ready for war he wouldn't have had done what he done.
@@stefanchr7715 It appears Mussolini was in denial. Marshall Badoglio told Mussolini the Italian military was in no condition to fight a war, and Mussolini angrily dismissed him.
I was not aware that Keitel disagreed with Hitler-on ANYthing. 😂
Exactly, they didn't just call him LACKEYtel for nothing.
Besides, despite being the OKW Chief-Of-Staff(equivalent to Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff in the Pentagon), he was held in so low regard that once when he passed across an infantryman and the guy started fearing disciplinary action for not saluting, Army Chief Of Staff Franz Halder came from behind and assured him to relax coz "it's just Keitel".
Goering went even further, calling Keitel as "the mind of a Staff Sargent trapped in the uniform of a Field Marshall".
Even the most amateur strategist knows Barbarossa was too much too soon.
Err Napoleon, WW 1 and threes a charm?
@@mochiebellina8190 Napoleon, Hitler, Macron...
Well, It achieved 90% of the objectives.
I think it was the right move if America could have been kept out of the war and Germany and its allies had gained the time and focus needed to win in the east in a series of successful summer campaigns, as a backup plan to the hoped-for Barbarossa lightning win. To win it all that first year was basically asking for the impossible, or close to it -- like requiring a bowler to score 300 in order to win a prize.
hindsight is always 20-20
Hindsight is always 20-20.
Germany should never have gone to war with Russia. Because of the fact that there is no proper roads and the size of the Country. And my Father always said that the Italian army was useless and many times,, Hitler had to waste our time on fixing up their problems.
Russia as a nation did not exist since 1919.
I've read that June 22nd was the first day that the ground was dry enough for mobile operations. Who would strike the first blow? Good question.
the original attack date was May 22 .
He seemed more capable, but less politically astute... sadly , then as today... a slick political dumpster fire will surpass a quality person.
as always .
yep backdoormunchers are hired over competent ones with drive.
being 'liked' is the way the far left works.
Fantastic episodes!
Love your channel !!!
👍🏼🔥
" A permanent alliance with the powers of destiny can never be forged " - Keitel . Has a few meanings for example "forged" as in to hammer out a shape with heat and force in iron or "forged" as in made counterfeit ? wonder what he meant ?
pretty sure he meant forged like with a hammer. Although i couldnt find the original version, in german "forged" (like a blacksmith does) is common when talking about alliances. Thus meaning you cant create an alliance with destiny
Very interesting
50 years ago I first heard the comment that Hitler acted too fast...
Hindsight is wonderful.
good channel!
Sehr spannendes Video.
7:00 Germany lost the war just in time. If they hadn't surrendered in early 1945 and the war continued and continue fighting
another year, instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it would have been Frankfurt and Berlin.
I was stationed in Germany during the 70s. Germans who lived through the war told me that everyone knew the was over in 43.
German news radio stations at the time were reporting that Germany was being thrown back on the Russian Front,
but was actually winning the war by won by attrition.
Germans told me everyone knew this was nonsense, because German soldiers were coming back from the Russian front
because of a lost arm or leg. They told their families that Germany was losing the war and it was just a matter of time.
Germans did not bother to listen to the German Radio stations and would tune in to the BBC.
The BBC could be relied upon because it was 100% honest even when the war was not going in the allies favor.
The BBC did not tell lies the way the German news did, but it was not entirely honest. It did not report the loss of RMS Lancastria or HMS Barham. This is important, because it's a strange thing that if news is suppressed at the time, it is forgotten forever. Most people with at least a little interest in WW2 will have heard of the loss of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse, but very few know about the Barham and hardly anyone has heard of the Lancastria, even though it was a shocking tragedy.
Too bad that BBC is now shite...
You are absolutely correct. Otto von Bismarck, famous for his adroit diplomacy in keeping the peace, once said, never go to war in the east (Russia) for it will be your destruction. They were lucky to win the Battle of Tannenberg in 1914, but not so lucky with Barbarossa. After Stalingrad, I'm sure it was obvious to any thinking German, that it was over.
@@kensims1938 Did not know Bismarck said that.
Hindsight is always 20-20
Would. Different timing or other scenarios could have made it more difficult for the Soviets, but the result would have been the same.
I think you're correct. There was no way for Germany to achieve a quick blitzkrieg knockout of the Soviet Union which was the only kind of war they could win given their limited resources. So no matter the planning tweaks the war in the east still becomes a war of attrition Germany could not win.
The generals that outlived Hitler liked to argue in interrogation, and later their memoirs, that Hitler always rejected their advice, ultimately causing them to lose the war. But recent scholarship dismisses this take. The generals were fully supportive of Barbarossa, believing the USSR would collapse in a matter of weeks. This belief was fundamental doctrine in high command. But if the USSR failed to collapse, the invasion was doomed, no matter the timing. The Wehrmacht was suoerior, but didn't have enough soldiers, equipment, and oil to win against an collosal enemy that refused to surrender.
Stalin wrote in his memoir that Russia would have lost the war, if Britain had made peace with Germany,.
The prototypical Prussian general indeed!
this is fantastic the viewers are being asked by the narrator on events that happened before most viewers were born on issues that have no knowledge best video ever
Funny how Keitel was wrong about literally everything regarding Barbarossa:
1. German forces were dispersed and could not launch an effective offensive. Flat out wrong: Barbarossa amassed 3.8 million troops (3 million of which were Germans) and was the largest land invasion in history.
2. The amassed army could not defeat the Red Army. Flat out wrong: 4 million Russian soldiers were either killed or POW's by the end of Barbarossa (that's about all Russian casualties in the three years of WW1 done in four months). The magic of the Soviet Union was not that the Red Army was strong, it was that they were able to amass a second army after the first one had been wiped out: that they had a second Red Army formed out of thin air. Had Keitel written "we cannot defeat [the iron will of the Soviet people/Soviet government/Josef Stalin take your pick] and they will never surrender even if they lose their entire army" he would've been in the ballpark. But he wasn't. He was flat out wrong.
The remaining points Hitler debunked himself: "no matter how bad 1941 is, it's only gonna get worse in '42, or '43, or '44, or onwards."
What few people really get, is the threat that the Soviets posed to Germany and how this fear of Bolshevism garnered Adolf so much support. I've read autobiographies of Germans who served in WW2 and they all state they were fighting communism which was a threat at home, with huge riots and brawls occuring in cities between communists and the Freikorps. The Weimar govt. secretly supported the Fk, because of the threat. The German state of Bavaria's govt. was overthrown by communists and the govt. had to send in the army to throw them out. Furthermore, after 1933, Germany was cutting back it's trade in order to escape the world banking system control and this meant they had to conquer Russia for food, raw materials and OIL. From AH pov, he HAD to invade the USSR or die trying. Germany just did not have the resources to ve self sufficient in the modern age. In fact, lack of adequate farmland and opportunity had driven German emmigration for centuries. The eldest son got the family farm as an inheritance, or the farm was broken up, but could not support large families.
I have my doubts about the farmland theory. Germany is quite rich of agricultural land, it's pretty flat all the way to the Alps border. They might have been more dependent of imports and didn't have colonies like Great Britain to cultivate and import cattle food from but sure they weren't starving.
@@wr1120
It's not a question if Germany had enough farmland in total, but whether the farmer's sons had enough land to cultivate and make a living on their own. In the 1800s particularly, there was a population explosion in Germany that drove emmigration. My ancestors came to the US because of this.
@@fazolewhat may be interresting for your perspektive is the meeting in 1939 in Theran between Churchill and Stalin. Churchill made a pencilstrike on a map from europe, streight through Berlin and offerd Stalin the land east from Berlin if he joins Britain. Stalin wanted resources and 4years of preperation. That was the landlease act. Stalins hope was germany will defeat england and he got that for free. After a communication between AH and Stalin later on, AH offered Stalin to share the Kolonies from england with Russia, Stalins answer was it is not nessesary.
AH then stoppt the plan invading england and instead went east bevore Stalin can produce enough millitäry equipment.
The rest is history.
Hitler was a convenient scapegoat to German commanders. German Officers responsible for logistics could have predicted disaster
Germany was militarily not as strong as often described as the historians .. France alone should have been able to defeat Germany. The weak leadership and the unpreparedness have made France capitulated just in a matter of days
Yeah, it's bull. Germany could have never won against the USSR. They had EVERYTHING going for them in the initial drive and still fell well short of Moscow. That last desperate November push was doomed from the start, and, if Stalingrad is any example, getting to a city is nowhere close to capturing it, especially a city as big as Moscow. The moment the USSR stopped the drive to Moscow the war was lost for the Germans.
Good program
I agree with Keitel if Italy had stayed neutral it would have free up a lot of troops and air forces that could be used in the east. Ammo fuel and the Africa corp.
The Germans should have constructed more defences in Poland at the beginning of the war .A defensive fighter was required against Britain. The development of a long range bomber to fly against Moscow . At least double the amount of oil capacity .Better winter preparation for the solder. The U Boats were a failure. Only bombed military targets in Britain which was far more effective .The code system was cracked and no one can understand why the Germans didn’t find out .
Battle of Atlantic ,Battle of Britain , Russian Front . North Africa , Didn’t shut down Gibraltar . Normandy defence 4000 miles . In total a minimum of 8000 miles of front against 21 countries with little oil and horse back .
Hitler had no other choice but to invade USSR. He could have stopped before attacking Poland. After that there was no turning back. He made other mistakes and his lack of cooperation with his allies sealed his fate. Japan was fighting its own war, Italy was weak. The problem was that USSR could afford mistakes while Germany could not.
Keitels nickname was "Lakeitel" from "Lakai" - footman. So I don´t think there was a big "confrontation".
Another great video thanks!!!!
The Soviets were planning an invasion so Germany had to strike first. Italy's attack on Greece caused the failure of Barbarossa.
Minsk , Smolensk, was the reasonable limit of ambition. Russia is too dark, too marshy and hàs too many mad killers. Germany had no oil.
Stalin was planning on attacking Western Europe. The Soviets had been making heavy tanks that exactly fit the width dimensions of roads in Western Europe and many of those heavy tank designs lacked any real cross-country capabilities in their initial engine power.
If baborosa had been planned early with Japan incorporated I think it would make sense
But Japan didn't want war with Russia at all. They were totally put off after their defeat in the Russo-japanese war.
@@kereckelizabeth3625 Japan defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese war.
Read somewhere the German quartermaster general estimated being able supply the German army up to six months. Then there would be insufficient logistical support to maintain the offensive. Not enough motor transport.
The germans did not have enough tanks or aircraft to beat Russia only 3500 of each. This is what caused them delays in their attacks. If they had 6000 they would have won
Extra tanks are useless without the fuel they needed. Germany had severe oil shortages.
Also lack of mobile infantry.
Germany really had little resources. It’s amazing how they achieved with what little they had.
Even if they had conquered Moscow, it would be pointless
@@mikegillihan4546 Germany did not have fuel shortages in 1941. In fact their fuel stores rose until at least late in 1942. By late 1943 shortages began to take a toll on operations and by 1944 they were severe.
The whole idea of attacking Russian was totally stupid!!!
The Italians were a burden from start to finish. Both the North African and Balkan campaigns sucked in men and materiel that could have been put to better use.
The whole WW2 was useless for Germany and to invade Poland was a very big geopolitical mistake as it was a strong anti communist buffer between Germany and the Soviet Union. There are geopolitical, strategical and tactical levels. WW2 was disastrous on a geopolitical level for Germany. On other levels, they got success. Hitler thought badly. After Anschluss, the German question was solved at 98%.
Basic rule of military confrontation as stated by Bernard Law Montgomery, 1. Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: never attack Russia.
But don't expect little Napoleon in Paris to understand why.
Germany needed the resources that Russia had to continue to fight their wars.
They wanted Caspian Oil and Minerals in Russia.
Today the G-7 Nations have lost their Colonial Empires to BRICS Trade Union.
They want the resources inside Russia, as well as the ability to exploit their former Colonies.
The lessons that Hitler was given by Stalin,
appear to be ignored by Contemporary Greedy Individuals.
Profits are more important than peace.
@@danielhutchinson6604 Operation Barbarossa could not have happened without support from Romania with it's oil industry. This is a reason why the US air force has attacked Ploiesti multiple times. This makes the present anti-russian politics of Romania very disgusting.
@@danieloehler2494 I am sure a few Romanian POW spent a lot of time assembling things in some Russian Industry.
The NAZI Attacks on US Troops in Sicily to the Caspian Oil fields the German attacks took a lot of fuel. More than Romania could provide apparently?
Yes Romania, like Rome traded sides, and went with the flow.
Victoria Nuland may have mentioned that or Romania enjoying shiny Airfields that cost them nothing.
Like Sonny and Cher said,
"The Beat Goes On."
Thank you for your video. Much stated I agree with. The Italians were definitely a hindrance however, the British were forced to deploy significant forces against them. Without the dispersal of the royal navy, the Uboat effect against Britain would have been much less effective. It was also unrealistic to believe Russia would collapse after the fall of Moscow. Any invasion of Russia would have been a very prolonged campaign. Declaring war on the USA was a significant detriment to the defeat of the USSR. It is questionable if the USA would have declared war on Germany after Pearl Harbor and if it did, it is very doubtful the USA would have had a Germany first approach. The amount of material shipped to the USSR greatly reduced the recovery of the Red Army. The treatment of Ukraine was a mistake, the independence movement would have been much stronger against the USSR and would have made a difference in a prolonged war situation. However, Hitler only saw Ukraine as German living space and the people as serfs. In any case, the USSR would have taken prolonged effort and Japan would never have invaded from the east to help defeat the USSR.
Germany at the start was too weak to such war. They needed about half of the year to begin to attack France after war in Poland in 1939, and they started it with the same amount of medium tanks and light tanks, but for war with two imperia and with a group of smaller countries at the west. Next year (1941) this small taking into account number of tanks, vehicles and planes was pushed against USSR and shortly against USA. Total stupidity. Delay caused by Italy was the next enormous problem.
Kietel was being rational and sensible. But Hitler was focused on achieving what he set In Mein Kampf whether it made Military or economic Sense.
I'm no expert in military matters but one only has to look at the map of Russia and then ask: how can any army conquer such an immense landmass ?
The logistics alone are a nightmare. The Weather, the Geography, the scarcity of good roads an army needs to move huge amounts of armored vehicles and material.
Did Hitler ever bother to read what happened to Napoleon when he went there ?
Erich Von Meinstein was one of the few Generals who had the courage to call Hitler an idiot to his face.
I would destroy the Russian military in Poland or western Ukraine where I might have a logistical superiority .
And after wipeing it out I would move in on broad front into Russia like Germany did in World war 1 when it won the war there. I would also invest resources in roads and railroads. Balts and Ukrainians should not have been mistreated.
The Russian military have larger numbers, but Germany can still win if it manages to encircle Russian troops and cut off their logistical supplies and thereby strangle one Russian army to death after another. German superiority in tactics and mobile warfare and its equipment with superior firepower could balance out Soviets superior numbers.
And with defeat after defeat would morale in Russian society fall apart. And the economy would fall apart as well with higher inflation and food shortages. People might rise up like it did in 1917 and kick out their ruling regime and install a new one that would accept any peace terms no matter how horrible.
When the Swedes invaded Russia in 1707-1709 it probable came close to destroying Russia in that regard. The Russian army had suffered one humiliating defeat after another: Narva, Rauge, Saladen, Jakobstadt, Gemäuerthof, Grodno, Fraustadt, Holowczyn,
Malatitze, Rajovka, Veprik etc.
So the morale of the Russian army was pretty low in 1709. So had the Russian army been defeated at the battle of Poltava
in 1709 it could just have been another of those indecisive victories that Sweden won where Russia lost enormous amounts of men. But a defeat on that scale could also have been the last straw that did break the camels back.
The Russian Tsar was unpopular. 9 years of war had led to higher taxes, church bells had been molten down to become iron cannons, manpower losses had been high. People were tired of the war and war exhaustion were high. And Tsar Peter was unpopular among the nobility before the war for his attempts to westernize the country and when he introduced the beard tax.
Another crushing military defeat could have made the country rise up in revolution like it did in 1917. Many nobles could see their chance of grabbing power, and a Russian civil war could have been started.
And another victory for the Swedes, could have encouraged more of Russias enemies to join the war against Russia.
First of all would the Ukrainians who already were pro-Swedish join the Swedes to gain independence from Russia. And Poland which was a Swedish puppet state could see a chance to retake provinces that Russia had stolen from them back in the 1600s.
The Ottoman empire had 20 years earlier been at war with Russia and would also be interested in retaking land and destroying one of its most dangerous arch-enemies. And Persia would also be interested in destroying its arch enemy Russia.
Sweden did not play its diplomatic cards that well until very late in this war. So here it missed a great oppurtunity, which could have made the odds more even and forced Russia to accepting peace.
All the opinions are interesting I think just being in a two front war is devastating in and of itself
Realize, that after Hit. was gone, all the German Generals suddenly agreed that they were against the war, were geniuses and spoke up against the Furhr, but the crazy man didn't listen. IOW, blame the dead guy. Guderian also claims he stood up to the German leader, but of course, he was alone with him at the time! The just forming NATO needed an organized, capable Germany to face the USSR, so the knowledge these generals had about Soviet tactics was deemed invaluable and no one at the time tried to hard to evaluate their claims. You can watch interviews with modern German historians like Söhnke Neitzel and Ralf Ratts who have written on the subject.
The War machine of the third reich was a Formidable fighting force . Had there been a one on one confrontation with the soviets, the war would’ve ended in less than 6 months ( given the speed and precision with which the germans advanced through france and the low countries). We often neglect the fact that the soviets had there entire resources and attention focused on the Germans while the germans had to focus on a thousand other things. Still bravo and salute to the red army for their resolve and strength to fight on.
@@friskyy6989
Watch TIK channel on why the Germans invaded and why they lost. It was about OIL. The German logisticians knew they had enough oil in 1941 for 1000km distance into the USSR. And we see from history, that the invasion stopped at that distance and the German Army had to demotorize and rely more on horses. The choice was Moscow or the drive toward the oil through Ukraine and AH chose to go toward the oil, then double back toward Moscow but using a smaller force, while the rest of his Army sat immobile outside Moscow. Then the bad weather hit and made movement nearly impossible until the freezing winter and by then it was too late.
in my opinion, the idea that Wilhelm Kietel was Hitler's puppet is not correct. On two or three occasions he tried to turn in his resignation and Hitler would not allow him to do that. he was also raised in the tradition of the Prussian field officer corps in that you did what your superiors told you and you kept your mouth shut. that's just the way it was back then, and the way it is in the US Army among officers even to this day. of course nobody wants to admit it, but that is pretty much the way it is. he was a brilliant organizer, and I have very little doubt that as a field Marshal he could have led any division into war that he was given.
For me it will always be a mystery why the germans didn't finish off the englishmen at Dunkirk. How could Hitler invade Russia while not knocking off England like they did to France.
AH wanted to capture Paris as fast as possible, while HG told AH the Luftwaffe would finish off the Brits.
It's still not clear why the Germans stopped outside Dunkirk.
The most plausible reason is that they feared a counterattack.
The Germans felt the British were pinned down on the beaches. Always keep in mind the British had no port facilities available at Dunkirk and had to evacuate their soldiers using very small boats to ferry the men out to waiting destroyers.
Even the British planners believed that they would only be able to save a maximum of 50,000 men.
The German assessment was very similar so they saw no point in throwing their over stretched troops against a well dug in and still numerically superior force. The Germans thought all they had to do was wait a week.
The Germans delayed a major land assault against the British at Dunkirk because their armor was being depleted. The combat losses had been minimal, but mechanical breakdowns were numerous. The Germans still had the bulk of the French army to contend with and did not wish to risk loosing any more armor. Within a fairly short time the German mechanics got most of the armor ready to roll but by then, the evacuation had occurred. This said, I would have attacked full steam against Dunkirk. Germany had only one chance to smash the British EF and that was it. It is even possible that such a complete elimination of the BEF would have led the British to seek some sort of accommodation with Hitler. Peace with Britain means the release of 100 divisions used to occupy France/etc. Additionally there would have been no blockade nor terror bombing of German cities.
"What if" is an addictive mind set. 1941 was the turning point for the WW2 in the west because Germany invaded Russia and later on declared war on the US. Both were strategic blunders which taken together signalled the doom of the Third Reich. It was highly probable that a conflict between Hitler and Stalin would have occurred sometime in the mid 40's. Stalin was certainly preparing for it. There is no certainty that absent Hitler's declaration of war that the US would have made defeating Germany its main priority after Pearl Harbour. The permutations are numerous but in this case we can say that the intentions and decisions of one man made all the difference in world history.
It is easy to see the ‘Catch 22’ situation Hitler had placed himself from this summary. He could not wait longer…but he also could not/should not have attacked then. So, there was never a suitable time.
Thus, the failure in the East can be draw right back to its very conception in the mind of Hitler and as clearly laid out in writing in Mein Kampf, as the quest for Lebensraum for the German Herrenvolk; at the expense of the Slavic Untermenschen in the East. The theories, dreams and fantasies of just that…..a fantasist. But, a fantasist clever enough to have dragged a whole nation with him on his fantasy.
In essence, this war was always going to lost, at whatever time or date that he ended up in armed conflict against the Soviet Union.
Remember the advance had already ground to a terrible halt at the gates of Moscow even BEFORE the USA had enter the fray and BEFORE the US Lend Lease Supplies had started arriving to bolster the Soviet war effort. Once, the USA had entered nothing short of truly discovering a Wunderwaffe (wonder weapon i.e. getting the nuclear bomb) first was going to alter the outcome.
(The sheer ability of the USA to produce the amount of war materiel that it did is truly mind-boggling and astounding yet IMHO not recognised or championed enough by the mainstream, popular media/movies who focus endlessly on individual troops or units or actions.)
The fantasist then continued dragging Europe, including his own country, through four more bloody years of the worst misery and pain it has known in the entirety of history.
Keitel confronting Hitler? Never heard. He would be the last one doing so. The nickname _Lakaitel_ has a reason.
Delaying Barbarossa to 1942 would have made matters worse. By then, Germany's oil reserves would have been depleted, and the Soviets would have been better prepared, while the Brits would have been in a better position to bomb Germany.
Don’t forget Germany had mich of its airforce in the west and not in the east for some reason
Siege of Stalingrad, with shorter supply lines for the germans and a longer supply lines for the russians, didnt end well for Germany.
Siege of Moscow would be much worse for the germans in every aspect.
Much larger urban area, new definition of the word fanatical, worse logistics and all in all a potential encirclement of an entire army group.
He was right about Italy.
First: Once again, Excellent Scholarship! SALUTE!!! 2nd: It was indeed a blessing, that Keitel & a few others were(was) NOT listened-to, (and that several Fighting-Generals, like the Excellent Rommel!)were ignored or treated-shabbily by 'the-pushy-Staff-Sergent', or,.........! 3rd: ANY German leader or strategist, using the name Barbarossa, in ANY capacity, must have lost his wits; after the One-TRUE-Kaiser drowned on his way into the Holy City, and the catastrophe, of 'the-'Eastern'-front! There simply comes a time, to let a thing go! :(
Just today oil is very very important, we all know the German army used horses for most of their military and the attack on Russia s capital was put on hold because of oil was more important for Hitler and he detected his troops to come back later after the oil was secure, USA helped Russia with trucks and oil after USA entered the war , Germany wasn't ready to go to war against Russia and don't forget about Hitler send his troops to help Mussolini went he needed them in Stalingrad
Politicians should leave war to people who study war and know the difficulty of logistics. Two fronts? Never a good idea. And the logistics for the Soviet Union would be stressed to the breaking point. The Roman Empire understood logistics. Advance, consolidate. Then, slowly advance and consolidate. But the Empire also met their match in different areas of their known world. World domination is next to impossible
i would have never allowed 300k British soldiers trapped defenseless at Dunkirk to escape. then i would've finished off Britain 1st. can you imagine just how difficult for the US to invade Europe then? Hitler even wrote in Mein Kampf, the ultimate sin is to fight a war on two fronts.
Germany could’ve defeated the USSR but it wouldn’t have mattered if they invaded a month earlier. It’s dependent on other factors that arise throughout the campaign
Hitler even commented that had he known the true strength of the Soviet tank numbers at 20,000 rather than the intelligence value of 10,000 tanks they thought the Soviets possessed, he would not have gone ahead with operation Barbarosa. The Germans were very lucky early on but the logistics problems and the lost opportunities to make strategic gains before winter 1941/42 eventually allowed the fighting in the Soviet Union to drag on endlessly to an westerly eventual retreat back to the borders of Germany. Even in the planning of the invasion of the low countries and France the Wermacht high command were hesitant. Fortunately Hitler took the risk of diversionary attacks through Holland and Belgium with the main thrust through the ardenne region, as per the sole high risk strategy put up to him by only one general. The German high command was concerned about a battle of attrition like WW1 again in confronting the British and French. Stalin would have been pleased if the powers in western Europe had ground each other down in a drawn-out battle of attrition.
Well the second world war must have been a disaster for the economy....a few things where positive like the revolution in new machines that evolved during the war....Russia arrived first at Germany changing the destiny of Germany until the Unification later on in time.
Yes, this was a moment of candor on his part during an impromptu discussion with Marshal Mannerheim of Finland, during Hitler's (uninvited) visit to Finland for the Baron's birthday. The Finns placed a microphone in the train car the meeting was being held and for some 30 minutes we have the only taped instance of Hitler engaged in informal conversation.
I think that due to lack of fuel reserves Germany had right from the start of the war Hitler felt he had to attack Russia sooner rather than later but I think he made a mistake believing his Generals when initially trying to win Moscow instead of thrusting to the rich oil fields at Baku in the Caucasus , this would have starved the Soviets of fuel & made them immobile reasonably quickly which was later proved to be correct when the Soviets took the advantage by being able to field massive armoured formations which were very mobile thus beating Germany at they're own game .In the end Russia is a massive country & I think the best Germany could have done was to have forced Stalin to concede defeat giving Germany Western Russia but I think this would have just meant another war further down the line .Hitler did exactly the opposite to what he wrote in Mein Kampf because he ended up fighting on two fronts & declaring war on the USA was a very stupid mistake considering the industrial capacity the USA had.
If Germany had invaded earlier, and managed to get control of the oil fields in the Caucasus in 1941, then things might have turned out differently. However, the whole idea of attacking the Russian bear was preposterous, let alone trying to wage war on two major fronts - three, if you count North Africa.
Little known fact, he was executed for 24 minutes
If they had waited a year, their oil stockpiles would have run dry.
The Germans couldn't have just let the British be in Greece. The real what if is what if German immediately goes for the Med and the Middle East right after France falls. Therefore, they are in control of the situation and can bring in Greece as an ally before Italy attacks Greece.
Bismark was right; Germany, don't have a two front war.