Invading the Soviet Union 1941 - Just Stupid? - Barbarossa without Hindsight
The German Invasion of the Soviet Union 1941 is often called "just stupid" by various people, although the operation clearly failed, the statement woefully ignores the knowledge of the time, since even the Allies assumed a German victory, which is not so "stupid" considering both the Soviet & German track record in Summer 1941.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» KZhead Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
»» SOCIAL MEDIA ««
» twitter - / milhivisualized
» facebook - / milhistoryvisualized
» SOURCES «
Kahn, Martin: ‘Russia Will Assuredly Be Defeated’: Anglo-American Government Assessments of Soviet War Potential before Operation Barbarossa, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 25:2 (2012), p. 220-240, DOI: 10.1080/13518046.2012.676498
Link to this article: dx.doi.org/10.1080/13518046.20...
Hill, Alexander: The Red Army and the Second World War. Armies of the Second World War. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017.
Glantz, David M.; House, Jonathan M.: When Titans Clashed. How the Red Army stopped Hitler. Revised and Expanded Edition. University Press of Kansas: USA, 2015
Habeck, Mary R.: Dress Rehearsals, 1937-1941. In: Higham, Robin (ed.); Kagan, Frederick W. (ed.): The Military History of the Soviet Union. Palgrave: New York, 2002, p. 93-107
Samuels, Martin: Doctrine and Dogma. German and British Infantry Tactics in the First World War
Citino, Robert M.: The German Way of War. From the Thirty Years’ War to the Third Reich. University Press of Kansas: USA, 2005.
Alexander, Martin S.: French grand strategy and defence preparations; in: Cambridge History of the Second World War, Vol 1
Imlay, Talbot: Western Allied ideology, 1939-1945; in: Cambridge History of the Second World War, Vol 2
Tooze, Adam; Martin, Jamie: The economics of the war with Nazi Germany; in: Cambridge History of the Second World War, Vol 3
Edgerton, David: Coal,iron ore and oil in the Second World War; in: Cambridge History of the Second World War, Vol 3
Rothenberg Gunther E.: The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon
Mikaberidze, Alexander: The Battle of Borodino. Napoleon against Kutuzov. Napoleonic Wars. Campaign Chronicles
Jones, David R.: From Disaster to Recovery: Russia’s Air Forces in the Two World Wars. In: Higham & Harris: Why Air Forces Fail
Glantz, David M.; House, Jonathan M.: When Titans Clashed. How the Red Army stopped Hitler. Revised and Expanded Edition. University Press of Kansas: USA, 2015
Oberkommando des Heeres: Erfahrungen und Betrachtungen aus dem japanisch-chinesischen Feldzug 1937/38, Berlin, 15. March 1938
wwii.germandocsinrussia.org/de...
Herrera, Geoffrey L.: Inventing the Railroad and Rifle Revolution: Information, Military Innovation and the Rise of Germany. In: The Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 27, June 2004, p. 243-271
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
#Barbarossa,#JustStupid,#InvasionSovietUnion
Want to support the channel? There is patreon.com/mhv and more books means better sourced videos and less time wasted with libraries.
Military History Visualized Happy June 22nd :)
Now. Question. Could Napoleon have invaded Britain?
about Napoleon invading Britain: I answered that already on my second Channel quite a while ago :D kzhead.info/sun/gb2uc7SMooFjdWw/bejne.html
Damned if they did, damned if they didn't.
Military History Visualized I think you will appreciate this video with additional sources on the topic that are not in your video. As a longtime subscriber and a military officer i appreciate the video thank you.
"With hindsight, even winning the lottery is easy" This should be the introduction of every history debate and article.
Yes!! Well said.
@@sillyk6688 Not quite. In 1941, they nearly made it into Moscow. Then they decided to go after Kiev. Had they stayed committed to their original plan..
@Marek Tužák Paris was not taken. If you don't know how it really happened, you probably don't know much at all. Your comment is a vibrant testament to the pride of ignorance and I'll leave it at that.
@Marek Tužák Yeah right, too late for that. Just go fuck yourself.
@Marek Tužák relax, is just a wehraboo
"Russia is never so strong or so weak as do you think" Von Clausewitz
alejandro casalegno the only people that can defeat the Russians are the Russians
@@ronsee6458 Russia is a history of self-destruction and reborn.
@@ronsee6458 have you never heard of the mongols?
lmac7633 Russia didn’t exactly exist as the concept of ‘Russia’ at that point.
@@linkluver_izn nice excuse, still the same people
"Everybody has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth. " Mike Tyson
Dale Martin even tho it is from a boxer from a certain point of view it works very well when talking about the war with the Soviet’s.
One sentence: Lack of oil - TIK history
@@arsenal-slr9552 Call the carebear police
@@arsenal-slr9552 Bill Clinton hasn't been President for years you silly.
@@arsenal-slr9552 Not to mention an ignorant, not too bright, bigot and overall asshole.
"I hate war. One never knows how it will turn out." - Otto von Bismarck
Otto and Sun Tzu were related.
@@jimmiller5600 no shit. We all are.
@@theemperor-wh40k18 No, we all are not
@@jimmiller5600 They are NOT related. One is a western germanic and the other is an asian
@@catholicracialist776 they're still both humans,meaning they ARE related,idiot,just like how we're all related
I love how the French underestimated the USSR while they got beaten up in a matter of weeks
Having grown up in French Quebec I know the French war cry well "Mama, papa, mama papa"
The French were well known for hundreds of years as having this mighty military. The French being defeated as quickly as they did was a major blow to the moral of any country that stood in Germany’s way
@@rsears78 the French would have been a better ally than ltaly
If the USSR was the size of France they wouldve capitulated even earlier
The French are arrogant but the Russian ( government ) are the most evil of leaders in history in my opinion . Do you really not think Hitler and Stalin did not have constant communication ?! They used their militaries to invade Poland and divide the land . It's sad that only two individuals can have control that lead to the millions of deaths that came about . Hitler has the superior military but Stalin had the over whelming number of people that he was willing to sacrifice besides having the aide from American and England which he manipulated ...... Cold war .
Germans and Russians are best friends as long as they don't have common border.
easy deism ahahaha
gosh darn pewdiecancer.
Poland - the peace keeper? Sounds right!
@easy deism shut up
Why poland and Ukraine exists. Along with three little kingdoms.
3:15: "The Germans were a bit over-optimistic in starting to believe their own bullshit"! 🤣
That was how the Nazi ideology became so successful. When Hitler gained power, most people didn't trust him (he only had 30% of the votes, which were for the party, not for him personally). Then he started delivering on his promises (using all means necessary, even if they weren't feasible in the long run ), then he delivered quick and decisive victories. By that point even Hitler started to believe his own bullshit.
@@scratchy996 Sounds like Bush and the Neocons in the early 2000s.
Also, see Suvarov "icebreaker", and McKeekin "Stalins War"
Sorry Germany... Russia is "Too big to fail". За здоровье!
@@notabene7381 It is so fun.
“The first casualty of any battle is the plan of attack.” ― Cory Doctorow, For the Win
"A short Glantz at Soviet performance" I see what you did there.
I don't, would you please explain?
David Glantz is a great military historian who specializes on the Soviet Union during WWII. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Glantz If you get the chance, I'd highly recommend his book "Armageddon in Stalingrad". If you're studying the Soviet Union in WWII in the English language, it's tough NOT to read a book that he had a hand in writing.
Oh, okay. Thank you for the quick answer!
Man I'm glad I saw your comment lol. It seemed like such a glaring mistake considering he pretty much never misspells words.
I cracked up when I saw that; knowing who Glantz is, I recognized a great pun!
After the Winter War, I don't blame the Germans for being optimistic!
German generals not understanding the difference betweel local war in a harsh terrain and total war in open territory of thousands of kilometers with total mobilization look like complete incompetent idiots.
Alexander Seven when a tiny, under equipped army can trounce the Soviets, it really does suggest that the larger, better equipped German one ought to do excellently. And for the most part, they were right.
No it doesn't suggest and the germans only had the succes they did in 41 because the Red army was completely un prepared.The soviets where going through a massive expansion and reorganization.The experienced officers where killed in the purges, but the worst part was the introduction of commisars, because of it.Now any soviet officer was always second guessed by a party guy that had little to no military training.Thus most officers where under constant stress and didn't had the freedom they needed to work efectively.You know what happened when the comisar part eneded ? The Red army encircled the 6th at Stalingrad.As soon as the Red army was past the initial shock, put their war production in gear and started learning the hard way to fight a modern war, the Germans stop doing so "excellently" and started getting handed defeat after defeat on all fronts.
The thing was that the length of the campaign refined the Red Army’s command. Weak and incompetent leaders were weeded out. Basically competent Generals like Zukhov came through. And they were all that was needed considering their vast reserves of manpower.
You are wrong to think only manpower wins the day.
hitler once said, "we have only to kick in the door the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.” they kicked in the door, walked in, and the structure crashed down on them and killed them 😂😁😁😁😂😂😂
"in response to the Russian response to the German surprise attack" meaning the German Werhmacht had predicted the Red Army would go over to the offensive despite a specific German Campaign strategy designed specifically and pretty much only for said contingency as "The Plan." Once the Soviet Stavka executed select Generals for cowardice in the face of the enemy the Red Army indeed went over on to the offensive and indeed right into a multitude of German Wehrmacht traps ("couldron Battle"). Was this a mistake too? No one argues Nazi Germany would not attack Russia in 1941. No one.
well it did eventually, 50 years later, just not by Germany, and not in 1941.
@vjal go away and learn history.
@vjal kzhead.info/sun/psainZajfqmeo5s/bejne.html
@magicblanket People forget the Germans beat the Russian in WW 1
“Under no circumstances go to war with Russia” Last warning words of Otto von Bismarck on his deathbed. “This will not end well” Fd. Marshall Gerd von Rundstedt at the beginning of BARBAROSSA
Bismark died 15 years before WW1, during that war as this video states the eastern front was not Germany's biggest problem by far. All the considerations that Bismark could have done about balances of power, technology, industrialization etc were completely different by WW2 so his reasoning should not be applied so far in the future.
Theophrastus Bombastus To be fair, also, Germany beat Russia in the very next war after Bismarck said this
@@dr.lyleevans6915 that was my point too. He said that however during ww1 Germany proved that Russia could be defeated, it's unfair to apply his warning only when they work, so far later and in so different settings
Well it sure did not end well to the Germans, they beat Russia but lose the war since Russia also played a role as a distraction and Russia did well against Austria. If Russia were neutral at that time, Germany and Austria could just steamrolled France
@@leclec6169 There is a good bit of difference between "under no circumstances go to war on two fronts at the same time" and "under no circumstances go to war with Russia". As the numbers in the video shows, a WW1 with only central powers vs Russia, even without Turkey, would have been a much quicker affair at least if capitulation and not occupation was the purpose.
A revisit to one of your best videos. Excellent job! Griff
Hi bro How you doin
@@Farquad76.547 off
Who knew that you watch Military History Visualized. You and MHV are two of my favorite history channels!
Excellent presentation. Just a couple of points....Napoleon DID "conquer" Spain. Where he failed was NOT invading Portugal as well. This allowed the British a base of operations that allowed Wellington to repeatedly campaign into Spain, always retreating when superior French forces would gather; and defeat his Spanish and Portugese allied elements. Eventually he prevailed AFTER the Russian disaster. The French withdrew and Wellington pursued into France. Yet for all the years of the "Peninsular Campaign"; the French occupied the vast majority of the country. Secondly re: Germany vs Russia in WW1; by late 1916 the Russian Army was comparably equipped in comparison to it's German opponents and superior to Germany's Austro-Hungarian Allies. The Brusilov Offensive of 1916 pretty much finished off the Austrian Armies on the Eastern Front and forced Germany to refocus it's attention there. It then took Germany not quite two years to knock Russia out of the war. The Germans achieved this not by grand sweeping strtegic offensives; but with sharp overwhelming attacks against targets the Russians would fight to regain. The Germans then defensively slaughtered the Russian counter-attacking armies. Once the counter attacks were exhausted, the Germans would move forward again. Essentially the Russians kept feeding themselves into a German woodchipper. That coupled with the huge casualties from early in the war caused the Russian morale; civilian and military, to collapse. It should be noted that the French Army came within a hair's breadth of the same fate during the mutinies following Nivelle's catastophic "offensive" in early 1917. So how does all this tie into 1941?? Hitler and the vast majority of his generals were primarily veterans of the Western Front in WW1. The area they fought in was not only small relative to the enormity of Russia; it was also before the war one of the most densely developed areas of Western Europe. Other than industrial England or the North Eastern seaboard of America, it had the most concentrated rail net in the world. The Ruhr was less than two hundred miles from the front. Shells made one day could and were fired the next. The German quartermaster ( I wanna say Warlimont??) repeatedly warned to no avail that the Smolensk-Vyazma AO was as far as Germaan forces could be supported in a single season. That no-one at OKW/OKH seemed to understand or care that Russia has SIX seasons not four: Summer, MUD, frost, Winter, frost, MUD, Summer led them to believe they had more time to accomplish Barbarossa than they did in fact. While Hitler wanted a short single campaign for political reasons...Militarily it was just not possible barring a regime collapse by Stalin and co. Obviously we'll never know what the result would have been with a more rational war plan. One that would have had the Wehrmacht aiming for a "Winter Stop Line" and a two/two and a half year campaign. A Wehrmacht that in 1942 unwrecked by the disasterous post Raputista lunge toward Moscow and one that wintered over in prepared positions... Would have faced a Red Army in 1942 still ill equipped to resist a renewed German onslaught. Hitler repeatedly asserted "One good kick would bring it all crashing down"... And absent that morale collapse??? That road leads to Stalingrad and annihilation.
Napoleon did invade Portugal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Portugal_(1807)
As his general (Soult??) utterly failed; I believe the correct phrase is "attempted to invade"...
Then failing to invade Portugal was not an error. Failing to succeed was. It gets all the great generals in the end.
It was Massena not Soult who invaded Portugal in 1810. Wellington's pre-constructed defensive works along the high ground near the village Torres Vedras, giving the lines their name, frustrated his attempt and the ensuing hunger and disease damn near destoyed his army. This enabled Wellinton to enter Spain for good in 1811 as French re-inforcements were unavailable. To return to Barbarossa... Recently revisionist historians, like Glantz and Stahel (both of whom I've read extensively), have posited specific points at which the campaign failed. Citino, in a videoed lecture, who has written more broadly on the Wehrmacht in WW2 jokingly said "At it's conception"... Citino for whatever other flaws some find in his works, I believe, has the right of it in this case. Hitler thought the very act of invasion would cause the Soviet regime to disintegrate along with it's frontline armies deployed so conveniently in the jaws of what became an enormous German opening pincer. What Hitler and the OKW/OKH failed to appreciate was the sheer numbers of Russian reservists. Whereas the Wehrmacht due to Versaille restrictions had few if any classes to call up... the Soviet Union had over 15 years worth. Granted the equipment would hardly be what the Wehrmacht considered modern... yet again and again whole armies appeared just when it seemed the way at last was clear. As Stalin once famously remarked; "Quanitity has quality of it's own". They slowed the Wehrmacht long enough for weather to wreak havoc on the German's fragile logistics; and then Hitler completed the disaster by insisting on the fatal last lunge forward. It is a myth the German's lacked winter clothing; it was there... in warehouses stacked to the ceilings, 300 miles to the rear.. They simply made a choice to ship ammunition and supplies for that last fateful "kick", rather than the winter equipment the troops would need so desperately when the frost became a blizzard. Much has also been made of Hitler's "Stand Fast" order during the Russian onslaught that first winter, many claiming it "saved" the Wehrmacht. Hitler went so far as to remark it was just as cold 50 miles to the rear. This is laughable. In 1941 the Soviet Army, like it's German counterpart was tied to the railheads for logistic support. It would not be until late 43, early 44 that tens of thousands of American Lend Lease 21/2 ton all terrain trucks would give them the mobility for an operational pursuit. Had the Wehrmacht broken contact, difficult to be sure, at the onset of the Soviet counter-offensives in front of Moscow....All the ludicrously convoluted salients that wasted enormous manpower could/would have been avoided. Not only that, but a withdrawal of 100 miles would have put them close to the point the German reconstuction of the rail lines had progressed. I've seen all kinds of estimates for "non-combat" casualties suffered by the Wehrmacht in that first winter; ranging as high as 500,000 total.That I believe is excessive. Yet the fact is; the vast majority comprised combat arms veterans that were literally irreplacable, particularly the infantry and their NCO's and Jr. Officers. The author of this video has another concerning German readiness at the start of 1942 and divisions available for "Fall Blau". In it he estimates only 25% of all German infantry formations were available for sustained offensive operations. Again I believe that number is low, but not by that much. For the rest of the war German operations would be plagued by lack of infantry. Which led to, by neccessity, an over-reliance on poorly trained and equipped "allied" armies; Rumanian, Italian and Hungarian, with fatal results.
Tru dat...LOL
"The very poor performance of the Red Army convinced Hitler that an attack on the Soviet Union would be successful. In June 1941, Hitler declared, 'we have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down".
"This will be quicker than French Campaign" LOLOLOLOLO
..as long as US does NOT enter the war🧐
Great video! Love how taking hindsight out and inserting at the time knowledge. Changes the whole look of this decision.
Excellent video. They are all good, but this one is the clearly the best so far. It is a shame that you can not receive academic credit for it somehow. It is probably of better quality in research and presentation than most Masters' theses.
thx, well, I have already two Masters ;) in one of them in History.
Military History Visualized show off
And the second one would be communication? :) Just sayin- you are good at it!
cybermbebe I believe its computer science.
Nunya Bznz Yeah, fuck the history channel.
"So what you're saying is....." I see what you did there, my lobster brother.
Sean lobster clap
Jordan Peterson lol
I'd comment more but I need to clean my room. Be the Best Lobster You Can Be!
No no let’s talk about the lobster 🦞
This video and channel is so refreshing in the sense that it dives deep into the nuts and bolts of the eastern front amongst various other incidents when what you typically see is just a collage of black and white videos and a narrator. Well done!
thank you very much for making these videos. they're great. the world is lucky to have you doing this work!
20:00 "so, what you are saying is..." I just about fell out of my chair laughing right there.
Short glance or Glantz? I see what you did there.
I really love this video and keep coming back to it. One of the best videos on Barbarossa on youtube.
Really good overview of this, and for the most part I agree with everything you put down. If we continue to leave execution aside, I think the trouble people have when looking at this at a glance is that the core idea of invading the USSR in 1941 wasn't stupid, but there were too many warning factors which were stupidly ignored. Germany knew the USSR was huge and had huge manpower, which if leveraged could be terrifying in power if not exactly efficient (e.g. WW1's Brusilov Offensive). Of course, if the Red Army was horribly undisciplined and disintegrating this might not matter, but military planners should have been aware that if anything will get an army to fight hard and industry to mobilize it will be defence against invasion. While Stalin's purges certainly left the Red Army with a lack of expertise, it should have been clear if the USSR survived long enough this expertise would start to return through experience. As for Napoleon, I don't think a 1:1 comparison is important so much as the Grand Army's plight should have been an example to make sure you get things like logistics and planning for the climate right if trying to invade anywhere as large and harsh as the USSR. In short, while the idea of invading the USSR in 1941 was not inherently stupid, not thinking through what would happen if the USSR didn't collapse in the first year was at very least short sighted and probably stupid. Perhaps stupid is the wrong word here, and maybe 'arrogant' is the best fit.
By the time invasion of Soviet Union started, Germany had already accumulated baggage of wrong decisions on multiple levels and their success was contingent upon enormous blunder by Stalin - discarding British warnings. Had USSR avoided first strike, withdrew in order and focused on limited, buth overwhelming preemptive strike near Baltic coast (to avoid) German's spectacular success would already be blunted.
@@piotrd.4850After the attack there is a rumour that Stalin wouldn't believe it and went into his chamber for a few days. When he came out Germany invaded hundreds of miles. Stalin thought that Germany wasn't that dumb to invade. On the other side a German victory was not that far away. In Leningrad literally no Russian forces were left. Moscow was close to being invaded and Stalingrad was was too much a focus for Hitler. Together with some other mistakes made earlier it's not impossible Germany would have won this war.
There’s a lot misplaced to history and atleast the people who wrote it; and Germany/ Hitler believed that at some point in the near future Russia would invade Germany and with all of the soldiers, equipment, amassed on the western border that was formerly Poland maybe he was correct.. but going into the war with tanks that where under gunned and not being strategically clear with his generals and field Marshall’s about the reich’s necessities for victories while also helping Italy in Africa and in Italy the army that occupied Norway it was just a lot to try and manage.
10:28 mentioning anti-communism and racism in the same way like it was done here implies that anti-communism is bad. No, it is not only not only it is necessary. Communism killed more people than Hitler, The Spanish Flu and Napoleon combined
Soviet "Disregarded Anomaly" Womble returns I see.
SaltySeabiscuit Womble watches MHV. You can check it out in his channel's subscriptions
8:59 That's because the purge's effect was rather limited when compared to the fact that the Soviet army went from 0.5 million in 1935 to 3 million in 1939, which meant having an overstreched officer corps. In fact most problems of the USSR during the early WW2 can be atributed to an overstreched officer corps, as the Soviet conscription system puts most of the stress on its officers and NCOs for controlling the units.
You mean more stress on its officers. All militaries rely on their officers, it's just that some militaries rely on their officers more than others. The Russian system, at least in its later post WW II form, relied almost exlusively on its officers since it lacked a true NCO corps like those found in Western miliaties. Most NCOs in the Soviet military were conscripts chosen early on in training and sent to special Sgts. schools to become instant NCOs and, more often than not, had no more experience than many of those of lower rank than them.
Basically that.
Yeah, but the Wehrmacht increased 50 fold from 0.1 in 1933 to 5 million in 1939.. No big problems..
Those 0.1 were overtrained, they were basically all officers.
Varis, Podemos they were also rotated out regularly. There were large numbers of men trained to NCO levels who weren't 'in the army' to maintain compliance with the limitations on their military size. There's a MHV video for that ;)
I love this channel, how well you guys analyse sources and how reasonable your own opinions are on top of it
Großartige Visualisierung mit den Icons als Stichpunkte. Mal wieder ein super Video ! Thumbs up
Wow, these animations are improving day by day Amazing video. Keep it up!
Have now been following you for some time and must say how great of a job you do! My ww2 club now watches your vids as a part of our meetings lol.
WW2 Club? Where are you!!!
But didn’t the Swedish empire invade Russia and lost, leading to the end of the empire
That was a few hundred years before, the situation in Europe had drastically changed, Russia was a backwards, outdated and weak country at the start of the 20th century, and the Soviets were just coming out of ww1 and a civil war
...the Mongols also invaded Russia and won...the difference is they brought the Black Plague with them.
@@peterkropotkin4129 from where did you get your data about "outdated and weak russia" when Ludendorf himself said to kaiser that if he wants a war he needs to start it now in 1914, coz at 1917 russia will outproduce germany in everything. Russia was vast and therefore badly organized but she was not outdated at all. Only less developed than germany
Swedish empire lost the northern war because they were not able to concentrate on Russia alone.
@@mikolajtrzeciecki7979 but they kicked everyone’s ass, even forcing Poland Lithuania or Denmark out of the war, but with their wins they got greedy and attacked Russia, during one of the coldest ever winters.
My Grandpa was seventeen when the war begun in 1941. He told me that nobody had a doubt that we will take over a German's attack in few months, no more. Seems like everybody had own point of view.
Did ur grand father stayed in one of german occupied territories?
So you grandfather was a russian soldier and he wasnt told that they would be immediately annihilated by the enemy? I wonder why. Seems like it would be incredibly motivating to tell your soldiers, "Well sonny boy, you are fucked! We are gonna get destroyed immediately. So go out there and give your life". A single soldiers perspective and what their commanders told them means absolutely nothing
@@JosephStalin-io5fp He survived the first winter of the siege in Leningrad, surrounded by Finns and Germans, and then was evacuated, lay in the hospital with exhaustion, and than fought to victory. His mother did not survive the blockade.
@@weslerembler1 You're talking nonsense. You don't seem to have the slightest idea about that time or that country.
@@anatoly_trifonov In fact im not. You are obviously just completely blinded by your own country's and old soviet propaganda. Its always funny to me when someone who is completely historically illiterate has the audacity to call out someone else. Read a book and then come back to me.
14:00 but war never changes. By the way the claims of lay people in the subject can easiliy be identified by their common structure of short and absolute statements such as: X is stupid. And do not deserve such a researched response. However i am glad you did it anyway for the betters among the audiance.
I would disagree. I think that simply turning one's nose up at people who are ignorant is a waste, and simply ensures that such ideas continue to propagate. And I think the best way to deal with people who are ill-educated or misinformed about a subject is to educate them properly, with contextualized discussion on the matter at hand. Showing the reality of the situation, why things were the way they were, and reminding people of what was known then compared to what is known now, has a much better chance at convincing people to understand and see things from your point of view.
I enjoyed the video, very informative, adding great perspective. Also, love the umlauts on the word "Shörtcomings," (time 21:47) somehow, it just looks right. I think it adds dignity and majesty to an otherwise overlooked word. :)
Germany was using so much fuel in only 6 weeks of fighting in Europe, it was not possible for Hitler to continue his campaign anywhere for that matter and plan on winning. In the beginning of WWII Romania was Hitler's primary source of petrol but even with them giving every last drop to the German forces it was nowhere near enough. The German war machine was bleeding to death from the start.
This is not accurate.
@@sebclot9478 Yes it is
@@sebclot9478 Yes it is. If you look about how they focus on railways and wagons, and how many offensive lines along the time 41/3-42/2-43/1-44/0 you see they was lacking of mobilty (or oil).
@@TheKarofaar and lif3andthings, no it isn't. They launched the largest invasion in history that covered half a year and an area as large as Europe. They also spent the next two years launching major offensive operations while fighting on THREE fronts. Yet despite all of this, its your position that they wouldn't have been able to overrun the British in North Africa? Rommel almost did it with the measly table scraps he was given and probably would have succeeded without American intervention. A small fraction of Barbarossa's resources would have allowed Rommel to drive to Suey EASILY and then into the middle east, where German friendly regimes and oil was waiting for them. Clearing out Malta and Gibraltar would have made the Mediterranean a German lake. Now the British are in REAL trouble without the Russian Army to help them. This strategy also opens up resources for the U-boat war, which was still VERY effective in 1941. From there, the Germans have several options. Bring the Soviets into the Axis, focus on the U-boat war, perhaps force a peace with the British. Hell, they could even invade the Soviet Union from a position of greater strength. Now they could attack through the Caucuses and put the major Soviet oil field out of action right away.
@@sebclot9478 Cuple of things: The only save port to suez was tripoli. So the supply line consumes 100% more fuel only reposting the oil trucks. More personal in africa means another 100% cost. And i say more, more boats are more losses in the maritime line. And all of that for taking some oil to move them to germany to convert...that will cost a los of transport and time to make pipelines to ports, so a strong effort to maby in 1year inimum eggining to restore the oil inversion in transport. Nice. In other hand, tunis was a fkn stronghold and they fail defending. With much more troops and withowt moving. So is more about time, that about if hitler was wheels would be a lamborghini. In third hand, you didn't say anything about the reality about the germans km in eastern europe was reduced drastically year after year. So even in the magical assault in 42 in africa, you will beggin to recieve some oil in late 43 in orther to recover what you lost sending shit to the desert. And only in 44 they will have some profit in case that US didn't kick them with his mighty army and navy... just in time to defend bagration and maby not losing one million men in the east, but losing them defending the oil line. What a strategy man. I don't know why 80million germans didn't think about that plan in those days.
Good in depth analysis. Subscribed.
I love the icons you use to designate complex concepts.
absolutely amazing video. i found the first one so informative so this is great to see. one thing that i wonder abound is how everyone saw all this failure, and forgot to translate it into experience. that the red army fought as well as it did with its head cut off says something about the mid rank and lower officers.
The army managing to fight well with only middle and lower ranking officers fits in with the idea that an orchestra does not really need a conductor: something that has been tried in Russia. Not something that management theorists are keen on!
so glad I found this channel, the best source of information on the matter
great video, love these types of videos and you are very talented
Just a few comments on a well researched and presented video. Montgomery, Eisenhower, and MacArthur stated during the war that an invasion of the Asian mainland should never be made because of the logistical difficulties presented by central Asia regards the offensive operations of a large modern army. I agree that the 1812 and the 1941 invasions were inherently different but the logistical difficulties faced by each invasion force were quite similiar. If the Polish and Winter wars, the Russian civil war, the Revolution, and WWI demonstrated anything it was the near infinite capacity of the Russian army and people to survive in adversity, their unwillingness to give up, and their willingness to inflict pain on themselves rather than give in. Once the German intent in the east became evident; that is, once German troops began to systematically kill Sov citizens, civilians turned on the Germans. Having spent several months in the former USSR working in the early 1990s, I came to believe that the Sovs were capable of sustaining near-infinite personal discomforts and struggles while still managing to survive. These people were simply used to living in at a level of personal discomfort that would be impossible for a western European or North American to sustain for more than a few weeks. Once, it became clear that the Germans weren't liberators but murderers, the Sov people were never ever going to surrender. Facing near impossible levels of partisan sabotage and extremely difficult weather and terrain, the fears of the three Allied commanders became manifest. We must bear in mind that after 1941, the Germans weren't just fighting the Sov army; they were fighting the entire population of the USSR west of the Urals and the difficult environmental, geographical, and topographical realities present in the vastness of the European east. All of these issues were obviously understood by Montgomery, Eisenhower, and MacArthur during the war.
> the near infinite capacity of the Russian army and people to survive in adversity yeah, good point, I indirectly covered this with the hunger quote.
Спасибо Roger, вы нас поняли!
Military History Visualized. Something I shall never ever forget. I was working in a city of 300,000. Public water was not potable, water was available 3 days a week, hot water was available for 3 hours Saturday afternoon. This was in 1994 in what was arguably a first world nation, with a world class military. Huh? I pointedly asked a bunch of my friends why they tolerated such incompetence. There response was to shrug their shoulders and say what can we do? If we complain, we might end up in a nameless Siberian city--if we're lucky. It's better to just persevere and hope things will improve. Any nation that goes to war with a people possessing that point of view is in serious trouble.
Denis Richard, wish I could translate this.
Roger H Werner Thank you Roger, you have understood us
I"ve just Patreon you, on this barbarossa birthday ! With admiration, from a Baguette ( and wine... )
Very well presented and interesting analysis- thank you.
Excellent analysis, MHV! Since I've just gone to the trouble of addressing the 'Lebensraum' theory in reply to someone's comment, I'll post my reply here as a stand alone comment: Given the existing strategic situation, the idea that Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 in order to satisfy an ideological imperative framed in his writings of 1923 is simply fantastic. This assertion has long been a standby for the low-information/'Hitler was just crazy' set. The truth is that Hitler's decision to attack the Soviet Union was very much based on the pressing strategic realities of the time. Germany did not possess the air and naval resources necessary to knock the British out of the war, although the desired peace arrangement with Britain hovered seemingly within reach at various junctures. As the conflict against Britain dragged on, the potential for an opportunistic Soviet action against Germany loomed uncomfortably large. When the Soviet Union seized two provinces in northern Romania (Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, arguably 'reclaimed' by the Soviets, having formerly been part of the Russian Empire) Hitler deemed the writing to be on the wall; this Soviet move highlighted the vulnerability of the Romanian oilfields that were essential to the long term survival of the German Reich. On the latter point, Hitler actually said as much in a candid recorded conversation (possibly recorded accidentally) with Finland's Marshal Mannerheim. The mere fact of the size of Soviet armoured forces, which in 1940/41 outnumbered in tanks the combined tank forces of ALL the world's armies, would have been impossible to overlook for ANY German government, Hitler or no. For a behind the scenes look at the shaping of German foreign policy during the 1930s and WW2 see Rudolf von Ribbentrop's ‘My Father, Joachim von Ribbentrop: Hitler's Foreign Minister, Experiences and Memories'. This important book, only recently available in English, has been largely ignored, for reasons that become obvious with the turn of each page. The 'lebensraum' theory of why Hitler invaded the Soviet Union is fairly convincingly debunked by the author, in his own words and those of his father. Interestingly, A.J.P. Taylor, in his absorbing work 'The Origins of the Second World War', describes the Soviet strategic threat to Germany quite succinctly (pages 256-257), framed by the last minute negotiations between Voroshilov and the French and British military missions that arrived in Moscow late in August, 1939. The inability of the French and British to assure the Soviets of free passage via northern Poland in order to get at Germany in the event of war was a sticking point. The Soviets instead bought time by concluding an arrangement with Germany, as is well known. From page 257: 'It was their intention, in case of war, to fling armoured columns into Germany, regardless of German attacks elsewhere. This remained their intention even in 1941; and they were prevented from putting it into operation only by the fact that Hitler attacked them before they were ready'. One must bear in mind that the latter was written by a former Communist and life-long Russophile, a man whose anti-German views were so virulent that the British public took exception to his on-the-air fulminations AT THE HEIGHT OF THE WAR, leading to his being sacked by the BBC!
Ribbentrop was a fool。Nothing that champagne salesman had to say is of any significance whatever：＂Hitler did all the talking，so he never noticed Ribbentrop＇s babbling。＂
Excellent commentary couldn't have said it better myself
I think you misunderstand the lebensraum principle by taking its literal translation. It was about enslavement and theft of production in order to repay the industrialists who’d backed Hitler’s bond issues. This was seen in the conquered nations in the west by the simple installation of puppet governments and fixed exchange rates. It was nothing to do with “more space for the German people.”
@@annoyingbstard9407 I haven't 'misunderstood' anything. I invite you to re-read my comment.
I read your comment and would point out the rather obvious that it was quite standard for post war popular historians to ride the anti-communist bandwagon by suggesting the war was to be blamed on the Soviets. Secondly you seem to have missed one point in your selective quote mining. The phrase you chose to overlook was “in case of war” which in most people’s minds would simply mean when Germany attacked (as it did, as it always planned and as was inevitable) the Soviet response would be to strike with their own forces into Germany - a plan which palpably failed to materialise. The fact is the war was an ideological war secondly and an economic war firstly. Germany had issued bonds which were eagerly bought, not just inside Germany but around the world, despite the buyers knowing they were financing Hitler’s rearmament program. A program with no prospect of enabling those bonds to be honoured save by conquest providing cheap labour and plundered materials - as was proved to be the case. You may notice your theory of the origins of the war are somewhat speculative and based on a quote or two whereas mine is based on the facts of what actually happened as a result of Germany’s conquests. Lest you still choose to ignore the facts you could perhaps check out the legal threats still rumbling over Dawes Bonds and Young bonds which were the US issues.
Those hindsight warriors just needed some Baguettewerfers to play with. Just give them those.
What i hate the most about them is that the only conclusion they ever take from analysis is "ok, so in order to win you just have to NOT commit these mistakes". OH, YOU DONT SAY. GUESS IF WE WANT TO SEND A ROCKET TO MARS, WE JUST HAVE TO *NOT* COMMIT THE SAME MISTAKES AS PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS. PRETTY SIMPLE AND STRAIGHT FORWARD, HUH?
@@vroomkaboom108 this guy gets it. fuck that shit is ANNOYING
Haha
I'm a new subscriber and I have to say that your videos, especially this one, open my eyes to things I never have thought even after extensive reading about the Second World War. Thank you for what you do.
Whut so u get into the content but cant think out of the box? .-.
whydoievenbothertoputthisher troll gonna troll
Quality mate, cheers
I like the way you put everything and you coverd it all for me thanks
I'm Russian and I wasn't offended by German video about operation Barbarossa. That's quite a feat. I wish more youtubers had the same level of precision and non-biased fact-based narration as yours. Cheers.
At first I had a really hard time understanding what you say because I'm not a native English speaker and mostly learned English speech by listening to Americans and British. But in time I understand more and more. I wonder how many people would understand my accent if I started to do videos with English voice over :D
@Tom Voke These kinds of jokes crack me up. Keep at it, Tom. Weekends should be for laughter and jokes!
@Tom Voke I look here we have a great connoisseur of Slavic history. You are a foreigner, and many of my compatriots (both Russians and Ukrainians) believe a huge number of pseudoscientific theories (like yours), although they have a lot of different literature that you don’t have. I will say briefly. In medieval Russia there was no understanding of Kievan Rus. Rus was called all the territories where Orthodox Christians who speak Slavic languages live. Then only East Slavic lands were called that. Kiev it is called only by historians. Because the most important (and the eldest in the family) of the yawning dynasty lived and ruled from Kiev. But all these territories are Russia. The modern surroundings of Moscow are the same Russia, only in those times - the outskirts. Then, during the internecine wars, the state collapsed and almost all the princes became independent from Kiev. Western Ukraine (Galiko-Volyn principality), Belarus (Polotsk), and many others, including in Russia (including the city-republic of Novgorod). Then the Tataromongol invasion occurred, the nomads almost completely destroyed Kiev (as well as all the major cities - the core of the old Russia, Chernihiv, Ryazan, and others). These were the most developed and powerful cities that should have become the future center of the empire or something else. Therefore, in their place were new, smaller cities and territories, which for various reasons escaped destruction. (for example, Novgorod and Polotsk were far from the steppes, and Moscow and Tver immediately agreed to the conditions of the horde). The history of ancient Russia is very complex, it is not at all the same as in most textbooks (there is no difference in Russian or Ukrainian).
@Tom Voke "I see you wrote several paragraphs of original argument to counter me in depth, so I will ignore all that, insult you and throw a link at you! I win, you Putinist! I know more about your own country than you do!" Wow, you sure showed him. I wonder if you have Trump Derangement Syndrome as well? And one look at your channel and.... Yup. You 'like' some of the most well produced & funded propagandists, liars and brainwashers of all time who masquerade as late night 'comedy' and mainstream corporate news. How ironic. Soviet brainwashing? The USSR has been dead longer than you've been alive, American boy, almost three decades; if you want to see socialist/globalist brainwashing in action, look in the damn mirror.
I'm East European and I think westerners don't really understand our mentality. While we're all white race there is a quite difference. They think we're weak because we're not that rich and organized as they are but they don't understand how much we love our land, our people and above all how much tough we are and ready to die for true values.
I have come for less-known historic facts and for Glantz. I was not disappointed.
Excellent presentation!!
Excellent presentation 👍
I like how the initial argument is well everyone thought the Soviet Union was dumb so it was a good idea
It is a very compelling argument. The soviet union was extremely incompetent at the start of the war and it was only after years that they regained their strength. Something like the 5 biggest encirclements of all time were performed at the very start of operation barbarossa. Sometimes even up to 600k soviet soldiers in one go. No wonder the germans thought the soviets were incompetent, because they definetely were
@@weslerembler1 Not compelling. Just stupid. Amazing how the supposedly incompetent Soviets won and the supposedly competent Germans lost.
@@aristedecomgmailcom There is no denying that the Soviet Union was incompetent at the very least before the war and most likely for the first couple of months (even years) of the invasion. Granted they did turn it around completely by the end of the war, but that was with huge losses in manpower and production plus an ungodly amount of help from the west.
@@weslerembler1 The Red Army was competent enough to win. The Wehrmacht was incompetent enough to lose.
@@weslerembler1 "But"? All the "but"s in the world cannot change that the Red Army won and the Wehrmacht lost.
Good discussion (as always). Love the humor as well. The other major consideration that you have touched on elsewhere is the need for oil. There was nowhere for Germany to go than the Caucuses. And the time was urgent. Sometimes you have to play the cards you are dealt (granted the Nazi regime built their hand and the German aristocracy/big business enabled them). Great points on the western powers view of pre-war Russia. And as usual, the western powers just did not take into consideration that Russia would not nor could not adapt. Planning on static situations is disastrous.
Wasn't the USSR providing oil to Germany since they were a semi-Axis member prior to Barbarossa? I think this is where this logic fails. Secure the easier target for oil (Middle East) from the British and then go after Russia once all of that is done.
A fantastic video in all regards
Superb research and points 😃
So what you're saying is...
One does not simply invade the soviet union
Mud or walk into mordor...
Seems some western politicians just repeat the mistakes from 75 years ago...👻
Maybe you could do a video of Charles XII invasion of Russia , to find the similarties and differences of the wars in russian soil. Sorry for my bad English
I second that.
Sweden was destined to fail miserable, they had 0 chances to succeed. It is useless to make a video about that.
sweden decided to wage a war on attrition with russia and was doomed, but true it has lots of similarties
Best analysis. Thanks...
This is an excellent video. Hindsight is often distorting.
Best idea I've heard about this discussion is by Vizzini in "The Princess Bride": "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." Me: "It always ends badly!".
Unless you're the Mongols
I agree that Germans had no choice. They could not attack Britain, and they were losing resource war agains allies, so they simply had no time and no other option other than to start war against USSR in hope to quickly remove possible threat and get some resources, before the US joins the war.
Alexander Seven nonsense, they had the option to fortify the east and put full power to african front, brits would have get their asses kicked there and syria and iraq taken and iran turned to an allie of the axis
And no, GB had no superiority there especially with the airforce it was the other way around in the first years.
Funny how desperate their options were. Here you destroy British and French armies, take France in a few weeks and than - ... - you have no exit strategy. Wherever your turn, you will lose.
You defeat the British on the African front- then what? Try pushing south through Africa? Pincer India with Japan? These would be campaigns every bit as large as Barbarossa, yet with no chance of forcing Britain out of the war. The more the Germans took, the more the British would have to gain back by waiting for a victory. If the Napoleonic wars proved anything it was that the British were quite content to hide on their island and undermine a continental hegemon they were unable to defeat in the field for decades. With the Soviet Union rearming and expanding, Hitler didn't have decades.
> they had the option to fortify the east Fortify what, 2000 km? And keep 4-5 millions of soldiers on the eastern border all the time? > and put full power to african front They had problems even with supplying Rommel's forces in Africa, it could never become a main front simply for logistics reasons.
Another great video.
I could listen to you all day man. Your voice reminds me of Bob Ross the painter on PBS.
It's an enjoyable state of affairs when historians with shared interest audit each others' channels. In the best cases this leads to some very entertaining collaborations, such as those between MHV and The Great War, Bismarck, et al (TGW is rife with worthy segments using MHV, C&Rsenal, and others, to observe certain points with more powerful lenses). We fans are like that, too. We eagerly seek out useful historical presentations and analyses in order to improve our focus on these fascinating matters. It is a beautiful new age for this endeavor, now that most of the well distributed accounts are readily available online. Reading as many of these as possible puts us all on a more or less level playing field, philosophically speaking. That, in turn, makes the resulting discussions all the more interesting and entertaining and that, I feel, is the ultimate purpose here.
TIK
Any idea why Roosevelt turned out to be right when most of the others were so wrong?
Excellent video, bröther.
Great video, great music. Sub earned.
I always assumed it was like in sports when a team looks past an opponent only to have their collective butts handed to them by a lesser opponent.
I don't know much about the Napoleonic wars, but in WW2, people in the Soviet Union were fighting for their country's survival and their own. That has a huge effect on motivation, not only of the soldiers, but also of the workers in the (munition) factories. There is nothing that unites people more than a common threat. Edit: but I know that views on mass psychology were different at the time.
Exactly. Germans were amazed by the stubbornness of the Russians. Germans had a great moral but the Russians were on the same level. Hitler made the people follow him because he gave them what they wanted, mostly. But following Stalin is something else. This was pure surviving.
Great explanation
Fantastic Video! Finally someone give the People that talk that "Just Stupid" nonsense finally an answer. The Thing that most People forgetting too about Operation Barbarossa is that a war between Germany (or whole western Europe) and the Soviet Union was unstoppable so it would happen at short or long. And if not in 1941 it would be much much more difficult to achieve a Victory against them after. PS: Schade das du keine Videos auf Deutsch machst :D Gibt irgendwie keinen mit dir vergleichbaren Kanal im deutschsprachigem Raum :( Vor allem keinen der alles so objektiv und neutral betrachtet.
You can still see the same thinking today when people talk about fighting Russia.
You dismiss the Mediterranean strategy too fast. That was a viable option, air assets were good and there was no need for such a large Navy as against the UK.
Getting the oil from the middle east to mainland europe would be hard and not enough oil.
Securing North Africa then the Suez Canal
@@jhomariquit7444 that was a viable plan with Lufftflotte 4 based on Crete and Malta taken early ... especially with oil discovered in Libya that would have covered all German+Italian oil needs. Suddenly Romania is less important and Stalin can get more stuff in Eastern Europe and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is not broken but the Soviets start to gravitate towards the Axis especially after the Allies bomb Baku. If that happens, Soviet oil makes it to Japan in 1940 and there is no need for Japan to strike at the US. Pearl never happens, Britain is isolated and its dominion is carved up between the Japanese, Russians and Italian/Germans it is ejected from the Med and the West Coast of Africa is gradually occupied. The Azores becomes a sub base and Britain is blockaded far more efficiently ... the US ramps up the land-lease but grabs British islands and territories as it sees Britain inevitably falling to pieces. The US remains out of the war because it cannot project power across two contested oceans at the same time ... German air power eventually outclasses Britain and Britain sues for peace losing most of its colonies. A new cold war starts where Eurasia is the leading power in the world.
@@andraslibal Actually it would be more like Isolation than war, because Hitler just wanted Lebensraum, no imperialism.
Great analysis.
that Glantz joke was on point. 10/10
Thanks
Very interesting video! I kinda disagree, though, regarding the ideological component in western powers' vision of the USSR: just as it happens today with any closed, diplomatic pariah country, the information that arrived to western countries was mostly reports and critiques from people fleeing the country or political opposition. That strongly contributed to the idea that surgical attacks against the main industrial and political spots in the country could make it collapse easily: a rough 90-95% of the sources anybody could and WANTED to read in the west was based on the idea that Soviet people were prisoners of a brutal regime and would gladly open their gates to whoever "freed" them. Ironically enough, that was an important part of French defeat: by 1939 the III Republic was on the verge of political collapse (parlamentary debates on weaponary and rearming policies of the 1936-1939 period defy any rational analysis), and that strongly contributed to the country surrendering after Paris fell, and after the "national hero who will save us" decided that it was better to fight socialists than Germans. This is an oversimplification, of course, but I guess you can get the point. This is also the reason why, when appointed 1st minister, Churchill invested a lot of time and effort in propaganda campaigns, cinema, negotiations with labour unions etc., since it was clear to him that lack of social cohesion had, in the end, costed the French the war. And, retaking my point before, many thought this would also be the case with the USSR. Now we know they were wrong. Based on the info you could get in London in 1940, unless you went to soviet propaganda, it was almost impossible to know the truth. It can be considered one of these cases where your propaganda ends up convincing yourself, instead of convincing your enemy.
This is the first time that I encounter such a point of view about Barbarossa and I'm appalled that I did not think of some of these points myself. But as much as I love history and particularly war history it's at best a side interest behind science and technology, but that's not a good excuse for someone, me, that is proud of being a skeptic with a very analytical mind. Thanks for an excellent video, now I'll let the the ideas from it marinate in my brain as I should have done with all the Barbarossa/Napoleon parallels that tv documentaries have shown me.
Wow. When you climb back out of your own arse, I'd love to hear how insightful you deem the marinated findings...
Well Done!
I know this is 2 years old, but this is a top shelf video. Excellent info basing it on German perspective of operations, rather than analyzing specific battles without proper context. Well done. I am not sure if you've covered the fuel situation. An improved, mechanized army on a scale untested in large scale combat meant calculations for fuel, maintenance, and mechanical issues was underestimated based on the performances in the western campaign. German fuel and oil problems were the biggest driving force pushing them, gambling on a quick German win in the East restoring rapidly depleting oil, food, and fuel on all fronts. Operation Barbarossa was not stupid, it was the only strategic option. Germany could not continue the war with the resources available to them on the scale they were already committed to and could not turn back underestimating the distance and huge problems getting fuel to the eastern front. They completely underestimated and gambled. Hail Mary - Either they go east for resources, or definitely lose the war by attrition in a matter of months. Same outcome. Wehrmacht army command was aware of this .....
Nothing better than listening to a soothing German voice speaking of Barbarossa
16:40 Flanks that are poorly secured by foreign troops? Hmmm sounds very familiar to the Eastern Front.
13:00 Where the parallel really falls down is that Hitler wanted conquest. Napoleon was simply trying to get Russia's promise to stick to the boycotts of Britain that Napoleon wanted. Before and during the invasion Napoleon was constantly contacting the Czar, crying that he hated warring against his friend, couldn't Russia PLEASE just stick to the boycott and let's be friends again. But given the war, Napoleon's real problem was just being 4-5 days late in establishing a winter camp. Had the weather held out less than a week longer things would have been different. 2) He was really excellent at logistics and command, but made the mistake of going in with too many men to command personally, and 2-3x more than he could really supply. He'd have been better off with half the soldiers. People don't realize, though that the Russian losses were fairly comperable to Napoleon's. As soon as Napoleon realized the Russians had burnt down Moscow to deny it to him as a winter base, he should have turned around and marched out.
Thanks for the work you put in to get new material (for me) to measure Western attitudes towards the USSR. I think there's another factor, Russian national coherence, and Western perceptions and evaluations of it. You didn't mention the differences in Russian capabilities that substantially changed under the tzar and the reds after 1917. Under the Tzar the same men (more or less) who fled the field of battle in 1917, would under the reds, defeat the forces of the white Russians and the expeditionary forces of all the major powers in 1919-20 from a prostrate military position in 1918. Quite a change resulting from a change of leadership (Tsar to reds). By 1941 who knew what the Russian people thought about Stalin and the USSR as a social project or whether they were just collectively and historically stubborn? I don't think the Russians themselves could know how coherent they were themselves under the conditions they lived in and the propaganda they received. The German invasion forced an answer to the question "would the people of Russia reject the USSR and/or Stalin" when attacked? Now we know the answer more or less. But Adolf had a similar calculation of the coherence of the Russian people (and hence the fighting spirit) as his British, French, and American counterparts. To this day I don't think historians have grappled well with the psychology and ability to hang together of Russians in 1941. Their effort in WW2 seems to surpass any other nation in willingness to absorb shock, fight under terrible circumstances, and work night and day. Did Russian coherence and resolve in 1941 and Vietnamese coherence from 1950 - 1975 have a somewhat different source than we're accounting for here? I think that nobody, including the Russians, anticipated the Russian (and Vietnamese) response very well.
"Do you also consider Spain to be unconquerable?" Oooooohhhhhhh, that's a lot of damage.
I like that, "Hindsight Warrior" lol
this video is a masterpiece
12:40 I can't believe you missed on saying "Planes, trains and automobiles".
22 minutes of learning about WWII from a guy with a badass accent. What’s not to love? Edit: Just noticed that we should disregard Womble because he’s an anomaly.
No it wasn't a stupid idea , it was a really criminal idea. Lest we forget.
Excellent points made. Also worth noting is that, good idea or not, Barbarossa and especially Fall Blau were necessary operations, due to the fact that Germany needed access to petroleum to continue the war effort on all fronts.
Y'know, rewatching this video tonight something occurs to me. A few years back I was thinking of visiting Europe. My parents who lived in Germany for awhile told me that something I'd likely be really surprised by was how small and close everything was compared to the US, and that basically the European countries were basically the size of US states. I wonder if that's a big part of what happened with Operation Barbarossa in reverse. Yes, most people know that geography really helped the USSR in WWII, but what if it's more than that? Did German leadership bring Euro-centric ideas and assumptions of warfare, distance, and logistics to a theater of war where they wouldn't work? Was Germany preparing to fight a European war rather than an Asian land war? You can see all the maps and make all the plans you want, but it's something else entirely to experience it firsthand for the first time. Ultimately I guess this question is one for a military historian but it'd be a very interesting sub-point in the failure of Barbarossa as to exactly how much of a part underestimating distances and logistical challenges may have played versus other factors
"A short Glantz at the facts..." :-)
I always tell people everything that's ever happened has made perfect sense but they never believe me. Hindsight gives the illusion of omniscience.
This is probaly because people think it has to made sense for them to made sense at all.
Ha! Quick Glantz! Almost missed that.
The point in the video clip about the word and ideology related to "stupid" is well made. Furthermore, we should retire the word "stupid" once and for all. We must continue discussion and debate on Historical subject matter. In my opinion, the exercise of debate is one of the few "healthy" exercises we as society have left. Moving on now. I want to ask the question: would you prepare a video or a follow up which considers the other theory suggesting why Hitler made the decision to prepare and execute Operation Barbarossa?? I am referring to the theory, perhaps mainly a theory supported by German biases during this time period.: the theory is Barbarossa was necessary as a "preventative measure" to hold back a Soviet offensive in the West?? Thank you to this video channel owner for all the videos you present to us. Your efforts are sincerely appreciated. Best wishes for every success from a "History Hound" such as myself. Thank you for reading my long post here and your kind consideration of a reply, if you wish, to my query.
Could you please make a video about the effects of 'lend-lease' in Soviet Union war effort?
It helped but not a clincher by far N entry port convoys decimated by Germans S entry via mid east involved 2000 mi truck trip after docking so most of tonage were trucks Some say biggest contrib though we're the many thousands of trucks as it allowed Soviet infantry which prev relied on rails then foot to be brought quickly to any battle anywhere also towed artillery
Fundamentally, assured Soviets of Western support in case of fighting Germany and provided some tooling and western designs. Otherwise, insignificant especially at high point of campaign on Eastern Front.
Depends on what sources you're using, given the author almost exclusive reliance on western publications, the conclusion would be that lend lease alone saved the USSR.
A fight between Germany and the Soviet Union was inevitable, even without a German invasion. The Soviet Union would have waited for the Normandy invasion, "liberated" Poland and then straight into Germany. The post war map would be almost identical, perhaps with more (or all) of Germany under Soviet control.
The Normandy invasion would have been more difficult if Nazi Germany wasn＇t already getting whupped in the East。
great video, what programme or ' whatever " do you use to create them? :)