Fantastic, yet again. My only disappointment with this channel is the lack of subscribers and viewers for what seems the most informative channel covering WWII. Bless you Woody for all you do, because the vast amount of well informed people you get to contribute and share their views are what makes this channel so special. Keep it up.
AGREED! Truly baffling, actually, I believe I left a very similar comment in a previous episode with Paul and David. I actually discovered WW2 TV searching David Stahl but I've now seen dozens of episodes. It's a real pleasure on any WW2 subject and not only Paul but so many of those watching ask inciteful questions that often were swimming around simultaneously as I enjoyed the episode.
@@WW2TV We are in the niche of a niche of a niche, here. Most people on RUclips consume the more lightweight material, and we are probably reliant on their growth to see our own, rather than academic military history suddenly overtaking rivet counting and singular battle overviews. I love both, so I do not use those words to denigrate.
An outstanding presentation by Professor Stahel! His research puts a different perspective on the Germany military activity in Russia during the winter of 1941-42.
Many thanks - another great presentation! I have read just about every book by David Stahel and I regard him, Robert Cintino and David Glantz as setting the ‘gold standard’ for Eastern front military history.
*I cannot remember if it was Indy Nidel from the amazing "World War Two" RUclips channel that covers WWII on a week too week basis or one of the many viewers... But one of those mentioned, said "The amount of time it took for Allied Troops in North Africa to capture cities, towns, airfields, ports & basically the land, was drastically QUICKER than the time it took for German Troops to capture ONE BLOCK in Stalingrad...* *The amount of soldiers & civilians that lost their life in Stalingrad was mindboggling. The numbers seem impossible. Russia would have their soliders just keep running at the enemy in droves, even though they were being cut down & ripped into pieces by German Machinegun fire from their MG34's & MG42's.... Germany's MG's, the MG34's &
This is really great information. Our understanding of the Eastern Front is exceptionally poor to date. I wonder if we will ever have a full picture of the conditions in that first winter of the war.
Another top notch presentation thanks to Professor Stahel, any you Paul, another learning curve today. Such fantastic subjects Paul, your channel is No.1 in my eyes, it’s going from strength to strength.
These episodes with Mr. Stahl were completely fascinating. A lot of new information to digest, but the very fact that the Soviet Union wasn't knocked out before the winter was a clear indication that Barbarossa was a failure. The fact that the Wehrmacht wasn't prepared to fight a winter war is the clearest indication that they thought the war would be over before the winter.
First time I've seen David Stahel speak and really impressed by his research and arguements presented. Will watch his previous show on the channel later. The contrast with the Wehrmacht leadership in Dec 1941 vs Dec 1944 (Douglas Nash show on Budapest) is pretty stark regards freedom of manoeuvre & exercise of initiative towards its own self-preservation, after the failure of the July Plot.
Another fantastic show. My knowledge of the Ost is very limited and I'm looking forward to these shows. Can't wait to read Prof. Stahel's Operation Barbarossa book. Currently part of the huge backlog on my iPad that my WW2TV habit has engendered.
Truly magnificent. A great privilege to hear from a distinguished man like mr. Stahel. About where the Germans learned their "Pavlovian" counterattacks, it was on the Western front in WW1 as far as I know. One of the reasons for the static front then was that after wading through the mud and capturing an objective the infantry was bone-tired and heavy supporting weapons couldn't have yet been brought in through no-mans land. A counter-attack at that instance would inevitably dislodge the attacking forces.
David is absolutely one of my favourite guests. He strikes the right balance between presenting a solid academic thesis but in an accessible friendly and engaging manner
@@WW2TV I've absolutely loved every one of your guests and I really love it that you have younger, non-European/non-American and female historians on, we're finally starting to get a broader range of perspectives. I can't thank you (and the historians themselves of course) enough for that. But I'm a middle-aged white guy also and the only name that'd make me click on a video faster than James Holland is Mr. Stahel.
Paul WW2TV, Your insightful observations and questions along with Your viewers questions ABSOLUTELY bring out the BEST of David Stahel. Stahel is certainly now close to one of,in my humble opinion, "thee" premier historical sources for the Eastern front. At 57 I've enjoyed and maintain a healthy appetite for new information on that front available since the end of the Cold War. His hard work in the archives and ability to burn thru the vagaries of previous literature and finding the new questions is truly remarkable. Love it. Thank You!!
Another good book on the Eastern Front is written by Patrick Cloutier entitled "Mussolini's War in the East 1941-1943". There were other countries involved as well in Operation Barbarossa that made significant contribution.
I've been reading about the east front for decades. David Stahel's work is refreshing, confirms what I considered a major part of a German tactical doctrine the was being used (Elastic Defense) too bad I'm at work and missed this live presentation. A-1 Presentation Woody I'll have to wait for his book to be available again. I'll see if its available as an E-Book
Superb stuff as usual from ww2tv and Professor Stahel. This presentation really made me reevaluate what I thought I knew on this period of the war. I feel a lot more reading is required.... Which is great!
Proud owner of the Stahel ouvre -- brilliant interview as always Woody -- but I think we need a presentation about the operational aspects of the Battle of Kiev and on the details of the poorly known Battle of Dubno -- can we make it happen?
Great show. David Stahel is my favorite WW2TV guest. I realized after his first appearance that I literally knew nothing about the Eastern front. I knew it was huge, but I didnt even truly appreciate the magnitude or even know enough to know I didn't really know anything. Maybe I'm biased, but the David's always come through on WW2TV.
I am a huge fan of David Stahel's work, though I did admit I rolled my eyes when reading Retreat From Moscow when the words 'a band of riflemen' were used to describe the Red Army - with a citation for the poor tactics being the account of the SS 4th division - which is somewhat anecdotal. I do think work in Soviet archives would've improved the book significantly, though I do think it is an excellent work.
Love listening to Stahel just speak words on the war. Know he's a guest, but I'd have enjoyed having him on and just pressing play lol. Any question or comment that's interjected would either eventually be answered or not have been a concern I was worried about hearing anyways during this entire "lecture" lol
One more - I certainly hope David gets around to a Rhzev book. My first exposure to the the Battle of Rhzev was through the Russian series "Soviet Storm: WW2 in the East" close to 10 years ago. It's STILL difficult to find books or documentaries on this, although there are a few. Rhzev is also a bit of a stain on Zhukov's record of never having lost a battle; Operation Mars was not a win by any standard.
@@WW2TV 36” screen, LED. Sometimes the maps are very clear, understanding the size actually being worked with. I can see them if I get closer to the TV. It’s really no problem. Sometimes I’m too lazy to get out of the chair.
Did "The Iron Curtain", and the general secrecy imposed by the Soviets after the war create any difficulty in getting to the "radical source" documents of the Russians? To tell the story of the "retreat from Moscow", or for that matter the German retreat across the entire eastern front?
I've always felt it was kind of obvious that the 1940 1 winter campaign had not been a success. Leningrad did not fall. Moscow did not fall. All of the encirclements had been less than perfect and many soldiers were able to fall back to the next River or the next town if that was necessary. The overwhelming success in the earliest days became less and less and less. I don't know how you can say that an army that is pushed past its logistics, lost a lot of it's best men and had not achieved any of its most important goals were a success. They would start the new year weaker while the Russians would start the new year getting stronger and stronger and stronger. I don't believe there was actually a winnable path for the Germans. Unless they had somehow found all of the oil fields running at full tilt and then it would have taken something like a coup in the Russian government or some other disastrous situation like that because they physically really couldn't take that country. It was a pipe dream from the beginning. I know people like to follow the campaign and say at this point it became unwinnable or at this other point 3 months later but I think it was unwinnable the first time the pen ever landed on the paper to draw out this idea.
Not necessarily - victory has many forms. The Germans defeated the Russians in WW1 - and quite badly to be honest. That wasn’t a victory where they took the whole country of Russia… you don’t always need to do that to defeat a nation.
I believe they could have won if they respected Ukrainians and the Baltic peoples as there equal They initially looked at germany invasion as liberation but they underestimation of Soviet military power led them to just throw away a golden opportunity to destroy communism once and for all. If hitler wasn't so hubristic and racist, more trusting of his generals and not underestimate his enemies he could have won If Japan attacked from the east that would definitely have helped to witch they could have done if germany could find a way to bring them equipment and reinforcements
@@tylermorrison420the germans weren't running out of people until 44. They had more men in the east in 42 than they had in 41. Recruting ukranians and baltic people (10k soldiers LOL), wouldn't have changed anything
The greatest mistake I see in discussions of Barbarossa and the Eastern Front generally is the almost complete exclusion of the AOK ( Army Group Finland ) and operations conducted from north of Leningrad to the Arctic Circle. It’s often said ‘there were three army groups’ in reference to the Soviet-German war, but in reality there was four. For some reason, despite the AOK tasked with one of the most important strategic objectives and possibly reaching the Northern part of the ‘A-A’ line, this smaller yet still important army group is treated as a footnote or as a separate series of battles, perhaps because it was conducted on Finnish soil. However, none of the starting points for any of the Army groups were striking out from home soil, so why the separation?
Yes really Brill,and interesting stuff I watched some Eastern front history with TIK, and he made an interesting point about the film enemy at the gates were they charged the Germans and the NKVD were shooting the red army soldiers retreating, apparently that did not happen so to have modern takes on various battles I feel is an essential must.
At 66 I have been studying ww2 all my adult life and the battle of Britain has always been considered Hitlers first defeat. Wish I had a penny for every time I have heard that it was the coldest winter in 100 years. There is a speech Hitler made at the sportsplatz on September 30 1942 in which he brags about stalingrad being secured. It is available on RUclips fully translated. One of the very few Hitler speeches that are. There's a 2 part video on german home movies during the war on RUclips. Its fantastic.
Context is crucial. The Halt order by Hitler was really about retreating in order, which means fighting to retreat, given that a panic retreat in the snow could have resulted in large German losses. Of course this means that some German soldiers were required to hold their positions against overwhelming odds and sacrifice themselves so others could retreat more safely. In the end Stalin, as was his want, pushed the Soviet advance beyond is capabilities with exhaustion. And it makes sense the German would retreat in a way to hold onto strategic cities.
I'm not sure the statistics recorded by Halder are all that trustworthy. I do think House and Glantz have a good handle on the general failures of the Wermacht. Robert Citino is among the best writers on the death of the Wermacht.
What really matters in human history is progress in technology and cooperation between humans in pursuing and exploiting it. Wars are pretty irrelevant in the LONG run. Still, who among us isn't occasionally taken by the twists and turns and SHORT-term effects of wars, and if you are into looking back upon those, it doesn't get better than David Stahel.
Hope Mr. Stahl addresses in future book how Hitler ordering conquest of Ukraine before Moscow against his Generals' advice affected the campaign. David Glantz thought it wasn't a mistake on the other hand Germans might have gotten shelter in Moscow for winter and possibly strike the Urals the next spring
Early Red Army losses can be blamed in large part on Stalin for preventing his generals from preparing defensive positions in the West and also preventing timely retreats to prevent encirclements during the course of the German advance. My understanding is that German casualties by March 1942 was around 1 million men.
I'm slightly confused. The 'orthodox history' is that Hitler's 'Stand Fast' order saved the Army for many reason but primarily; it stopped panic as the men were obliged to hold onto urbanised areas. Also, everyone knows the objective of Barbarossa was to destroy the Red Army and not to take territory. Huuuuum. Brilliant channel BTW. Just found it and subscribed :)
@@WW2TV I love the long form. I think more people would appreciate it too, if they knew the channel was here. I intend to be posting my recommendation here and there. Keep it up!
Okay. Reached 38 minutes when the issue of the 'halt order' is addressed. In my view pragmatism was always an element. I certainly never imagined the halt order meant total 100% zero withdrawals anywhere. Why would it? From my perspective, the order was simply a refusal by AH to order a strategic withdrawal across the entire front. The order was rather a statement of overall objectives (to hold the German position) and not a specific instruction to each soldier at every point. I think the case is being slightly overstated by this author. AH always knew his Generals ignored him when it suited them.
*Icannot remember if it was Indy Nidel from the amazing "World War Two" RUclips channel that covers WWII on a week too week basis or one of the many viewers... But one of those mentioned, said "The amount of time it took for Allied Troops in North Africa to capture cities, towns, airfields, ports & basically the land, was drastically QUICKER than the time it took for German Troops to capture ONE BLOCK in Stalingrad...* *The amount of soldiers & civilians that lost their life in Stalingrad was mindboggling. The numbers seem impossible. Russia would have their soliders just keep running at the enemy in droves, even though they were being cut down & ripped into pieces by German Machinegun fire from their MG34's & MG42's.... Germany's MG's, the MG34's & the newer MG42's which had a even HIGHER fire rate than the 34's, were shooting a full powered 7.92mm rifle round... The Germans 7.92mm round, known as the 8mm Mauser, was a devastating round to be hit by... Anyone who was unlucky enough to be hit by one of these rounds, almost always perished from their wounds, since the 7.92mm bullet would enter your body and destory your vital organs & the exit wound was so large. Some of the military's ammunition was actually banned from being used in WAR, like the well known Hollow point & Soft Point and because of the hollow & soft points and the size & velocity of the 7.92mm bullet, the injuries soliders received were devastating... A lot of the times, soldiers would have their entire bone blown apart by these HP & SP bullets.*
The paper, scissors, rock argument about who really won or was most influential in winning WWII for the allies ignores the reality of which leg of the three-legged stool is superfluous? First and foremost, from the 1920's onward Britain, the Soviet Union, and America were pre-occupied by Imperial Japan's intentions in Asia, Indonesia, and the Pacific. Then Hitler came to power in the '30's and the problem became seemingly unsolvable which it did and that is why the war broke out. The dilemma of fighting the Axis Powers started long before World War II started. It took the British Empire, the USSR, and the United States to go to extraordinary lengths to defeat the Axis Powers in the war.
awesome series!! barbarossa and antibarbarossa is when our today's world was founded. it ended one evil system of life and diminished the other one to the point, where it couldn't take the whole of europe in 45/46.. i can't even imagine, how powerful ussr would become if there never was a barbarossa. even a so much damaged ussr was only kept in check by atom bombs.. today's american world was born in russia really..
This is an interesting discussion point. Does Stalin wake up randomly and start flossin on us or did they need the Germans despite the losses.? And would Stalin kill 20 more million on his own? If not that's an economical boost in theory. 🤔
Much depends on how high the protagonists set the bar for themselves. If the Germans had fought exactly the same 1941 campaign with Smolensk as the year's objective, it would be regarded as a massive over success. Similarly, if the Soviet objective over the winter had just been to clear the approaches to Moscow, it would be regarded as an unquestioned success. Nor is "defeat" necessarily the direct reciprocal of "victory". "Failure" and "success" complicate this. Barbarossa was a series of massive defeats for the USSR, yet still a failure for the Germans. The Soviet Winter counter-offensive gained important ground for the Russians but was ultimately a failure for the USSR, yet hardly a victory for the Germans.
According to a Russian historian.Germans did much better then the French French entire military disintegrated whit the first conter attack. The german buckled and many generals started advocating retreat but It didn't disintegrate like the French. Although at a hefty price ..it is now estimated that Germans lost around 600,000 man just around Moscow.Hitler famously stated....Let them dig teaches whit Howitcer shells but not retreat
What are you talking about, “the French disintegrated with the first counter attack” ? Have you never heard of the battle of Borodino ? Do you not know that the French actually occupied Moscow ? It looks like you badly need to brush up on your history.
intresting book , but what does it prove ?...so far is i am concerned , the narrative has it right...the Germans tried to conquer Moscow and they failed , all what happens afterwards did not change that Russian victory a bit...everybody knows that the Germans were masters in tactics and the Red army generals weren't...Wellington made mistakes at Waterloo , no doubt , but he won , Blucher or not and Napoleon was beated..in war only the result matters...the only intresting thing is the Halt-order from Hitler...maybe he didn't save the German army at all but for the first time in the war he admitted a defeat...
@@WW2TV sure , it was not my intention to critizing David Stahel and the more historians like him dig up the facts from the war, especially the Eastern Front , from open archives, the better...but my point is that there is seldom a new perspective to reconsider the the way WW II went...for example the longtime discussion about the scuttling or not by her own crew from the Bismarck...what does it matter, the Bismarck sunk beneath the waves...it was a victory for the Royal Navy anyhow...the strange thing is that there's no discussion about the sinking of the Hood... the Battle of the Denmark Strait was a victory for the Royal Navy as well because the hit on the Bismarck was the reason that admiral Lutjens had to give up his mission , attack the convoys...
You know, Hitler was a battalion (?) messenger during WWI; I bet he must have been in an HQ when a suicidal-type of order was delivered & the Colonels & up schemed their own 'retreat not in compliance' &/or 'retreat then retake the line' plans. Wonder if he said to himself during the retreat from Moscow,..."Gee that situation report sounds familar...where have I heard that before..."
The Germans never took Moscow. That, to me is the Soviet victory. What if Hitler let von Bock run the battle instead of overruling him? What if Stalin let Zhukov run the entire counter attack?
What is the definition of success? An enemy not collapsing within ten weeks is an absurd and arbitrary measure of failure designed consciously or unconsciously to permit an approved and basically propagandistic "hypothesis," narrative and conclusion. Had the Germans captured Moscow and Leningrad in 1941 and held them firmly through the Winter, nobody would say Barbarossa was a failure. The question is not whether or not the Germans misapprehended the strategic depth of the Soviet Union and therefore failed to keep to an overly optimistic (though not impossible time-table). The question is HOW did the Germans fail to win the campaign. Army group South was too slow (because its path of invasion was not optimal) and the Germans halted in early August instead of advancing to Moscow. That is the HOW and WHY. The task of propagandistic historiography is to obscure that relatively simple failure!
The intention of Barbarossa was to destroy the Soviet forces and maintain the initiative so as to ensure the conquest of the essential strategic territories in the Soviet Union. Had that initiative been maintained or had the Germans acted in a manner to reduce their overall losses of men and equipment and held onto all the territory they captured in before the Winter they would have been in a much better position. The German positions were on the brink of collapse in the Winter. There is no question the Winter was a disaster. Of course they were highly successful in the sense that they recovered a desperate situation and inflicted huge losses. It is impossible to understate the importance of Moscow. Had the Germans successfully encircled and captured Moscow that would have definitely changed the strategic situation dramatically. The FATAL DELAY in proceeding to Moscow ruined the German position in Russia, the chance for regaining the initiative in that part of the front was possibly LOST by 1942. Certainly the Germans failed to make large gains there!
I hate it when historians start of their lectures with a statement like “we have to remember that The Soviet Union lost 27 million people in this war…etc…blah blah blah” as though that number has anything to do with the war, it’s outcome, the Soviet contribution to victory etc… as well as help overshadow the fact that the Soviets were just as evil genocidal monsters then the Nazis that they were fighting. Not to mention that only 20 million were killed while the other 7 million died of extra-casual reasons, and a great deal of those killed as well as secondary deaths were caused by the Soviets themselves and their inhuman nature of waging war as well as brutalizing their own people during the war, including pulling of about 4 genocides just during the actual conduct of the Second World War from 41-45. Our worst mistake was proving lend-lease to the USSR, our second greatest error was the outrageous decision of letting Stalin keep his I’ll gotten gains during the war goin into the post war peace.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Fantastic, yet again.
My only disappointment with this channel is the lack of subscribers and viewers for what seems the most informative channel covering WWII.
Bless you Woody for all you do, because the vast amount of well informed people you get to contribute and share their views are what makes this channel so special.
Keep it up.
Thanks for the nice words. I hope that cream will eventually rise and we will get the bigger views my guests deserve
AGREED! Truly baffling, actually, I believe I left a very similar comment in a previous episode with Paul and David.
I actually discovered WW2 TV searching David Stahl but I've now seen dozens of episodes. It's a real pleasure on any WW2 subject and not only Paul but so many of those watching ask inciteful questions that often were swimming around simultaneously as I enjoyed the episode.
@@WW2TV We are in the niche of a niche of a niche, here. Most people on RUclips consume the more lightweight material, and we are probably reliant on their growth to see our own, rather than academic military history suddenly overtaking rivet counting and singular battle overviews. I love both, so I do not use those words to denigrate.
I couldn't have said this better
Stahel’s analysis of the eastern front gives us a new understanding of the events there. It is a real pleasure to watch.
Another quality WW2TV episode featuring David Stahel !
An outstanding presentation by Professor Stahel! His research puts a different perspective on the Germany military activity in Russia during the winter of 1941-42.
Hello folks. Never miss an opportunity to hear Dave talk about the Eastern Front. Outstanding presentation by a world-class expert.
Great discussion, thank you David and Woody--
Excellent stuff, but then I wouldn't expect anything different from David Stahel.
Amazing presentation once again from David! Thanks for organizing, Paul, and hope we can have him back again.
Yep, he'll be back
Many thanks - another great presentation! I have read just about every book by David Stahel and I regard him, Robert Cintino and David Glantz as setting the ‘gold standard’ for Eastern front military history.
Stahel is brilliant! Proud owner of all his books!
*I cannot remember if it was Indy Nidel from the amazing "World War Two" RUclips channel that covers WWII on a week too week basis or one of the many viewers... But one of those mentioned, said "The amount of time it took for Allied Troops in North Africa to capture cities, towns, airfields, ports & basically the land, was drastically QUICKER than the time it took for German Troops to capture ONE BLOCK in Stalingrad...*
*The amount of soldiers & civilians that lost their life in Stalingrad was mindboggling. The numbers seem impossible. Russia would have their soliders just keep running at the enemy in droves, even though they were being cut down & ripped into pieces by German Machinegun fire from their MG34's & MG42's.... Germany's MG's, the MG34's &
Paul, your show and your guests have fully demonstrated there is so much more to be researched and written about WW2.
Yep I think so
This is really great information. Our understanding of the Eastern Front is exceptionally poor to date. I wonder if we will ever have a full picture of the conditions in that first winter of the war.
Another top notch presentation thanks to Professor Stahel, any you Paul, another learning curve today. Such fantastic subjects Paul, your channel is No.1 in my eyes, it’s going from strength to strength.
Thanks Kevin
I search hi and low for this type content. Thank you so much. Varied and knowledgeable guests. By far the best, best WW2 channel. God bless!
Thanks very much
@@WW2TV you are most welcome. This channel should be prescribed reading in the OCS
These episodes with Mr. Stahl were completely fascinating. A lot of new information to digest, but the very fact that the Soviet Union wasn't knocked out before the winter was a clear indication that Barbarossa was a failure. The fact that the Wehrmacht wasn't prepared to fight a winter war is the clearest indication that they thought the war would be over before the winter.
That was a great presentation/discussion, thanks very much.
Many thanks for this presentation - top class, authoritative lecture from David Stahel.
I actually got 3 of stahels books from library on my table now.
Another excellent presentation. I've learned so much from Prof. Stahel! Thank you for this wonderful lecture!
You are very welcome
@@WW2TV If you have a chance and find an expert, can you do an interview on Rszev?
@@PurpleCat9794 Coming soon actually with Prit Buttar
@@WW2TV I'm so looking forward to it!!!
First time I've seen David Stahel speak and really impressed by his research and arguements presented. Will watch his previous show on the channel later. The contrast with the Wehrmacht leadership in Dec 1941 vs Dec 1944 (Douglas Nash show on Budapest) is pretty stark regards freedom of manoeuvre & exercise of initiative towards its own self-preservation, after the failure of the July Plot.
Another fantastic show. My knowledge of the Ost is very limited and I'm looking forward to these shows. Can't wait to read Prof. Stahel's Operation Barbarossa book. Currently part of the huge backlog on my iPad that my WW2TV habit has engendered.
Thanks Steve
You will enjoy your learning sojourn.
This information is amazing to someone who just knows the films of frozen Germans and the smug comparaison to Napoleon’s withdrawal. Great stuff!
Truly magnificent. A great privilege to hear from a distinguished man like mr. Stahel.
About where the Germans learned their "Pavlovian" counterattacks, it was on the Western front in WW1 as far as I know. One of the reasons for the static front then was that after wading through the mud and capturing an objective the infantry was bone-tired and heavy supporting weapons couldn't have yet been brought in through no-mans land. A counter-attack at that instance would inevitably dislodge the attacking forces.
David is absolutely one of my favourite guests. He strikes the right balance between presenting a solid academic thesis but in an accessible friendly and engaging manner
@@WW2TV I've absolutely loved every one of your guests and I really love it that you have younger, non-European/non-American and female historians on, we're finally starting to get a broader range of perspectives. I can't thank you (and the historians themselves of course) enough for that.
But I'm a middle-aged white guy also and the only name that'd make me click on a video faster than James Holland is Mr. Stahel.
Paul WW2TV, Your insightful observations and questions along with Your viewers questions ABSOLUTELY bring out the BEST of David Stahel. Stahel is certainly now close to one of,in my humble opinion, "thee" premier historical sources for the Eastern front. At 57 I've enjoyed and maintain a healthy appetite for new information on that front available since the end of the Cold War. His hard work in the archives and ability to burn thru the vagaries of previous literature and finding the new questions is truly remarkable. Love it.
Thank You!!
Another good book on the Eastern Front is written by Patrick Cloutier entitled "Mussolini's War in the East 1941-1943". There were other countries involved as well in Operation Barbarossa that made significant contribution.
Excellent, scientific, very well thought out presentation. Congrats WW2TV !
Great show, very interesting insight to perceived successes and failure of that first winter on the Eastern Front.
A triumph of keen research, comgrats
Very informative discussion!
Excellent guest and show..all new ground to me.
This may be my favorite episode.
I've been reading about the east front for decades. David Stahel's work is refreshing, confirms what I considered a major part of a German tactical doctrine the was being used (Elastic Defense) too bad I'm at work and missed this live presentation. A-1 Presentation Woody I'll have to wait for his book to be available again. I'll see if its available as an E-Book
Is it not on Amazon?
This is awesome thanks
Superb stuff as usual from ww2tv and Professor Stahel. This presentation really made me reevaluate what I thought I knew on this period of the war. I feel a lot more reading is required.... Which is great!
Proud owner of the Stahel ouvre -- brilliant interview as always Woody -- but I think we need a presentation about the operational aspects of the Battle of Kiev and on the details of the poorly known Battle of Dubno -- can we make it happen?
Great show. David Stahel is my favorite WW2TV guest. I realized after his first appearance that I literally knew nothing about the Eastern front. I knew it was huge, but I didnt even truly appreciate the magnitude or even know enough to know I didn't really know anything. Maybe I'm biased, but the David's always come through on WW2TV.
Fascinating commentary on one of the most crucial battles of WWII in Europe.
A fine presentation I will read his books one day
I am a huge fan of David Stahel's work, though I did admit I rolled my eyes when reading Retreat From Moscow when the words 'a band of riflemen' were used to describe the Red Army - with a citation for the poor tactics being the account of the SS 4th division - which is somewhat anecdotal. I do think work in Soviet archives would've improved the book significantly, though I do think it is an excellent work.
Gret episode. I ordered the book as well.
Love listening to Stahel just speak words on the war. Know he's a guest, but I'd have enjoyed having him on and just pressing play lol. Any question or comment that's interjected would either eventually be answered or not have been a concern I was worried about hearing anyways during this entire "lecture" lol
One more - I certainly hope David gets around to a Rhzev book. My first exposure to the the Battle of Rhzev was through the Russian series "Soviet Storm: WW2 in the East" close to 10 years ago. It's STILL difficult to find books or documentaries on this, although there are a few.
Rhzev is also a bit of a stain on Zhukov's record of never having lost a battle; Operation Mars was not a win by any standard.
In the meantime we have Prit Buttar's book on the campaign
ty 🙏🙏
Excellent!
I have to watch some of your shows on my iPad so I can see the “eye chart” type maps on the presentations😂 17:56
How do you normally watch?
@@WW2TV 36” screen, LED. Sometimes the maps are very clear, understanding the size actually being worked with. I
can see them if I get closer to the TV. It’s really no problem. Sometimes I’m too lazy to get out of the chair.
Fantastic videos well done
Dammit I missed this. I’m currently reading Kiev 1941
Enjoyed the audio book, but pdfs maps would have improved the experience
So far I've read one of his books. Need to read some more.
That was excellent
Barbarossa
For me is such a fascinating campaign
German appreciation of suitable terrain, for defence when retreating, was clearly well understood from 'the run to he coast' during 1914.
Did "The Iron Curtain", and the general secrecy imposed by the Soviets after the war create any difficulty in getting to the "radical source" documents of the Russians? To tell the story of the "retreat from Moscow", or for that matter the German retreat across the entire eastern front?
The scale of the eastern front is staggering.you could write a book about each battle,but I doubt you can live long enough to read it all.just so vast
Impressive!
I've always felt it was kind of obvious that the 1940 1 winter campaign had not been a success. Leningrad did not fall. Moscow did not fall. All of the encirclements had been less than perfect and many soldiers were able to fall back to the next River or the next town if that was necessary. The overwhelming success in the earliest days became less and less and less. I don't know how you can say that an army that is pushed past its logistics, lost a lot of it's best men and had not achieved any of its most important goals were a success. They would start the new year weaker while the Russians would start the new year getting stronger and stronger and stronger. I don't believe there was actually a winnable path for the Germans. Unless they had somehow found all of the oil fields running at full tilt and then it would have taken something like a coup in the Russian government or some other disastrous situation like that because they physically really couldn't take that country. It was a pipe dream from the beginning. I know people like to follow the campaign and say at this point it became unwinnable or at this other point 3 months later but I think it was unwinnable the first time the pen ever landed on the paper to draw out this idea.
Alot of ppl can't open their eyes to see the truth of the campaign.. they were never gonna win bc it was all a hoaxfrom. The rip... politics .
If the Americans had not supplied the Russians, the Germans would have won.
Not necessarily - victory has many forms. The Germans defeated the Russians in WW1 - and quite badly to be honest. That wasn’t a victory where they took the whole country of Russia… you don’t always need to do that to defeat a nation.
I believe they could have won if they respected Ukrainians and the Baltic peoples as there equal
They initially looked at germany invasion as liberation but they underestimation of Soviet military power led them to just throw away a golden opportunity to destroy communism once and for all.
If hitler wasn't so hubristic and racist, more trusting of his generals and not underestimate his enemies he could have won
If Japan attacked from the east that would definitely have helped to witch they could have done if germany could find a way to bring them equipment and reinforcements
@@tylermorrison420the germans weren't running out of people until 44. They had more men in the east in 42 than they had in 41. Recruting ukranians and baltic people (10k soldiers LOL), wouldn't have changed anything
The Rejev Meatgrinder is famous, I think, especially in conjunction with Operation Uranus.
The greatest mistake I see in discussions of Barbarossa and the Eastern Front generally is the almost complete exclusion of the AOK ( Army Group Finland ) and operations conducted from north of Leningrad to the Arctic Circle.
It’s often said ‘there were three army groups’ in reference to the Soviet-German war, but in reality there was four.
For some reason, despite the AOK tasked with one of the most important strategic objectives and possibly reaching the Northern part of the ‘A-A’ line, this smaller yet still important army group is treated as a footnote or as a separate series of battles, perhaps because it was conducted on Finnish soil.
However, none of the starting points for any of the Army groups were striking out from home soil, so why the separation?
Fascinating. The German Army units had to have disobeyed halt orders to have survived in the east for as long as they did.
Yes really Brill,and interesting stuff I watched some Eastern front history with TIK, and he made an interesting point about the film enemy at the gates were they charged the Germans and the NKVD were shooting the red army soldiers retreating, apparently that did not happen so to have modern takes on various battles I feel is an essential must.
For a brilliant musical reference to the similar 19th century version this event, listen to Mark Knopfler's "Done With Bonaparte."
Thanks for the recognition. Sent you an email under my name here.
At 66 I have been studying ww2 all my adult life and the battle of Britain has always been considered Hitlers first defeat. Wish I had a penny for every time I have heard that it was the coldest winter in 100 years. There is a speech Hitler made at the sportsplatz on September 30 1942 in which he brags about stalingrad being secured. It is available on RUclips fully translated. One of the very few Hitler speeches that are. There's a 2 part video on german home movies during the war on RUclips. Its fantastic.
Context is crucial. The Halt order by Hitler was really about retreating in order, which means fighting to retreat, given that a panic retreat in the snow could have resulted in large German losses. Of course this means that some German soldiers were required to hold their positions against overwhelming odds and sacrifice themselves so others could retreat more safely. In the end Stalin, as was his want, pushed the Soviet advance beyond is capabilities with exhaustion. And it makes sense the German would retreat in a way to hold onto strategic cities.
I can’t read but I like to listen to audio books
Any on RUclips
I'm not sure the statistics recorded by Halder are all that trustworthy. I do think House and Glantz have a good handle on the general failures of the Wermacht. Robert Citino is among the best writers on the death of the Wermacht.
Agreed.
Where are the sick?
The Germans are supposed to have suffered immense losses because of frostbite.
What really matters in human history is progress in technology and cooperation between humans in pursuing and exploiting it. Wars are pretty irrelevant in the LONG run. Still, who among us isn't occasionally taken by the twists and turns and SHORT-term effects of wars, and if you are into looking back upon those, it doesn't get better than David Stahel.
Hope Mr. Stahl addresses in future book how Hitler ordering conquest of Ukraine before Moscow against his Generals' advice affected the campaign. David Glantz thought it wasn't a mistake on the other hand Germans might have gotten shelter in Moscow for winter and possibly strike the Urals the next spring
Early Red Army losses can be blamed in large part on Stalin for preventing his generals from preparing defensive positions in the West and also preventing timely retreats to prevent encirclements during the course of the German advance. My understanding is that German casualties by March 1942 was around 1 million men.
Generals,mud,and winter,helped,general Zhukov
I'm slightly confused. The 'orthodox history' is that Hitler's 'Stand Fast' order saved the Army for many reason but primarily; it stopped panic as the men were obliged to hold onto urbanised areas. Also, everyone knows the objective of Barbarossa was to destroy the Red Army and not to take territory. Huuuuum. Brilliant channel BTW. Just found it and subscribed :)
Welcome to the channel John
@@WW2TV I love the long form. I think more people would appreciate it too, if they knew the channel was here. I intend to be posting my recommendation here and there. Keep it up!
Okay. Reached 38 minutes when the issue of the 'halt order' is addressed. In my view pragmatism was always an element. I certainly never imagined the halt order meant total 100% zero withdrawals anywhere. Why would it? From my perspective, the order was simply a refusal by AH to order a strategic withdrawal across the entire front. The order was rather a statement of overall objectives (to hold the German position) and not a specific instruction to each soldier at every point. I think the case is being slightly overstated by this author. AH always knew his Generals ignored him when it suited them.
*Icannot remember if it was Indy Nidel from the amazing "World War Two" RUclips channel that covers WWII on a week too week basis or one of the many viewers... But one of those mentioned, said "The amount of time it took for Allied Troops in North Africa to capture cities, towns, airfields, ports & basically the land, was drastically QUICKER than the time it took for German Troops to capture ONE BLOCK in Stalingrad...*
*The amount of soldiers & civilians that lost their life in Stalingrad was mindboggling. The numbers seem impossible. Russia would have their soliders just keep running at the enemy in droves, even though they were being cut down & ripped into pieces by German Machinegun fire from their MG34's & MG42's.... Germany's MG's, the MG34's & the newer MG42's which had a even HIGHER fire rate than the 34's, were shooting a full powered 7.92mm rifle round... The Germans 7.92mm round, known as the 8mm Mauser, was a devastating round to be hit by... Anyone who was unlucky enough to be hit by one of these rounds, almost always perished from their wounds, since the 7.92mm bullet would enter your body and destory your vital organs & the exit wound was so large. Some of the military's ammunition was actually banned from being used in WAR, like the well known Hollow point & Soft Point and because of the hollow & soft points and the size & velocity of the 7.92mm bullet, the injuries soliders received were devastating... A lot of the times, soldiers would have their entire bone blown apart by these HP & SP bullets.*
Very interesting thanks. I would suggest that the Winter of 1941/42 can quite clearly be called a German defeat.
World class.
Agreement to all these comments. I could listen to that accent throw shade on manstein all night long. Lull me to sleep again, mate! 🙏
The paper, scissors, rock argument about who really won or was most influential in winning WWII for the allies ignores the reality of which leg of the three-legged stool is superfluous? First and foremost, from the 1920's onward Britain, the Soviet Union, and America were pre-occupied by Imperial Japan's intentions in Asia, Indonesia, and the Pacific. Then Hitler came to power in the '30's and the problem became seemingly unsolvable which it did and that is why the war broke out. The dilemma of fighting the Axis Powers started long before World War II started. It took the British Empire, the USSR, and the United States to go to extraordinary lengths to defeat the Axis Powers in the war.
awesome series!! barbarossa and antibarbarossa is when our today's world was founded. it ended one evil system of life and diminished the other one to the point, where it couldn't take the whole of europe in 45/46.. i can't even imagine, how powerful ussr would become if there never was a barbarossa. even a so much damaged ussr was only kept in check by atom bombs.. today's american world was born in russia really..
This is an interesting discussion point. Does Stalin wake up randomly and start flossin on us or did they need the Germans despite the losses.? And would Stalin kill 20 more million on his own? If not that's an economical boost in theory. 🤔
5:05 Stahel whacks a bell to demonstrate his support for the statement. Strange guy.
❤
Much depends on how high the protagonists set the bar for themselves. If the Germans had fought exactly the same 1941 campaign with Smolensk as the year's objective, it would be regarded as a massive over success. Similarly, if the Soviet objective over the winter had just been to clear the approaches to Moscow, it would be regarded as an unquestioned success.
Nor is "defeat" necessarily the direct reciprocal of "victory". "Failure" and "success" complicate this. Barbarossa was a series of massive defeats for the USSR, yet still a failure for the Germans. The Soviet Winter counter-offensive gained important ground for the Russians but was ultimately a failure for the USSR, yet hardly a victory for the Germans.
Like!!
According to a Russian historian.Germans did much better then the French
French entire military disintegrated whit the first conter attack. The german buckled and many generals started advocating retreat but It didn't disintegrate like the French. Although at a hefty price ..it is now estimated that Germans lost around 600,000 man just around Moscow.Hitler famously stated....Let them dig teaches whit Howitcer shells but not retreat
What are you talking about, “the French disintegrated with the first counter attack” ? Have you never heard of the battle of Borodino ? Do you not know that the French actually occupied Moscow ? It looks like you badly need to brush up on your history.
intresting book , but what does it prove ?...so far is i am concerned , the narrative has it right...the Germans tried to conquer Moscow and they failed , all what happens afterwards did not change that Russian victory a bit...everybody knows that the Germans were masters in tactics and the Red army generals weren't...Wellington made mistakes at Waterloo , no doubt , but he won , Blucher or not and Napoleon was beated..in war only the result matters...the only intresting thing is the Halt-order from Hitler...maybe he didn't save the German army at all but for the first time in the war he admitted a defeat...
Any book that encourages the reader to reconsider events is a winner in my eyes
@@WW2TV sure , it was not my intention to critizing David Stahel and the more historians like him dig up the facts from the war, especially the Eastern Front , from open archives, the better...but my point is that there is seldom a new perspective to reconsider the the way WW II went...for example the longtime discussion about the scuttling or not by her own crew from the Bismarck...what does it matter, the Bismarck sunk beneath the waves...it was a victory for the Royal Navy anyhow...the strange thing is that there's no discussion about the sinking of the Hood... the Battle of the Denmark Strait was a victory for the Royal Navy as well because the hit on the Bismarck was the reason that admiral Lutjens had to give up his mission , attack the convoys...
You know, Hitler was a battalion (?) messenger during WWI; I bet he must have been in an HQ when a suicidal-type of order was delivered & the Colonels & up schemed their own 'retreat not in compliance' &/or 'retreat then retake the line' plans. Wonder if he said to himself during the retreat from Moscow,..."Gee that situation report sounds familar...where have I heard that before..."
I read a couple of his books and noticed he has a way with words. Literarily, he's crackerjack.
The Germans never took Moscow. That, to me is the Soviet victory. What if Hitler let von Bock run the battle instead of overruling him?
What if Stalin let Zhukov run the entire counter attack?
What is the definition of success? An enemy not collapsing within ten weeks is an absurd and arbitrary measure of failure designed consciously or unconsciously to permit an approved and basically propagandistic "hypothesis," narrative and conclusion. Had the Germans captured Moscow and Leningrad in 1941 and held them firmly through the Winter, nobody would say Barbarossa was a failure. The question is not whether or not the Germans misapprehended the strategic depth of the Soviet Union and therefore failed to keep to an overly optimistic (though not impossible time-table). The question is HOW did the Germans fail to win the campaign. Army group South was too slow (because its path of invasion was not optimal) and the Germans halted in early August instead of advancing to Moscow. That is the HOW and WHY. The task of propagandistic historiography is to obscure that relatively simple failure!
Appears that Barbara was a trap!!
The intention of Barbarossa was to destroy the Soviet forces and maintain the initiative so as to ensure the conquest of the essential strategic territories in the Soviet Union. Had that initiative been maintained or had the Germans acted in a manner to reduce their overall losses of men and equipment and held onto all the territory they captured in before the Winter they would have been in a much better position. The German positions were on the brink of collapse in the Winter. There is no question the Winter was a disaster. Of course they were highly successful in the sense that they recovered a desperate situation and inflicted huge losses. It is impossible to understate the importance of Moscow. Had the Germans successfully encircled and captured Moscow that would have definitely changed the strategic situation dramatically. The FATAL DELAY in proceeding to Moscow ruined the German position in Russia, the chance for regaining the initiative in that part of the front was possibly LOST by 1942. Certainly the Germans failed to make large gains there!
This is just another book promo...
Okay, well I disagree. It still works as a standalone show, but yes there are more details in the book
I hate it when historians start of their lectures with a statement like “we have to remember that The Soviet Union lost 27 million people in this war…etc…blah blah blah” as though that number has anything to do with the war, it’s outcome, the Soviet contribution to victory etc… as well as help overshadow the fact that the Soviets were just as evil genocidal monsters then the Nazis that they were fighting. Not to mention that only 20 million were killed while the other 7 million died of extra-casual reasons, and a great deal of those killed as well as secondary deaths were caused by the Soviets themselves and their inhuman nature of waging war as well as brutalizing their own people during the war, including pulling of about 4 genocides just during the actual conduct of the Second World War from 41-45.
Our worst mistake was proving lend-lease to the USSR, our second greatest error was the outrageous decision of letting Stalin keep his I’ll gotten gains during the war goin into the post war peace.
It depends on what you mean by “letting” Stalin keep his ill-gotten gains. Sometimes there are things that you just cannot do anything about.