👉👉Do you want to support the channel? You just have to watch another video. This will help You Tube to recommend them more to new users. ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ 🔴📣Other videos of interest: - ✅Walter Model's Fierce Counteroffensive Defending Warsaw in August 1944 ruclips.net/video/NMhswhYwdVs/видео.html
'Smolensko'? Just out of interest, where did the maps come from? The annotations are not the German, Russian or anglicised Russian versions but appear to be Spanish, which seems odd, and you seem occasionally to persist with the Spanish place names in the commentary. In English, German and Russian we have 'Smolensk', 'Smolensk' and 'Смоленск' the last translating directly and unsurprisingly to 'Smolensk'. Also, Gotthard 'Heinrici' is pronounced 'High-n-ritzy', not 'ricki'. I believe you mis-spoke on the Hitler directive. Fuhrer Directive 31 concerned German organisation in the Balkans; I think you are referring to Directive 33 which concerned offensive strategy on the Eastern Front. I believe an important point of this campaign is as another illustration that although the German Army of WWII is remembered for its panzers and mechanisation, it was in fact highly reliant on horses and on soldiers travelling on foot.
Great video. The Soviets not crumbling (despite large defeats) before Moscow is severely underrated as a cause of defeat. The smart Germans knew by late summer, it was the beginning of the end. The door had been kicked in, but the "rotten house" did not fall down. They don't have enough oil, and they don't have enough men.
Indeed! And also they failed to reach the main objective of the operation despite massive gains: stop the dependence on Russian fossil fuels. That's why next year they desperately tried to rush to the Russian oil fields which turned out to be an almost impossible task. No margin for error or setbacks.
Yeah, but the mistake was that after winning the battle of Smolensk Hitler procrastinated and halted the advance towards Moscow, just as he halted before Dunkirk.
You know this is the first doc I've found that even talks about Smolensk. Thankyou. As for being a turning point, no. You have to expect some resistance. A half a million warm bodies is still a formidable defense. And the city was already won, so "the Battle of Smolensk" was over. Look at the terrain 20 miles East of there. Its a meeting point of rivers. No wonder they had trouble advancing.
I agree. The battle of Smolensk in itself was certainly not the turning point. But it was one of the battles that exhausted the Germans. That became a problem later. Hitler's order to divert attention to the north and south was perhaps a more decisive element.
Dude exactly! i've been trying to find a video that even talks about smolensk and I can't barely find anything even though more men were encircled here than dunkirk
My father didn't give up. Fight all 4 years of war. Kalinin front.Rhzev. 3:Belarusian front.Siege of Kenigsberg. My.auntys after when German berned and kill villagers hide in.a forest. Later joined Aviation regiment.. They were 16 years old. I was born after War in 1960. Nobody alive .. anymore. Father ,mom ...aunty's. Only in my.memorys live a Heroic did of our Smolensk folks New York City 🇺🇸
Clausowitz summed it up best, Germany didn’t have the manpower, logistics, or resources to win a long term war so quick wars were the only option. Clearly the Corporal never attended the German War and Staff College.
BIGGEST, TWISTED, MURDEROUS, EVIL, NARC EGO ON GRAND EGO on titanic struggle between two totalitarian regimes already known to "REAl PROS BEHIND THE SCENES SAW THE ULTIMATE WINNER OF TOTAL DESTRUCTIVE PROCESS?"😢
They could have won if they had ALL their resources into the war. And also some more better decision making at the command level. Staying put until you die was a stupid idea by Hitler. 2 wars simultaneously was not bright, either.
@marlowbranded7341 staying put and never retreating is not a stupid idea. rather, it can be of vital strategic importance. once you start retreating, you won't stop until you reach your homeland with the enemy right behind you.. stalin did exactly the same with order 227 issued jn 1942.
My mother's father was kia in " The Battle of Kursk "id- 7 / 43 . He was in the " FAS REICH " Division of the 2nd Waffen SS !y mother's uncle was a Colonel in Nazi - Germany s Luftwaffe , and kia when shot down in his FW 190 ( Focke Wolfe 190 ) fighter plane near Anzio , Italy early 3 / 44 .
Interesting video. David M Glantz covers Smolensk in his book 'Barbarossa Derailed'. I think at Smolensk the Germans slowly began to realise they had bitten off more then they could chew. Blitzkrieg was bogging down.
@@garyhardison9265 That's a very good point. Glantz looked at both primary and secondary Soviet sources for his research. Even after Smolensk fell the Germans still had problems with Soviet counter attacks.
The problem for Army Group centre at this stage was that the panzer divisions were having to bear the brunt of the fighting around Smolensk and were suffering heavy losses in men and machines. According to Barbarossa, by this stage the Red Army should have collapsed, and the people should have turned against Stalin, but neither of these things had happened. What now?
The Red Army had been eviscerated by this point and the millions of Russians that had surrendered are evidence of this. The moral of the population overall was also very low. The people were not for Stalin. Nazi policies are what drove the people into the hands of Stalin, had these brutal policies not been launched, likely this alone would have sealed the fate of the USSR. This battle at Smolensk was an overwhelming German victory and it did not determine the eventual inability of the Wehrmacht to conquer the USSR. That would come later and is almost certainly due to the great encirclement of Kiev, which drew off so many panzers from Army Group Center.
Hitler and the high command were so confident of their superiority in every way that they started acting like kids in a candy store and couldn’t decide which city or territory to destroy first. Moscow was an afterthought for Hitler at this Time because he was already thinking about the oil in the Caucasus as a priority. Hitler’s opinion of himself as the greatest military leader in history and the overconfidence of the high command made the realization of any threats unlikely except for the boots of the Generals on the ground. I learned a lot details of this battle from your video. Thanks
Interesting and informative.Excellent motion photography job. Enabling viewers to better understand what/whom the orator was describing.. Class A research project!!! Rough & tumble fierce combat operations. Fighting/perishing/surviving knowing certain death/debilitating wounds were often possible. Yet still advanced forward regardless of the consequences. That's true grit style determination to succeed. Yes I would have advanced forward to Moscow. The only opportunity to seize it. Before Zhukov had ample time to reorganize his demoralized forces. And reinforce the perimeter of the city. Spring of 42 was too late.
@@johncourtneidge True. Interesting to note that had Moscow been taken by the Germans in 1941, Zhukov's career would likely have ended, probably with execution. If Moscow falls, so does Leningrad, which was holding on by a thread anyway. Without even the trickle of supplies via the Moscow / Leningrad highway/RR Leningrad can't survive. Zhukov was in charge of defending both, at different times. Loose either and Stalin probably has him killed.
A good video on the first significant German setback in the Soviet Union. Among other things the Germans encountered in and around Smolensk were the first T-34s and a Katyusha strike that panicked a formation. The Germans took the city but were stopped in their tracks 20 miles east of it for six weeks, thereby making it impossible to get to Moscow before Winter. Their hold on Smolensk remained shaky, the Soviets coming close to liberating it in their Moscow counter-offensive. The Katyusha strike was described by a Soviet officer: "We first tried out this superb weapon at Rudnya, north-west of Smolensk. In the afternoon of July 15, the earth shook with the unusual explosion of jet mines. Like red-tailed comets, the mines were hurled into the air. The frequent and dazzling explosions, the like of which had never been seen, struck the imagination. The effect of the simultaneous explosion of dozens of these mines was terrific. The Germans fled in panic, and even our own troops near the points of the explosions, who for reasons of secrecy had not been warned that this new weapon would be used, rushed back from the front line."
@@cwcsquared Yes, and I have heard they were feared by American troops, who called them "Screaming meemies." But the Germans did not have the doctrine of mobility and concentration as did the Soviet forces, who mounted racks of them on Studebaker trucks (from American lend-lease), quickly assembled hundreds or thousands of them in one position, and dropped them all at once on the Germans. The Germans used their Nebelwerfers (originally firing smoke shells) as supplements to traditional artillery. Whereas the Soviets used Katyushas as strategic weapons to bust holes in the German lines or stun them into panic as at the town near Smolensk.
The Wehrmacht found, to it's horror, the anemic cannons on their Pzr II's, and III's were useless against the T-34's and especially, the KV I's. Their only saving grace was firing armor piercing shells from the FLAK 88's, and these were not terribly mobile. The T-34's and Katyusha rocket batteries were two nightmares they would have to deal with, right up to the battle of Berlin.
At the start of Operation Barbarossa, the Germans had plenty of panzers, but the madness of attacking a nation as vast as the Soviet Union without enough halftracks and trucks so that the infantry could keep up with and support panzer operations was absolutely insane. At the start of the operation, between 70- to 80% of infantry and artillery were HORSE-DRAWN. Given this massive deficit in modern operational mobility, it beggars the imagination that the Wehrmacht went along with Hitler's mad idea to take Russia. I'm rather shocked that some self-respecting German officer didn't simply shoot Hitler when he proposed this madness.
...with the benefit of 80 years of hind-sight, it becomes easy to grasp how it all went wrong! Most of the operational plan of Barbarossa was based not on facts and hard reality but on mere assumptions by Adolph Hitler. While Hitler had been a combat soldier in WW1 for 4 years and was unquestionably courageous, all his personal combat experience was on the western front, and so Hitler had no inkling of the vast distances of the Soviet Union. But many of Hitler's Generals, especially Von Manstein, had seen Russia for themselves and understood the sheer folly of attacking this vast country, that merely opens into an enormous funnel the further east you go. Hitler's almost casual attitude towards Barbarossa, the greatest attack ever launched, was a tragic way to roll the dice when the fate of a nation of 60 million souls was in the balance! And while Hitler demanded the truth from his own intelligence he also had the very bad habit of ignoring them when they said things he didn't want to hear. And at a critical time when Hitler needed verifiable numbers and cold hard facts, he was getting educated guesses and as events would transpire, he had based Barbarossa on all the wrong assumptions and only realizing this when it was far too late to correct things. Proof positive of this is a quote from Hitler himself in 1941, where he said "If i had only known the Russians had so many tanks as they did, I would never have started this war!"
The situation was, i think, If Germany had not started then clever Stalin was in planning to join Allied and attack from east Poland. Stalin was just not prepared at the time, his preparation was abruptly started after Operation Barbarosa had already started.
Your comment is so mired in armchair history, with the full backdrop of 80 years to rely upon, it is ridiculous. Before making such comments, put yourself in the position of the combatants and attempt to eliminate all you know. A fully motorized German Army was never achieved during the war, so if this is the precondition you would impose, the USSR would never have been invaded. Also, Hitler's mad idea, was not mad at all. In 41, the Germans came within a hair of achieving victory and in 42 again, the same. Previously, during WWI, Germany had actually defeated Russia, if you remember. Hitler had watched the humiliation of the Soviets in Finland and simultaneously the exploits and genius of his own forces in Europe. His attack was anything but mad. It was a gamble and Hitler was a gambler. You really need to study more, if you think any German officer would have been capable of simply shooting Hitler in late 1940 or early 41. What are you smoking?
@@thomassenbart You're absolutely right, what isn't written about nearly enough, and explains a great deal about Hitler's decision to launch Barbarossa, was how easily the German army simply achieved a total walk-over of the Russian army and occupied huge swatches of Russian territory in 1917! It was only when Brest-Litovsk was signed that the Germans de-occupied Russia and not because of any resistance by the Red army, who were in total disarray by 1917 anyway. But Hitler obviously knew all about this and surely must have been a factor in his thinking during 1941, especially with Germany already occupying half of Europe and still undefeated!
One major factor of the failure of Barbarossa was caused by Hitlers "buddy" Mussolini. The invasion of Sovietunion was set to May 15 1941. Mussolini however launched an attack on Greece and Yuogoslavia and that didn't went well for Italy. So Germany had to finish what Italy had started in the south of Europe before taking on Russia. I don't think this alone would have changed the course of history but it surely shortened the war. A combined invasion from both NaziGemany and Japan on Russia could have ended the war differently. In doing so, USA would have been kept out of the war a bit longer. Especially if the oilfields in Russia was taken and exploited at a maximum. The lack of oil/diesel/petrol was the achillesheel for axispowers. Thank God they didn't figured that out and act to secure the supply for oil.
If the Soviet’s were actually going to fall, FDR would’ve done everything in his power to prevent it. I don’t think avoiding Pearl Harbor would have much of an effect being honest.
That myth about starting earlier is ... a myth. A few months earlier the Red Army was in a much better position. In mid-June the new defensive regions were half populated and their heavy weapons had not yet arrived. The previous positions (the Stalin line) were already depopulated. Large numbers of troops were on trains en route to the new positions. Just one extra piece of corroborating evidence. Read almost any Soviet novel about the war. Most start with the protagonist on a train heading to his unit and not getting there due to the outbreak of the war.
Italy did instigate a war with Greece that immediately triggered involvement from Britain. However, Italy did NOT instigate a war with Yugoslavia. That separate war was Germany attacking Yugoslavia and destroying the nation in a few weeks. Of interest perhaps, the reason for the Yugoslavian war was a coup that overthrew the pro-Axis government. Hitler was reportedly furious and demanded action. However, with a little more patience it might have turned out that Yugoslavia would have become at least a partial ally to the Axis, ala Bulgaria or Slovakia. Instead Tito organized resistance and bled off critical Axis military units for the next three years +. Another 'turning point'? Perhaps.
@@kovesp1 All true enough but also the spring of 1941 was wet. The border lands in many cases were flooded, the rivers overflowing. The Germans delayed a couple of weeks to allow the waters to recede and the soil dry, at least somewhat.
@@cwcsquared and yet, they couldn't afford their losses, while the Soviets were beaten up in most battles, especially early on. Making the Germans question their belief that the red army would collapse along with the rest of the Soviet Union
Great video. The key factor in the German defeat before Moskow was the crazy decision from Japan not to attack Russia, while Germany declared war on USA. Then, it was just a matterof time before Germany got smashed from 2 fronts. Without declaring war on USA, Germany would have gained enough time to defeat Russia in 1942
The Japanese Guandong (Kwantung) army in NE China had been smashed in the Nomonhan/Khalkin Gol campaign of 1939. By the time of Barbarossa, Japan was bogged down in China and was not going to do anything to annoy the USSR, especially as were were still large Red Army formations in the Far East. Although part of the Axis, Japan was acutely aware that her war would be in Asia and that neither Germany nor Italy would be able to offer much assistance. It was also during 1940~41 that relations with the US rapidly deteriorated. In short, Japan was in no position to try anything against the USSR and tolerated the uneasy truce between itself and the USSR. This lasted until the USSR's declaration of war on 8 August 1945 with hostilities kicking off the following day.
It would have been better to get Moscow and control the main transportation hub to keep the Russian forces from getting supplies and man power to where they were needed. Great day to you and enjoyed your time as always. God bless you all and I will check ✔️ out the next recommendation for the next battle.
Germany attacking the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941 was a catastrophic mistake and Hitler's decision to declare war on the US later the same year without taking care of Great Britain already determined the outcome of the war. Add to that the campaign in North Africa and the occupation of Norway further sealed the fate of Germany's overstretched resources.
I’ve always wondered if Germany had the choice of NOT attacking the USSR. Hitler and his generals were worried that by 1942 it might be impossible to defeat the Soviet Union, which was clearly building up its military resources. So they felt they had to strike or else the Soviets would build up and then attack Germany.
It was a gamble and 1941 was the best time to attack. The declaration of war on the U.S. was the biggest mistake. There was no need to do this even after the japanese made the foolish attack on pearl harbor
Everyone usually points that Germany should of let the Panzers rush towards Moscow. The Tanks can break through but if you want to hold that encirclement you need the infantry support. Maybe you could send half south to secure Kiev encirclement & much needed need war resources and let the other half of the Panzers continue towards Moscow with as many Mechanized units as you can spare. Leningrad wasn’t even as important as the railroad that was never cut near the Finnish border IMO as controversial as that might be. They should of cut that railway asap coming from Finland. I also would of focused the thrust south & center trying to get as close as possible to securing the much needed Oil while also trying to cut communications & railways by taking Moscow. Army North would of been the weakest of the 3 divisions attempting to encircle Leningrad only after the critical railway that allowed western convoys into the country had been severed. Even if you can reach the oil fields by winter of 41 if you focus your thrust center & south you have a better jumping off point for the summer offensive of 42 to try take the oil needed to continue fighting. Also they probably never should declared war on the USA that was just foolish.
"Everybody got a plan until they get punched in the mouth" -Iron Mike Truth is Soviets would've continue resisting causing German resources to be wasted while the Russians could still replace their resources German should've never invaded Russia they haven't learned from Napoleon
Germany could have defeated Russia if they didn't waste so much manpower and resources trying to fight two fronts. Hitler tried to take too much too fast, he defeated himself
There wasn’t another Front. 80% of the German Army was involved with Barbarossa. Hitler’s move in August 41’ to send Guderian’s Panzers to assist Rundstedt and Army Group South take Kiev. Was absolutely dumb when Army Group Center was 220 miles from Moscow. We can play the what if game but I think that by doing this, was the reason for the operations failure. Your whole military’s doctrine is built on speed and overwhelming firepower in a very short time. The Soviets were on the run. You gamble and push all the way to Moscow. Don’t give them an inch. Time is the enemy. You give Soviet’s a little breathing room and they will make you pay for it. Look at Operation Citadel and Soviet’s Counter Offensive in January 42’ against Army Group North particularly the Demyansk Pocket.
@@chicagopunditwhohasabrain4808True. Germans had two options: Either advance to Moscow or secure the flanks first. They chose the latter and moved their focus to south.
I don’t understand, the German army being the most tactically advanced military in it’s time, the masters of combined warfare, yet logistically it was a failure! The infantry had to walk to keep up with the tanks! There were insufficient trucks! The Russians were better off having many lend lease vehicles! The Germans while devoted to making the best tanks, failed to make enough trucks for the very men they needed to support their very expensive tanks. I don’t get it!
Yes, absolutely the Germans should have continued their push toward Moscow before the winter set in. The decision to delay it probably sealed the German's fait in the whole war.
The main factor in this is, by the time the Wehrmacht had fought its way to Moscow, it did not have the combat power left to TAKE Moscow, especially after Stalin's Siberians showed up in a big mass charge the Germans were barely able to halt -
The truth is that German general staff lied to Hitler who asked if he could defeat Soviets. They lied and Knew that at Smolenks they would have to Refit at that point. Germans were Not a mechanized army . Walked . Artillery pulled by horses. Hitler never really had chance to take Moscow. True criminals were General Staff.They lied to Fuhrer.
Germany should have made strong defence line making it a static battle like trench wars and stabilize eastern front.They should have forced Russians to attack and break on their defences
I fought this battle out on a table top map. Twice, both times as the Germans. While the Germans have an advantage in tactical maneuvers. The Russians have the advantage in strategic maneuvers. Supply shortage is critical for the Germans. You really have to play it aggressive as the Germans. Time is on the Russian side.
I'm not sure that Smolensk 1941 "changed" the course of the war, as much as it made the Germans realize that they wouldn't beat the Soviets any time soon. I don't think that the decision to wait on going after Moscow was so bad. Napoleon captured Moscow and what good did it do him? Re-directing troops south to Kiev resulted in the capture of huge numbers of Soviet troops, and eventually set up the 1942 campaign in the southern USSR (aka "Fall Blau"). Southern USSR was where the grain and oil was produced, and that's what Germany needed strategically. Whereas capturing Moscow would have been more of a question of "morale". Since Stalin expected to keep fighting even if Moscow had been lost, the idea that capturing Moscow might have ended the war was faulty. Also, it appears that the Soviets had solidified their line east of Smolensk, and the Germans were likely not ready to try to break through that line. Yes eventually the panzers returned and they did make progress toward Moscow, then the rain came (along with the mud it caused) and then the snow and abnormally cold temperatures; also the Soviets had built fortified lines in front of Moscow (after Smolensk was captured). No one will really know whether a big early push toward Moscow (i.e. immediately after Smolensk was captured) would have made a difference in the war's outcome, though it likely would have succeeded in at least capturing Moscow. Yet even this is in some doubt, given the supply line situation for the Germans at that point in the war.
I've also heard it said that a likely outcome of Germans capturing Moscow in 1941, with Soviet reserves already being concentrated and supplies stockpiled for the winter counteroffensive around Moscow, would have been for the Germans to simply suffer their Stalingrad a year earlier, at Moscow. A successful Fall Blau from that position - especially with the south being far less secure than it historically was, with all the resources directed at Moscow - is unlikely at best.
You are quit correct, Russia is to big, and the lend lease supplies coming from Britain and the USA added vastly to the Germans difficulty , it wasn't just weapons, it was all kinds of essential supplies.The Germans were tactically brilliant but the strategic situations proved to great to overcome,I feel a sense of pity for the massive sacrifices the individual German soldiers had to make only with it all ultimately ending in catastrophy!!
World communism could have been stopped dead in it's tracks and saved the world a lot of grief, but the powers that be behind the scenes in America didn't want there creation (communism) to be stamped out once and for all! The conflict with Japan was also unnecessary Japan didn't want war with the USA, but Roosevelt's handlers got him to provoke the Japanese,the last straw being the cutting off of Japan's vital oil supplies, so Pearl harbour was due to anti Japanese provocation, war was inevitable,Japan lost and communism came to China,Thang Kai Sjhek,the anti communist leader couldn't believe the American "
Napoleon? Completely different era. Moscow was not even the capital in 1800. Railroads and trucks and airplanes were non-existent. IMO a meaningless comparison to 1940s.
@@ethercruiser1537 it’s in the dna of hitlerian logic that germany would go into a total war with the rest of humanity. Germany was doomed the moment he got into power. It doesn’t have the manpower or the ressources to conquer and hold the whole of Europe. Yes he could have avoided this or that mistake; the point is that it’s a miracle Germany even went that far.
@@IZn0g0uDatAll Of course not. The German plan was the AA line. This would have eliminated 80% of the USSR population, oil, agriculture, etc. Taking Kamchatka was irrelevant to the wars outcome.
We just went for a 200km round trip drive through outback Australia on dirt roads. I'm exhausted. I really can't imagine what a 50km march would be like. Hitler just didn't appreciate distances. I can imagine these .......... in charge saying " if they can do 50km then they should be able to do 100km.
I think about this and going into Russia was certain death. And My Father was born in Hamburg. And I loved it when I was younger and Dad's German friends would come over. These guys who were proud men who fought for Hitler and so did everyone if you were German and My Father was lucky. And I still keep in touch with a friend of ours from Hamburg and we live in Australia now,, 94 this guy is and I miss my Father and Mother very much and I really like talking about the old days and ask him about Hitler and what it was like. Many stories 🇩🇪😜
I believe the turn south to assist the southern Army Group was a colossal mistake that dwarfs the mistake of stopping in front of Dunkirk during the previous year.
@@seanohare5488with Dunkirk I feel like the British could sue for peace but even if Germans were able to capture Moscow The Soviets would continue fighting that's what I think would most likely happen
Modern scholarship does not😢 agree. The turn south was necessary to keep Army Group Center from dissipating its forward strength by having to cover its right flank. Moreover, destroying Soviet forces fighting Army Group South meant Soviet reinforcements had to be sent to rebuild the southern front. If the Kiev encirclement had not happened and the Soviet forces there remained intact, then those Soviet reinforcements that were used historically to rebuild the southern front would have been sent to defend Moscow. So there was no 'lost opportunity' for the Germans.
The ‘dwarf’ said at the time that his Generals are some of the best military thinkers in history, but unfortunately do no understand economics. The turn south was for Resources: mainly food from the Ukraine and oil from Baku. If it worked the third Reich would have been able to hold out indefinitely against the western allies, but it didn’t.
The book "Stalingrad" discusses some of the reasons the two tank armies were sent north and south. The book also talks about Hitlers' fear of following the same path towards Moscow as did Napolean. In the end, it was the Russian winter that decided events. The German troops were not issued winter clothing because of the belief that Russia would be defeated before then. Hitlers meddling in operational decisions greatly affected the course of battles in Russia. He should have told his military commanders "what" and leaving the "how" to them.
Why does every Eastern piece insist that the goal of Babarosa was Moscow. Hitler had no interest in Moscow - he wanted the time sources of the area around Leningrad and those of Ukraine. The Generals, economic illiterates, wanted Moscow. Find Hitlers Order 31, which you actually mention, or read David Stahael’s great, and recent, book
Some old huge PC strategy games are quite good, the initial placement of the panzer divisions and the road and rail network means, even if smolensk was quite far away it would end up being encircled later by both army groups. There were also a wooded area between group north and south closer to the german starting position and the russians got push pushed into that forest and encircled and it took time for the infantry to squeeze the pocket and mop up. So the panzer divisions can punch through run around and meet but the infantry have to be around to hold the area the panzer just pushed through. Maybe most of the time this was so thin that russians could filter through and get back. In some cases elit units whent from russian side through german lines found their trapped comrades and helped them back. That is how thin the encirclement often was. 30 40 km on road per day is not much. I done that in mountains with 45 Kg. So I immediately start thinking the germans being careful trying not to damage the infantry. I bet they had many breaks in the grass in the sun. Another reason for breaks is overheating. Maybe the most important when I think about it. I heared it can get hot inland in the summer. I always lived along the coast with temperature stabilzed by bodies of water.
It was for the Germans as Churchill said "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning"
I like how the video is narrated by an AI. It's like I'm listening to a computer read an essay someone wrote but there are generic b-roll shots of various public domain films of the eastern front so it seems like a legit video.
The German wargames before Barbarossa showed a German loss/faliure. Given what they then knew (underesitmating the size of red army size, recruitment rate, will to fight, production capabilties...).
They should not go for Moscow at all but for Ukraine and Caucasus like actually "madman" Hitler wanted. Halder,Guderian and rest of amateurs are responsible for lost war in USSR,but they survived and wrote postwar history so it's madman Hitler blamed for all.
I think that the biggest mistake was a strategic one. Employing all those forces in 3 different directions without a proper set of strategic gains (henceforth a victory) was sheer madness. A logistic nightmare. A number of German generals did warn Hitler of this. They should have concentrated their efforts in an offensive toward the Caucasus (where the resources were abundant).
It finally seems that the German - Soviet Russian War has become a footnote of history now that the 21st Century has arrived. By comparison the DRAMATIC exercises of warfare then make the current conflict in modern Ukraine seem quaint nevertheless to a significant degree the past has come BACK to haunt the region.. ☠️
Conflict in the Ukraine has been ongoing for a long time, ever since the Russo-Turkish wars of the 1770s. A lot of the fighting has taken the form of communal violence. My grandparent's family village was attacked by Russians several times during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, forcing us the emigrate out of the region. More than one million Circassians were wiped out as Russians moved in and took over their communities. Europeans have fought each other for centuries. It is a recurring theme.
I don't know if this is the battle but I read a book saying that the soviet army was at a breaking point but the germans didn't know this and they stopped to regroup for 2 days which gave the russians needed time to reinforce. I also think that hitler knew history and napoleon, he visited his tomb in paris in 1940 and was terrified at the thought of capturing moscow, only to have the same fate as Napoleon, better to just capture the Ukraine first. I think he sort of wanted to avoid it. He didn't want to go down in history as having the same fate as Napoleon. Just a thought. Even if they had rushed to moscow and occupied it the lack of logistics still would have doomed them. One wonders if the japanese had invaded in Siberia and stalin's armies would have been there, if maybe the germans would have been successful
The absolute victory at Smolensk by Guderian should have been immediaelty followed by the taking of Moscow as Guderian wanted and begged for the chance to do it. Only one person failed to make this happen, Hitler himself and he bares all the blame, costing Germany the war.
Bertolt Brecht, the great German playwright, in a poem titled "Smolénsk" warned Hitler of the disaster awaiting him in the USSR. He wrote : on the map the road from Berlin to Smolénsk is perhaps shorter than Fühere's thumb, but in the real world ......
I used to play out this battle with a S&T Game (an OTB game) and it is easy to take Smolensk it's really hard to do anything else. Russia barely wins every time despite the heavy loses.
In addition to turning north towards Leningrad and south towards Kiev to destroy additional Soviet forces, my suspicion is that the Wehrmacht's logistics, at that time, didn't allow them to continue any further East. When the drive East towards Moscow did continue, it seemed to proceed in a stop-start fashion which again probably reflected continued logistical challenges. At the start of Barbarossa, I think the extent of the logistical capability was estimated at 800KM, just past Smolensk; however, if the whole rotten edifice had come crashing down ( as expected or hoped for ) before 800KM was reached it wouldn't have mattered.
???? 1) this is a non-falsifiable statement. No way to prove it. Napoleon captured Moscow and suffered the same fate as Germany. 2) Why would Nazi Germany losing the war be tragic? Nazi Germany was one of humanity's greatest evils.
This and many or most of your videos are from the perspective of the German military. It would be nice to know the battles from the soviet side. How did Stalin maneuver troops to the front? Most came from the east, correct ? And many in the soviet armies were "mongoloid", but I think not necessarily of Mongolian ethnicity . How were they convinced to fight in the soviet army ? Information not available ? Or even from the British and American side. Did western international financiers orchestrate supplies to the soviets ?
if the germans had not detoured their tanks and momentum by sending them to Leningrad and Kiev, and advanced along a 200 mile front from Smolensk to Moscow they probably would have started to lay siege to Moscow in early September. They would have controlled the rail lines and resupply would not have been as big an issue.
That is probably because you don't understand the geography of the country at the time. Moscow was the key to the nation, culturally, politically, economically and in terms of transportation hubs. Once this city was cut off/captured, the USSR was divided in two and it would have been extremely difficult to defeat the Nazis.
80 years later with all the information available, we can pick out flaws in planning and execution. They didn’t have the luxury. Imagine the discussion if Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, weren’t failures.
I think the decision of dividing that army to support operations against Leningrad and Kiev was correct. Siege of Leningrad failed even with that backup, while battle of Kiev resulted in massive German victory and Soviet losses of about 600,000 soldiers
The battle that defeated Germany was one of those in which they took no participation. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, Stalin knew that there would be no war between Russia and Japan and was able to move his armies from the East, where they were stationed in case of a Japanese attack, and moved them all West to beat the Germans.
Stalin had already signed a non-aggression pact with Japan in September, 1939. As soon as it was signed, he joined Germany 8 days after their invasion of Poland by invading eastern Poland and grabbing his share. You are right that the attack on Pearl Harbour in December, 1941 allowed him to call on his best General and his Siberian forces and they launched a successful counterattack against the freezing German forces in front of Moscow. Hitler crazily declared war on the United States almost immediately. You now had Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary and Japan facing off against Britain and its Commonwealth, the United States, China and of course the Soviet Union. Though years of bitter fighting lay ahead Germany and Japan were never going to win against this combined industrial might and manpower.
No, Stalin knew beforehand that Japan would attack so he could move troops from Siberia many weeks before. There was a German traitor who.spied for communist dictator Stalin. Soviet offensive started December 5th, Pearl Harbor was 2 days AFTER that
The Soviets had 30k tanks and 20k aircraft at the being of the war. Also huge numbers of trained paratroopers. This isn't even considering the numbers of soldiers in their reserve system. Deny it as much as you like but Stalin was going to attack into Europe sooner rather than later and Barbarossa was a pre-emptive attack. After the Nov 1940 meeting with Molotov in Berlin it was clear that the Soviets had ambitions in Europe and that was just intolerable for the Germans. Hitler flew to Finland to speak with and present von Mannerheim a medal in July of 1942 and their conversation was partially recorded. It's available here on RUclips and should be listened to (ignore the added commentary) by everybody interested in the Russo-German war. Germany never had a chance in hell of beating the Soviets. There were quite a few things stacked against them that ultimately made victory impossible.
@@mito88 No, during the entirety of Barbarossa. Don't let German military casualty figures mislead you (and I certainly don't dismiss the enormity of the Soviet war effort either). Grunts are cheap. The Luftwaffe was destroyed by the Western allies, not the Soviet Union. The Kriegsmarine was destroyed by the Western allies. Do you know how many tanks were sacrificed in production potential to instead build 750 U-boats? The answer is 10s of 1000s. There were over 1 million tasked with only anti-air defense of the Reich. Just the frak batteries alone (88s) sucked an ungodly amount of resources. Nazi Germany outproduced the Soviet Union in munition production throughout WW2 (until 1945). It was only with Lend Lease did the USSR even hope level the playing field. Ask yourself one question: With such a gigantic industrial giant (USA) focusing most of her energies on defeating Nazi Germany, how could Germany not have been expending enormous energies keeping her at bay for as long as it did? Germany defeated the 8th airforce and the UK bomber command in 1943 at tremendous cost -- no long range fighters yet to accompany the bombers. But the effort Germany spent was titanic. Then 1944 came and the U.S.and the UK expended more effort in strategic bombing than anything else.
@@mygoatisdead Good points all. I've read that the money spent by Germany on the Atlantic Wall alone exceeded the entire amount spent by the USSR on tanks.
Smolensko? You mean Smolensk. Otherwise good video, if you want to there are two games to reflect this battle, WDS Smolensk '41 for exact historical grand strat and more general but very detailed: Gary Grigsby War in the East 2.
I don't see anyone asking why Hitler made this new disposition. Was it perhaps something to do with Finland's participation in the war? Incidentally, Stalin was caught by surprise because he was watching the price of wool in Germany. A static price would mean the Germans weren't invading. He couldn't perceive of the Germans' arrogance that the war would be over before the onset of winter.
At the end of 1940 there was a change in Soviet doctrine and war plans few know about. Hitherto, on Stalin's orders, Soviet doctrine was that of the attack. Anyone contemplating defensive strategies was considered defeatist and treasonous. Pavlov was in charge of the armies in the Byalystock salient, and was a proponent of offensive warfare. Up to this point Soviet strategy was to use the salient as a jumping off point in the event of a war with Germany, and to launch an invasion of East Prussia and German occupied Poland. The change in strategy came in the autumn of 1940 when two wargames were held on the instigation of Zukhov. It could be said that in these 'games', Zukhov's very life was on the line, as he was subtly challenging the Party-military doctine of the offensive. Zukhov's opponent in these games was Pavlov. In one game Pavlov played the Soviets and invaded Germany, but he was swiftly trounced by Zukhov playing as the Germans. In the second game, Zukhov played the Soviets and Pavlov the Germans. We don't know much about the results of this second game, but Soviet strategy clearly changed to a much more defensive posture following this. By this time Stalin knew the Germans would attack soon, and he had to play his own part in fooling the Germans that he hadn't rumbled their plans. Stalin also used Pavlov as a stooge and poisoned pawn. If Stalin had simply started to withdraw all forces to the interior, then this would have given the game away to the Germans, who then may have changed their own plans. Stalin didn't want this. Stalin wanted the Germans to do pretty much what they did in over-extending themselves. So, Soviet forces in the Byalystock salient did not receive the reinforcements which Pavlov constantly demanded. In particular they were starved of heavy artillery and mortars. The Germans found these later when they bit granite at Yelnia. Yelnia was described as being WWI style attritional warfare and started the process of bleeding the Wermacht white. After the Germans attacked, Pavlov was recalled to Moscow and executed for treason. Clearly he wasn't a traitor, but he had to appear as one for public consumption as Stalin wanted the Germans to continue to believe that just one more boot on the door would crash the Soviet Union down. Clearly the strategy of letting the Germans exhaust themselves worked, since over time the Red Army grew and the Wermacht shrank. In 1941 the Germans were able to mount 3 separate strategic-operational attacks across a wide front. In 1942 they could only do this in one operational theatre in the East; and by 1943 the Kursk offensive was tiny in comparison to those of the previous two summers.
The logistics were horrible for the German Army. It's the one thing they sorely lacked skill in. Going sideways North and South let the Panzers still somewhat in logistical range. Going forward towards Moscow at that time might have well led to paralyzed tanks without fuel. PS Logistics is also a major reason why the German march slowed down after 2 weeks of invasion.
Yes this was a turning point in the war for Russia despite the losses. The Russians accomplished 2 major objectives during Barbarossa: First the Germans lost 750,000 irreplacable professional soldiers out of an army of 3 million during the Barbarossa campaign. During Barbarossa the Germans advanced along 3 axis ... after Barbarossa they could only manage a single axis and even that proved too much for them. Second the Russians sacrificed those armies to buy time to move arms production east to the Urals. This was a massive logistical achievement. A single factory needed hundreds of rail cars at a time when Russia needed ever car to supply their troops yet somehow they held off the Germans in front of Moscow while successfully moving the factories east. Without those factories the Russians could never have defeated the Germans at Stalingrad.
Whether the Germans should have done this or that is irrelevant . Any skillful maneuvering would have only meant that their defeat would have been delayed. The German army lost the war the moment the first German boot set foot on Soviet soil - for a multitude of reasons.
The Germans couldn't have done anything differently to change the outcome but the allies could have stopped the Germans from ever winning a battle. The Soviet propaganda asserted that the battle would be on enemy territory from the beginning. That is the post-war hermeneutic that insists on the blamelessness and omnipotence of the allied powers. The only blame attaches to those who misjudged German intentions, the fact that appeasement was a delaying tactic based on a realistic appraisal of the situation (the potential for German total victory) is inadmissible in this mindset, the fact that the Western allies initiated the war on Germany, and that Germany was reacting to Stalin's long-term aggressive intentions are also inadmissible. Otherwise the extreme losses are difficult to contemplate, and indeed, these losses (in military terms) are downplayed. A world in which Germany occupies the Baltic states, Crimea and the Donbas with heavy interests in the Caucasus and an anti-Communist regime taking power in Russia in the 1940s is a world in which everybody might be a lot better off.
I don't think that taking Moscow would have caused Stalin to surrender. It was probably better for the Germans to destroy as many Russian troops as possible that to ignore them and take Moscow. It was a transportation nexus and industrial center, and while important, wouldn't have given the Germans victory. I'm not sure the Germans could have won, but allowing the Russians to build up a large army would have caused defeat earlier. Nice video by the way. Thank you for making it! 🙂
I've been studying world war II for decades now. Not Stalingrad (definitely not Kursk), not even the Battle of Moscow was the turning point in the east, but this battle. When you think about it, the Germans didn't even occupy all of France, How were they expected or supposed to conquer the Soviet Union? Their treatment of occupied people's also hastened their demise in the east, as per Hitler statement "One only has to kick in the door in the whole rotten structure will come crashing down," this was impossible if the new structure was as bad or worse than the old one. Obviously hindsight is easy, but if one had a time machine and wanted to help the Germans, one would tell Hitler to consolidate his position in the '30s, build a small empire that would attract others to join as opposed to his taking them over, and never invading Poland (also the persecution of the Jews was as stupid politically as it was morally reprehensible). Think of Germany's place in Europe now, in 2024; had the government followed this more modest plan of consolidation (growing financially, and attracting more territory- think NATO now- and of course military growth and technical development- as opposed to expansion, Germany would be everything it is now but more. And millions of people would have had longer better lives.
I don't think this battle was a turning point; but I do think it was the point where the smart commanders started to see that attacking Russia was not the best decision.
If usa and britain hadn't supplied the bolsheviks with extreme amount of military,raw material,logistic and food aid ,and %100 of the german troops had been on the eastern front, Moscow would have fallen too like Smolensko
I think thrusting forward and leaving hundreds of tousand enemy armies at your flanks is not logical which could effect operation on a different scales. Just imagine russian winter counter attack in december includes the divisions in ukraine&leningrad that had not been destroyed when the siberian armies came to push germans from moscow. This could result collapse of entire front at that year's winter. Plus losing Moscow didnt yield Russians against Napoleon, while they have an army on the field. Keep that in mind.
👉👉Do you want to support the channel? You just have to watch another video. This will help You Tube to recommend them more to new users.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
🔴📣Other videos of interest:
- ✅Walter Model's Fierce Counteroffensive Defending Warsaw in August 1944
ruclips.net/video/NMhswhYwdVs/видео.html
'Smolensko'? Just out of interest, where did the maps come from? The annotations are not the German, Russian or anglicised Russian versions but appear to be Spanish, which seems odd, and you seem occasionally to persist with the Spanish place names in the commentary. In English, German and Russian we have 'Smolensk', 'Smolensk' and 'Смоленск' the last translating directly and unsurprisingly to 'Smolensk'. Also, Gotthard 'Heinrici' is pronounced 'High-n-ritzy', not 'ricki'.
I believe you mis-spoke on the Hitler directive. Fuhrer Directive 31 concerned German organisation in the Balkans; I think you are referring to Directive 33 which concerned offensive strategy on the Eastern Front.
I believe an important point of this campaign is as another illustration that although the German Army of WWII is remembered for its panzers and mechanisation, it was in fact highly reliant on horses and on soldiers travelling on foot.
Great video. The Soviets not crumbling (despite large defeats) before Moscow is severely underrated as a cause of defeat. The smart Germans knew by late summer, it was the beginning of the end. The door had been kicked in, but the "rotten house" did not fall down. They don't have enough oil, and they don't have enough men.
Indeed! And also they failed to reach the main objective of the operation despite massive gains: stop the dependence on Russian fossil fuels. That's why next year they desperately tried to rush to the Russian oil fields which turned out to be an almost impossible task. No margin for error or setbacks.
Yeah, but the mistake was that after winning the battle of Smolensk Hitler procrastinated and halted the advance towards Moscow, just as he halted before Dunkirk.
You know this is the first doc I've found that even talks about Smolensk. Thankyou. As for being a turning point, no. You have to expect some resistance. A half a million warm bodies is still a formidable defense. And the city was already won, so "the Battle of Smolensk" was over. Look at the terrain 20 miles East of there. Its a meeting point of rivers. No wonder they had trouble advancing.
The first that talks about it in the West. These events are otherwise quite well known
"You know this is the first doc I've found that even talks about Smolensk."
It's also a first for Smolensko and Smolenkar.
Three for the price of one.
I agree. The battle of Smolensk in itself was certainly not the turning point. But it was one of the battles that exhausted the Germans. That became a problem later. Hitler's order to divert attention to the north and south was perhaps a more decisive element.
Dude exactly! i've been trying to find a video that even talks about smolensk and I can't barely find anything even though more men were encircled here than dunkirk
My father didn't give up.
Fight all 4 years of war.
Kalinin front.Rhzev.
3:Belarusian front.Siege of Kenigsberg.
My.auntys after when German berned and kill villagers
hide in.a forest.
Later joined Aviation regiment..
They were 16 years old.
I was born after War in 1960.
Nobody alive .. anymore.
Father ,mom ...aunty's.
Only in my.memorys live a Heroic did of our Smolensk folks
New York City 🇺🇸
I'd love to hear more details . Esp Kalinin and Rhzev
Clausowitz summed it up best, Germany didn’t have the manpower, logistics, or resources to win a long term war so quick wars were the only option. Clearly the Corporal never attended the German War and Staff College.
Barbarossa was planned to be a quick war.
"little corporal/smaller brain" =?.
BIGGEST, TWISTED, MURDEROUS, EVIL, NARC EGO ON GRAND EGO on titanic struggle between two totalitarian regimes already known to "REAl PROS BEHIND THE SCENES SAW THE ULTIMATE WINNER OF TOTAL DESTRUCTIVE PROCESS?"😢
They could have won if they had ALL their resources into the war. And also some more better decision making at the command level. Staying put until you die was a stupid idea by Hitler. 2 wars simultaneously was not bright, either.
@marlowbranded7341 staying put and never retreating is not a stupid idea.
rather, it can be of vital strategic importance. once you start retreating, you won't stop until you reach your homeland with the enemy right behind you..
stalin did exactly the same with order 227 issued jn 1942.
My mother's father was kia in " The Battle of Kursk "id- 7 / 43 . He was in the " FAS REICH " Division of the 2nd Waffen SS !y mother's uncle was a Colonel in Nazi - Germany s Luftwaffe , and kia when shot down in his FW 190 ( Focke Wolfe 190 ) fighter plane near Anzio , Italy early 3 / 44 .
Nazis supporting Hilter and his brutal killing sprees!
Interesting
Interesting video. David M Glantz covers Smolensk in his book 'Barbarossa Derailed'. I think at Smolensk the Germans slowly began to realise they had bitten off more then they could chew. Blitzkrieg was bogging down.
Not to mention if record are correct that the Russians had their objectives before the battle began, hence the defense in depth doctrine
@@garyhardison9265 That's a very good point. Glantz looked at both primary and secondary Soviet sources for his research. Even after Smolensk fell the Germans still had problems with Soviet counter attacks.
Precisely.
I like how Glantz describes the 11 unanticipated Soviet armies appearing "phoenix-like" on the horizon.
@@reborninflames2188 yeah it must have been quite a sight for the Germans.
The problem for Army Group centre at this stage was that the panzer divisions were having to bear the brunt of the fighting around Smolensk and were suffering heavy losses in men and machines.
According to Barbarossa, by this stage the Red Army should have collapsed, and the people should have turned against Stalin, but neither of these things had happened. What now?
Precisely.
The root of the collapse of tyrannical systems is very often miscalculations & overconfidence. History is filled with examples.
@@reborninflames2188 Hubris.
@@jeffclark7888 Indeed.
The Red Army had been eviscerated by this point and the millions of Russians that had surrendered are evidence of this. The moral of the population overall was also very low. The people were not for Stalin. Nazi policies are what drove the people into the hands of Stalin, had these brutal policies not been launched, likely this alone would have sealed the fate of the USSR.
This battle at Smolensk was an overwhelming German victory and it did not determine the eventual inability of the Wehrmacht to conquer the USSR. That would come later and is almost certainly due to the great encirclement of Kiev, which drew off so many panzers from Army Group Center.
Hitler and the high command were so confident of their superiority in every way that they started acting like kids in a candy store and couldn’t decide which city or territory to destroy first. Moscow was an afterthought for Hitler at this Time because he was already thinking about the oil in the Caucasus as a priority. Hitler’s opinion of himself as the greatest military leader in history and the overconfidence of the high command made the realization of any threats unlikely except for the boots of the Generals on the ground. I learned a lot details of this battle from your video. Thanks
They became overconfident by the early success of Barbarossa.
Smolensk was a big deal for Napoleon too. He too learned that winter in Russia was " a wonderful prospect"
War Academy has the best content about ww2, I found a book about ww2 when i was 12 and now im 36. Thx for all your insightful videos.
Interesting and informative.Excellent motion photography job. Enabling viewers to better understand what/whom the orator was describing.. Class A research project!!! Rough & tumble fierce combat operations. Fighting/perishing/surviving knowing certain death/debilitating wounds were often possible. Yet still advanced forward regardless of the consequences. That's true grit style determination to succeed. Yes I would have advanced forward to Moscow. The only opportunity to seize it. Before Zhukov had ample time to reorganize his demoralized forces. And reinforce the perimeter of the city. Spring of 42 was too late.
Agreed.
@@johncourtneidge True. Interesting to note that had Moscow been taken by the Germans in 1941, Zhukov's career would likely have ended, probably with execution. If Moscow falls, so does Leningrad, which was holding on by a thread anyway. Without even the trickle of supplies via the Moscow / Leningrad highway/RR Leningrad can't survive. Zhukov was in charge of defending both, at different times. Loose either and Stalin probably has him killed.
A good video on the first significant German setback in the Soviet Union. Among other things the Germans encountered in and around Smolensk were the first T-34s and a Katyusha strike that panicked a formation. The Germans took the city but were stopped in their tracks 20 miles east of it for six weeks, thereby making it impossible to get to Moscow before Winter. Their hold on Smolensk remained shaky, the Soviets coming close to liberating it in their Moscow counter-offensive. The Katyusha strike was described by a Soviet officer: "We first tried out this superb weapon at Rudnya, north-west of Smolensk. In the afternoon of July 15, the earth shook with the unusual explosion of jet mines. Like red-tailed comets, the mines were hurled into the air. The frequent and dazzling explosions, the like of which had never been seen, struck the imagination. The effect of the simultaneous explosion of dozens of these mines was terrific. The Germans fled in panic, and even our own troops near the points of the explosions, who for reasons of secrecy had not been warned that this new weapon would be used, rushed back from the front line."
The Germans had similar rockets called Nebelwerfer.
@@cwcsquared Yes, and I have heard they were feared by American troops, who called them "Screaming meemies." But the Germans did not have the doctrine of mobility and concentration as did the Soviet forces, who mounted racks of them on Studebaker trucks (from American lend-lease), quickly assembled hundreds or thousands of them in one position, and dropped them all at once on the Germans. The Germans used their Nebelwerfers (originally firing smoke shells) as supplements to traditional artillery. Whereas the Soviets used Katyushas as strategic weapons to bust holes in the German lines or stun them into panic as at the town near Smolensk.
alansewell7810. That's an excellent source. Smolensk really was a thorn in the side of the Germans right up until its liberation in September 1943.😀
@@alansewell7810 add the howling sound as well and you can imagine the psychological impact.
The Wehrmacht found, to it's horror, the anemic cannons on their Pzr II's, and III's were useless against the T-34's and especially, the KV I's. Their only saving grace was firing armor piercing shells from the FLAK 88's, and these were not terribly mobile. The T-34's and Katyusha rocket batteries were two nightmares they would have to deal with, right up to the battle of Berlin.
At the start of Operation Barbarossa, the Germans had plenty of panzers, but the madness of attacking a nation as vast as the Soviet Union without enough halftracks and trucks so that the infantry could keep up with and support panzer operations was absolutely insane. At the start of the operation, between 70- to 80% of infantry and artillery were HORSE-DRAWN. Given this massive deficit in modern operational mobility, it beggars the imagination that the Wehrmacht went along with Hitler's mad idea to take Russia. I'm rather shocked that some self-respecting German officer didn't simply shoot Hitler when he proposed this madness.
...with the benefit of 80 years of hind-sight, it becomes easy to grasp how it all went wrong! Most of the operational plan of Barbarossa was based not on facts and hard reality but on mere assumptions by Adolph Hitler. While Hitler had been a combat soldier in WW1 for 4 years and was unquestionably courageous, all his personal combat experience was on the western front, and so Hitler had no inkling of the vast distances of the Soviet Union. But many of Hitler's Generals, especially Von Manstein, had seen Russia for themselves and understood the sheer folly of attacking this vast country, that merely opens into an enormous funnel the further east you go. Hitler's almost casual attitude towards Barbarossa, the greatest attack ever launched, was a tragic way to roll the dice when the fate of a nation of 60 million souls was in the balance! And while Hitler demanded the truth from his own intelligence he also had the very bad habit of ignoring them when they said things he didn't want to hear. And at a critical time when Hitler needed verifiable numbers and cold hard facts, he was getting educated guesses and as events would transpire, he had based Barbarossa on all the wrong assumptions and only realizing this when it was far too late to correct things. Proof positive of this is a quote from Hitler himself in 1941, where he said "If i had only known the Russians had so many tanks as they did, I would never have started this war!"
The situation was, i think, If Germany had not started then clever Stalin was in planning to join Allied and attack from east Poland. Stalin was just not prepared at the time, his preparation was abruptly started after Operation Barbarosa had already started.
Your comment is so mired in armchair history, with the full backdrop of 80 years to rely upon, it is ridiculous. Before making such comments, put yourself in the position of the combatants and attempt to eliminate all you know. A fully motorized German Army was never achieved during the war, so if this is the precondition you would impose, the USSR would never have been invaded.
Also, Hitler's mad idea, was not mad at all. In 41, the Germans came within a hair of achieving victory and in 42 again, the same. Previously, during WWI, Germany had actually defeated Russia, if you remember. Hitler had watched the humiliation of the Soviets in Finland and simultaneously the exploits and genius of his own forces in Europe. His attack was anything but mad. It was a gamble and Hitler was a gambler.
You really need to study more, if you think any German officer would have been capable of simply shooting Hitler in late 1940 or early 41. What are you smoking?
@@thomassenbart You're absolutely right, what isn't written about nearly enough, and explains a great deal about Hitler's decision to launch Barbarossa, was how easily the German army simply achieved a total walk-over of the Russian army and occupied huge swatches of Russian territory in 1917! It was only when Brest-Litovsk was signed that the Germans de-occupied Russia and not because of any resistance by the Red army, who were in total disarray by 1917 anyway. But Hitler obviously knew all about this and surely must have been a factor in his thinking during 1941, especially with Germany already occupying half of Europe and still undefeated!
Germany began Operation Barbarossa with 660,000 horses but not enough trucks.
Wow, your writing is so assertive, almost agressive, but in a good way: straight to the heart of the matter, no non sense.
One major factor of the failure of Barbarossa was caused by Hitlers "buddy" Mussolini. The invasion of Sovietunion was set to May 15 1941. Mussolini however launched an attack on Greece and Yuogoslavia and that didn't went well for Italy. So Germany had to finish what Italy had started in the south of Europe before taking on Russia. I don't think this alone would have changed the course of history but it surely shortened the war. A combined invasion from both NaziGemany and Japan on Russia could have ended the war differently. In doing so, USA would have been kept out of the war a bit longer. Especially if the oilfields in Russia was taken and exploited at a maximum. The lack of oil/diesel/petrol was the achillesheel for axispowers. Thank God they didn't figured that out and act to secure the supply for oil.
this is the reason 100%
If the Soviet’s were actually going to fall, FDR would’ve done everything in his power to prevent it. I don’t think avoiding Pearl Harbor would have much of an effect being honest.
That myth about starting earlier is ... a myth. A few months earlier the Red Army was in a much better position. In mid-June the new defensive regions were half populated and their heavy weapons had not yet arrived. The previous positions (the Stalin line) were already depopulated. Large numbers of troops were on trains en route to the new positions. Just one extra piece of corroborating evidence. Read almost any Soviet novel about the war. Most start with the protagonist on a train heading to his unit and not getting there due to the outbreak of the war.
Italy did instigate a war with Greece that immediately triggered involvement from Britain. However, Italy did NOT instigate a war with Yugoslavia. That separate war was Germany attacking Yugoslavia and destroying the nation in a few weeks. Of interest perhaps, the reason for the Yugoslavian war was a coup that overthrew the pro-Axis government. Hitler was reportedly furious and demanded action. However, with a little more patience it might have turned out that Yugoslavia would have become at least a partial ally to the Axis, ala Bulgaria or Slovakia. Instead Tito organized resistance and bled off critical Axis military units for the next three years +. Another 'turning point'? Perhaps.
@@kovesp1 All true enough but also the spring of 1941 was wet. The border lands in many cases were flooded, the rivers overflowing. The Germans delayed a couple of weeks to allow the waters to recede and the soil dry, at least somewhat.
This battle doesn't get talked about enough. Germany suffered enormously here
Actually, the loss ratio was about 8-1
They were just unable to close the ring. The heavy losses came at Yelnya after the Panzer army had turned south to the Kiev cauldron.
Well, the individual soldier did. I well remember working for assholes. I could tell them to shove it. These suckers couldn't.
@@cwcsquared and yet, they couldn't afford their losses, while the Soviets were beaten up in most battles, especially early on. Making the Germans question their belief that the red army would collapse along with the rest of the Soviet Union
@angelabronckhurst6849 - Yes, because they were Communists and therefore no better than the Nazi's.
Great video. The key factor in the German defeat before Moskow was the crazy decision from Japan not to attack Russia, while Germany declared war on USA. Then, it was just a matterof time before Germany got smashed from 2 fronts. Without declaring war on USA, Germany would have gained enough time to defeat Russia in 1942
ha ha
The Japanese Guandong (Kwantung) army in NE China had been smashed in the Nomonhan/Khalkin Gol campaign of 1939. By the time of Barbarossa, Japan was bogged down in China and was not going to do anything to annoy the USSR, especially as were were still large Red Army formations in the Far East. Although part of the Axis, Japan was acutely aware that her war would be in Asia and that neither Germany nor Italy would be able to offer much assistance. It was also during 1940~41 that relations with the US rapidly deteriorated. In short, Japan was in no position to try anything against the USSR and tolerated the uneasy truce between itself and the USSR. This lasted until the USSR's declaration of war on 8 August 1945 with hostilities kicking off the following day.
It would have been better to get Moscow and control the main transportation hub to keep the Russian forces from getting supplies and man power to where they were needed. Great day to you and enjoyed your time as always. God bless you all and I will check ✔️ out the next recommendation for the next battle.
Germany attacking the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941 was a catastrophic mistake and Hitler's decision to declare war on the US later the same year without taking care of Great Britain already determined the outcome of the war. Add to that the campaign in North Africa and the occupation of Norway further sealed the fate of Germany's overstretched resources.
I’ve always wondered if Germany had the choice of NOT attacking the USSR. Hitler and his generals were worried that by 1942 it might be impossible to defeat the Soviet Union, which was clearly building up its military resources. So they felt they had to strike or else the Soviets would build up and then attack Germany.
the declaration of war against the US was a mere formality... The US navy and kriegsmarine were already engaged in open warfare across the atlantic.
norway was occupied before the british did. The port of narvik was vital for shipping the ore extracted in sweden.
It was a gamble and 1941 was the best time to attack. The declaration of war on the U.S. was the biggest mistake. There was no need to do this even after the japanese made the foolish attack on pearl harbor
Totally agree. Germany must win first U.K. i do not understood at all Hitler, his atack of the URSS was mad
Everyone usually points that Germany should of let the Panzers rush towards Moscow. The Tanks can break through but if you want to hold that encirclement you need the infantry support. Maybe you could send half south to secure Kiev encirclement & much needed need war resources and let the other half of the Panzers continue towards Moscow with as many Mechanized units as you can spare. Leningrad wasn’t even as important as the railroad that was never cut near the Finnish border IMO as controversial as that might be. They should of cut that railway asap coming from Finland. I also would of focused the thrust south & center trying to get as close as possible to securing the much needed Oil while also trying to cut communications & railways by taking Moscow. Army North would of been the weakest of the 3 divisions attempting to encircle Leningrad only after the critical railway that allowed western convoys into the country had been severed. Even if you can reach the oil fields by winter of 41 if you focus your thrust center & south you have a better jumping off point for the summer offensive of 42 to try take the oil needed to continue fighting. Also they probably never should declared war on the USA that was just foolish.
"Everybody got a plan until they get punched in the mouth"
-Iron Mike
Truth is Soviets would've continue resisting causing German resources to be wasted while the Russians could still replace their resources German should've never invaded Russia they haven't learned from Napoleon
Germany could have defeated Russia if they didn't waste so much manpower and resources trying to fight two fronts. Hitler tried to take too much too fast, he defeated himself
What other front?
There wasn’t another Front. 80% of the German Army was involved with Barbarossa. Hitler’s move in August 41’ to send Guderian’s Panzers to assist Rundstedt and Army Group South take Kiev. Was absolutely dumb when Army Group Center was 220 miles from Moscow. We can play the what if game but I think that by doing this, was the reason for the operations failure.
Your whole military’s doctrine is built on speed and overwhelming firepower in a very short time. The Soviets were on the run. You gamble and push all the way to Moscow. Don’t give them an inch. Time is the enemy. You give Soviet’s a little breathing room and they will make you pay for it. Look at Operation Citadel and Soviet’s Counter Offensive in January 42’ against Army Group North particularly the Demyansk Pocket.
@@chicagopunditwhohasabrain4808True.
Germans had two options: Either advance to Moscow or secure the flanks first. They chose the latter and moved their focus to south.
There was no other front at that time.
@@cirka4497 exactly
I don’t understand, the German army being the most tactically advanced military in it’s time, the masters of combined warfare, yet logistically it was a failure! The infantry had to walk to keep up with the tanks! There were insufficient trucks!
The Russians were better off having many lend lease vehicles!
The Germans while devoted to making the best tanks, failed to make enough trucks for the very men they needed to support their very expensive tanks. I don’t get it!
Indeed-most of their transport was via horses. Not a modern army transport at all.
Yes, absolutely the Germans should have continued their push toward Moscow before the winter set in. The decision to delay it probably sealed the German's fait in the whole war.
The main factor in this is, by the time the Wehrmacht had fought its way to Moscow, it did not have the combat power left to TAKE Moscow, especially after Stalin's Siberians showed up in a big mass charge the Germans were barely able to halt -
The truth is that German general staff lied to Hitler who asked if he could defeat Soviets. They lied and Knew that at Smolenks they would have to Refit at that point. Germans were Not a mechanized army . Walked . Artillery pulled by horses. Hitler never really had chance to take Moscow.
True criminals were General Staff.They lied to Fuhrer.
Take it from Napoleon .
Taking Moscow does not defeat Russia .
Then they would have Kiev not taken in their rear in the South West. No, I doubt that would have gone smoothly
Germany should have made strong defence line making it a static battle like trench wars and stabilize eastern front.They should have forced Russians to attack and break on their defences
I fought this battle out on a table top map. Twice, both times as the Germans. While the Germans have an advantage in tactical maneuvers. The Russians have the advantage in strategic maneuvers. Supply shortage is critical for the Germans. You really have to play it aggressive as the Germans. Time is on the Russian side.
In your opinion, was there ever a chance that the Germans could have pulled off a victory? What would have had to happen for such a victory?
Yes
I'm not sure that Smolensk 1941 "changed" the course of the war, as much as it made the Germans realize that they wouldn't beat the Soviets any time soon. I don't think that the decision to wait on going after Moscow was so bad. Napoleon captured Moscow and what good did it do him?
Re-directing troops south to Kiev resulted in the capture of huge numbers of Soviet troops, and eventually set up the 1942 campaign in the southern USSR (aka "Fall Blau"). Southern USSR was where the grain and oil was produced, and that's what Germany needed strategically. Whereas capturing Moscow would have been more of a question of "morale". Since Stalin expected to keep fighting even if Moscow had been lost, the idea that capturing Moscow might have ended the war was faulty.
Also, it appears that the Soviets had solidified their line east of Smolensk, and the Germans were likely not ready to try to break through that line. Yes eventually the panzers returned and they did make progress toward Moscow, then the rain came (along with the mud it caused) and then the snow and abnormally cold temperatures; also the Soviets had built fortified lines in front of Moscow (after Smolensk was captured). No one will really know whether a big early push toward Moscow (i.e. immediately after Smolensk was captured) would have made a difference in the war's outcome, though it likely would have succeeded in at least capturing Moscow. Yet even this is in some doubt, given the supply line situation for the Germans at that point in the war.
I've also heard it said that a likely outcome of Germans capturing Moscow in 1941, with Soviet reserves already being concentrated and supplies stockpiled for the winter counteroffensive around Moscow, would have been for the Germans to simply suffer their Stalingrad a year earlier, at Moscow. A successful Fall Blau from that position - especially with the south being far less secure than it historically was, with all the resources directed at Moscow - is unlikely at best.
You are quit correct, Russia is to big, and the lend lease supplies coming from Britain and the USA added vastly to the Germans difficulty , it wasn't just weapons, it was all kinds of essential supplies.The Germans were tactically brilliant but the strategic situations proved to great to overcome,I feel a sense of pity for the massive sacrifices the individual German soldiers had to make only with it all ultimately ending in catastrophy!!
World communism could have been stopped dead in it's tracks and saved the world a lot of grief, but the powers that be behind the scenes in America didn't want there creation (communism) to be stamped out once and for all! The conflict with Japan was also unnecessary Japan didn't want war with the USA, but Roosevelt's handlers got him to provoke the Japanese,the last straw being the cutting off of Japan's vital oil supplies, so Pearl harbour was due to anti Japanese provocation, war was inevitable,Japan lost and communism came to China,Thang Kai Sjhek,the anti communist leader couldn't believe the American "
Stab' in the back
Napoleon? Completely different era. Moscow was not even the capital in 1800. Railroads and trucks and airplanes were non-existent. IMO a meaningless comparison to 1940s.
It’s not the city of smolenskO, it is the city of smolensK, K is the last symbol. Great video on a very underestimated battle, thanks!!
Leningrado and Stalingrado. what up with you guys?
Most experts say the Germans should have gone straight towards Moscow. The Capital and transportation hub of the USSR. I agree.
And then do what? Occupy the country from Poland to Vladivostok? With whom?
@@IZn0g0uDatAll No, then take over all the areas between Poland and Eastern Europe and then go for the oil in the south.
@@ethercruiser1537 it’s in the dna of hitlerian logic that germany would go into a total war with the rest of humanity. Germany was doomed the moment he got into power. It doesn’t have the manpower or the ressources to conquer and hold the whole of Europe. Yes he could have avoided this or that mistake; the point is that it’s a miracle Germany even went that far.
@@IZn0g0uDatAll Of course not. The German plan was the AA line. This would have eliminated 80% of the USSR population, oil, agriculture, etc. Taking Kamchatka was irrelevant to the wars outcome.
Had Manstein been given complete command without any Hitler interference, Manstein would have given Germany a relatively quick victory.
Smolensko? Then I realized it's a Spanish video, and an excellent one at that. Great examination of a neglected historical event.
Great video.. would of could of should of....thats in my book
Every step forward reduced a chance for victory.
Well done!
We just went for a 200km round trip drive through outback Australia on dirt roads. I'm exhausted. I really can't imagine what a 50km march would be like. Hitler just didn't appreciate distances. I can imagine these .......... in charge saying " if they can do 50km then they should be able to do 100km.
Good history Channel
I think about this and going into Russia was certain death. And My Father was born in Hamburg. And I loved it when I was younger and Dad's German friends would come over. These guys who were proud men who fought for Hitler and so did everyone if you were German and My Father was lucky. And I still keep in touch with a friend of ours from Hamburg and we live in Australia now,, 94 this guy is and I miss my Father and Mother very much and I really like talking about the old days and ask him about Hitler and what it was like. Many stories 🇩🇪😜
I believe the turn south to assist the southern Army Group was a colossal mistake that dwarfs the mistake of stopping in front of Dunkirk during the previous year.
I agree
@@seanohare5488with Dunkirk I feel like the British could sue for peace but even if Germans were able to capture Moscow
The Soviets would continue fighting that's what I think would most likely happen
Modern scholarship does not😢 agree. The turn south was necessary to keep Army Group Center from dissipating its forward strength by having to cover its right flank. Moreover, destroying Soviet forces fighting Army Group South meant Soviet reinforcements had to be sent to rebuild the southern front. If the Kiev encirclement had not happened and the Soviet forces there remained intact, then those Soviet reinforcements that were used historically to rebuild the southern front would have been sent to defend Moscow. So there was no 'lost opportunity' for the Germans.
The ‘dwarf’ said at the time that his Generals are some of the best military thinkers in history, but unfortunately do no understand economics. The turn south was for Resources: mainly food from the Ukraine and oil from Baku. If it worked the third Reich would have been able to hold out indefinitely against the western allies, but it didn’t.
The book "Stalingrad" discusses some of the reasons the two tank armies were sent north and south. The book also talks about Hitlers' fear of following the same path towards Moscow as did Napolean.
In the end, it was the Russian winter that decided events. The German troops were not issued winter clothing because of the belief that Russia would be defeated before then.
Hitlers meddling in operational decisions greatly affected the course of battles in Russia. He should have told his military commanders "what" and leaving the "how" to them.
Why does every Eastern piece insist that the goal of Babarosa was Moscow.
Hitler had no interest in Moscow - he wanted the time sources of the area around Leningrad and those of Ukraine.
The Generals, economic illiterates, wanted Moscow. Find Hitlers Order 31, which you actually mention, or read David Stahael’s great, and recent, book
Excellent presentation sir
Some old huge PC strategy games are quite good, the initial placement of the panzer divisions and the road and rail network means, even if smolensk was quite far away it would end up being encircled later by both army groups.
There were also a wooded area between group north and south closer to the german starting position and the russians got push pushed into that forest and encircled and it took time for the infantry to squeeze the pocket and mop up. So the panzer divisions can punch through run around and meet but the infantry have to be around to hold the area the panzer just pushed through. Maybe most of the time this was so thin that russians could filter through and get back. In some cases elit units whent from russian side through german lines found their trapped comrades and helped them back. That is how thin the encirclement often was.
30 40 km on road per day is not much. I done that in mountains with 45 Kg. So I immediately start thinking the germans being careful trying not to damage the infantry. I bet they had many breaks in the grass in the sun. Another reason for breaks is overheating. Maybe the most important when I think about it. I heared it can get hot inland in the summer. I always lived along the coast with temperature stabilzed by bodies of water.
It was for the Germans as Churchill said "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning"
I like how the video is narrated by an AI. It's like I'm listening to a computer read an essay someone wrote but there are generic b-roll shots of various public domain films of the eastern front so it seems like a legit video.
The German wargames before Barbarossa showed a German loss/faliure. Given what they then knew (underesitmating the size of red army size, recruitment rate, will to fight, production capabilties...).
What wargaming are you referring to?
@@thomassenbart I concur. The books I have read say that the German wargames all indicated victory and that Moscow was the linchpin to that victory.
This video is brilliant
Who is this Heinricky @10:06? I am assuming it is HEINZ which has been disasterously mispronounced.....
Normal thoughts for a leader who must plan days and weeks ahead.And then take into account that soon fall and winter approaches
They should not go for Moscow at all but for Ukraine and Caucasus like actually "madman" Hitler wanted. Halder,Guderian and rest of amateurs are responsible for lost war in USSR,but they survived and wrote postwar history so it's madman Hitler blamed for all.
Guderian's 2nd Panzer army had 5 panzer divisions, not 3.
I think that the biggest mistake was a strategic one. Employing all those forces in 3 different directions without a proper set of strategic gains (henceforth a victory) was sheer madness. A logistic nightmare. A number of German generals did warn Hitler of this. They should have concentrated their efforts in an offensive toward the Caucasus (where the resources were abundant).
Good work!
Ty
It finally seems that the German - Soviet Russian War has become a footnote of history now that the 21st Century has arrived. By comparison the DRAMATIC exercises of warfare then make the current conflict in modern Ukraine seem quaint nevertheless to a significant degree the past has come BACK to haunt the region.. ☠️
Conflict in the Ukraine has been ongoing for a long time, ever since the Russo-Turkish wars of the 1770s. A lot of the fighting has taken the form of communal violence. My grandparent's family village was attacked by Russians several times during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, forcing us the emigrate out of the region. More than one million Circassians were wiped out as Russians moved in and took over their communities. Europeans have fought each other for centuries. It is a recurring theme.
I don't know if this is the battle but I read a book saying that the soviet army was at a breaking point but the germans didn't know this and they stopped to regroup for 2 days which gave the russians needed time to reinforce. I also think that hitler knew history and napoleon, he visited his tomb in paris in 1940 and was terrified at the thought of capturing moscow, only to have the same fate as Napoleon, better to just capture the Ukraine first. I think he sort of wanted to avoid it. He didn't want to go down in history as having the same fate as Napoleon. Just a thought. Even if they had rushed to moscow and occupied it the lack of logistics still would have doomed them. One wonders if the japanese had invaded in Siberia and stalin's armies would have been there, if maybe the germans would have been successful
To invade the Soviets was insanity.
To not invade was insanity.
There's book dealing precisely with this subject by American historan Col David M Glantz 'Derailing Barbarossa
To know more take a dip into it
What's the deal with the AI continuing the narration over the guy at the end? That's pretty weird.
The absolute victory at Smolensk by Guderian should have been immediaelty followed by the taking of Moscow as Guderian wanted and begged for the chance to do it. Only one person failed to make this happen, Hitler himself and he bares all the blame, costing Germany the war.
True the most fateful decision of the war in the East
Armchair general. Maybe you've heard of the concept of "securing the flanks"?
Bertolt Brecht, the great German playwright, in a poem titled "Smolénsk" warned Hitler of the disaster awaiting him in the USSR. He wrote : on the map the road from Berlin to Smolénsk is perhaps shorter than Fühere's thumb, but in the real world ......
I used to play out this battle with a S&T Game (an OTB game) and it is easy to take Smolensk it's really hard to do anything else. Russia barely wins every time despite the heavy loses.
In addition to turning north towards Leningrad and south towards Kiev to destroy additional Soviet forces, my suspicion is that the Wehrmacht's logistics, at that time, didn't allow them to continue any further East. When the drive East towards Moscow did continue, it seemed to proceed in a stop-start fashion which again probably reflected continued logistical challenges. At the start of Barbarossa, I think the extent of the logistical capability was estimated at 800KM, just past Smolensk; however, if the whole rotten edifice had come crashing down ( as expected or hoped for ) before 800KM was reached it wouldn't have mattered.
Directive 31 cost Germany the war. TRAGIC
???? 1) this is a non-falsifiable statement. No way to prove it. Napoleon captured Moscow and suffered the same fate as Germany. 2) Why would Nazi Germany losing the war be tragic? Nazi Germany was one of humanity's greatest evils.
why in this video the city of Smolensk is being called Smolensko? Even youtube knows this is a wrong spelling.
This and many or most of your videos are from the perspective of the German military. It would be nice to know the battles from the soviet side. How did Stalin maneuver troops to the front? Most came from the east, correct ? And many in the soviet armies were "mongoloid", but I think not necessarily of Mongolian ethnicity . How were they convinced to fight in the soviet army ? Information not available ? Or even from the British and American side. Did western international financiers orchestrate supplies to the soviets ?
if the germans had not detoured their tanks and momentum by sending them to Leningrad and Kiev,
and advanced along a 200 mile front from Smolensk to Moscow they probably would have started to lay siege to Moscow in early September. They would have controlled the rail lines and resupply would not have been as big an issue.
It would not have changed the outcome of the war at all. Btw Halder was an incompetent fool .
I tend to agree with the final outcome but it could have lasted a lot longer.
What a quality❤
Good video
I think the taking of Moscow would not have mattered the Russians just would have kept fighting
Agree.
Exactly.
Without doubt
They moved an incredible amount of industrial works east of the Urals
That is probably because you don't understand the geography of the country at the time. Moscow was the key to the nation, culturally, politically, economically and in terms of transportation hubs. Once this city was cut off/captured, the USSR was divided in two and it would have been extremely difficult to defeat the Nazis.
80 years later with all the information available, we can pick out flaws in planning and execution. They didn’t have the luxury. Imagine the discussion if Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, weren’t failures.
Лендлиз для СССР стал спасением страны большевиков от разгрома немцами.
My grandfathers brother, Abkar Farian, was killed defending Smolensk
I think the decision of dividing that army to support operations against Leningrad and Kiev was correct. Siege of Leningrad failed even with that backup, while battle of Kiev resulted in massive German victory and Soviet losses of about 600,000 soldiers
The battle that defeated Germany was one of those in which they took no participation. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, Stalin knew that there would be no war between Russia and Japan and was able to move his armies from the East, where they were stationed in case of a Japanese attack, and moved them all West to beat the Germans.
Stalin had already signed a non-aggression pact with Japan in September, 1939. As soon as it was signed, he joined Germany 8 days after their invasion of Poland by invading eastern Poland and grabbing his share. You are right that the attack on Pearl Harbour in December, 1941 allowed him to call on his best General and his Siberian forces and they launched a successful counterattack against the freezing German forces in front of Moscow. Hitler crazily declared war on the United States almost immediately. You now had Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary and Japan facing off against Britain and its Commonwealth, the United States, China and of course the Soviet Union. Though years of bitter fighting lay ahead Germany and Japan were never going to win against this combined industrial might and manpower.
@@paultyson4389....thanks for sorting that out. Many Americans try to put themselves into the centre of everything.
No, Stalin knew beforehand that Japan would attack so he could move troops from Siberia many weeks before. There was a German traitor who.spied for communist dictator Stalin. Soviet offensive started December 5th, Pearl Harbor was 2 days AFTER that
@@Dilley_G45 a man with real intelligence, how rare to see.
The Soviets had 30k tanks and 20k aircraft at the being of the war. Also huge numbers of trained paratroopers. This isn't even considering the numbers of soldiers in their reserve system. Deny it as much as you like but Stalin was going to attack into Europe sooner rather than later and Barbarossa was a pre-emptive attack. After the Nov 1940 meeting with Molotov in Berlin it was clear that the Soviets had ambitions in Europe and that was just intolerable for the Germans. Hitler flew to Finland to speak with and present von Mannerheim a medal in July of 1942 and their conversation was partially recorded. It's available here on RUclips and should be listened to (ignore the added commentary) by everybody interested in the Russo-German war. Germany never had a chance in hell of beating the Soviets. There were quite a few things stacked against them that ultimately made victory impossible.
Gyoodeerian❤
More than half of Germany's industrial effort was spent fighting the Western allies, NOT the Soviet Union. Let that sink in.
before barbarossa?
in 1941???
@@mito88 No, during the entirety of Barbarossa. Don't let German military casualty figures mislead you (and I certainly don't dismiss the enormity of the Soviet war effort either). Grunts are cheap. The Luftwaffe was destroyed by the Western allies, not the Soviet Union. The Kriegsmarine was destroyed by the Western allies. Do you know how many tanks were sacrificed in production potential to instead build 750 U-boats? The answer is 10s of 1000s.
There were over 1 million tasked with only anti-air defense of the Reich. Just the frak batteries alone (88s) sucked an ungodly amount of resources. Nazi Germany outproduced the Soviet Union in munition production throughout WW2 (until 1945). It was only with Lend Lease did the USSR even hope level the playing field.
Ask yourself one question: With such a gigantic industrial giant (USA) focusing most of her energies on defeating Nazi Germany, how could Germany not have been expending enormous energies keeping her at bay for as long as it did? Germany defeated the 8th airforce and the UK bomber command in 1943 at tremendous cost -- no long range fighters yet to accompany the bombers. But the effort Germany spent was titanic. Then 1944 came and the U.S.and the UK expended more effort in strategic bombing than anything else.
@@mygoatisdead Good points all. I've read that the money spent by Germany on the Atlantic Wall alone exceeded the entire amount spent by the USSR on tanks.
Smolensko? You mean Smolensk. Otherwise good video, if you want to there are two games to reflect this battle, WDS Smolensk '41 for exact historical grand strat and more general but very detailed: Gary Grigsby War in the East 2.
Guderian the Goat 🐐
why are the soviets exclusively cavalry in the early battle? i would have thought them to be infantry.
Underestimating the Russians, seems like history repeating itself 😮😮😮
I don't see anyone asking why Hitler made this new disposition. Was it perhaps something to do with Finland's participation in the war? Incidentally, Stalin was caught by surprise because he was watching the price of wool in Germany. A static price would mean the Germans weren't invading. He couldn't perceive of the Germans' arrogance that the war would be over before the onset of winter.
Interesting video. Although I found the AI voice over annoying
Smolensko? Seriously? And you put it in the title as a cherry on top.
He's Spanish
City of Smolensko? Where this is located?
So, what part did the Khazarians have on both sides?
At the end of 1940 there was a change in Soviet doctrine and war plans few know about. Hitherto, on Stalin's orders, Soviet doctrine was that of the attack. Anyone contemplating defensive strategies was considered defeatist and treasonous. Pavlov was in charge of the armies in the Byalystock salient, and was a proponent of offensive warfare. Up to this point Soviet strategy was to use the salient as a jumping off point in the event of a war with Germany, and to launch an invasion of East Prussia and German occupied Poland.
The change in strategy came in the autumn of 1940 when two wargames were held on the instigation of Zukhov. It could be said that in these 'games', Zukhov's very life was on the line, as he was subtly challenging the Party-military doctine of the offensive. Zukhov's opponent in these games was Pavlov. In one game Pavlov played the Soviets and invaded Germany, but he was swiftly trounced by Zukhov playing as the Germans. In the second game, Zukhov played the Soviets and Pavlov the Germans. We don't know much about the results of this second game, but Soviet strategy clearly changed to a much more defensive posture following this.
By this time Stalin knew the Germans would attack soon, and he had to play his own part in fooling the Germans that he hadn't rumbled their plans. Stalin also used Pavlov as a stooge and poisoned pawn. If Stalin had simply started to withdraw all forces to the interior, then this would have given the game away to the Germans, who then may have changed their own plans. Stalin didn't want this. Stalin wanted the Germans to do pretty much what they did in over-extending themselves.
So, Soviet forces in the Byalystock salient did not receive the reinforcements which Pavlov constantly demanded. In particular they were starved of heavy artillery and mortars. The Germans found these later when they bit granite at Yelnia. Yelnia was described as being WWI style attritional warfare and started the process of bleeding the Wermacht white. After the Germans attacked, Pavlov was recalled to Moscow and executed for treason. Clearly he wasn't a traitor, but he had to appear as one for public consumption as Stalin wanted the Germans to continue to believe that just one more boot on the door would crash the Soviet Union down.
Clearly the strategy of letting the Germans exhaust themselves worked, since over time the Red Army grew and the Wermacht shrank. In 1941 the Germans were able to mount 3 separate strategic-operational attacks across a wide front. In 1942 they could only do this in one operational theatre in the East; and by 1943 the Kursk offensive was tiny in comparison to those of the previous two summers.
Yes, because Moscow was the central point of the railways of Russia !!!! On this time !!!
The logistics were horrible for the German Army. It's the one thing they sorely lacked skill in. Going sideways North and South let the Panzers still somewhat in logistical range. Going forward towards Moscow at that time might have well led to paralyzed tanks without fuel.
PS Logistics is also a major reason why the German march slowed down after 2 weeks of invasion.
Yes this was a turning point in the war for Russia despite the losses. The Russians accomplished 2 major objectives during Barbarossa:
First the Germans lost 750,000 irreplacable professional soldiers out of an army of 3 million during the Barbarossa campaign. During Barbarossa the Germans advanced along 3 axis ... after Barbarossa they could only manage a single axis and even that proved too much for them.
Second the Russians sacrificed those armies to buy time to move arms production east to the Urals. This was a massive logistical achievement. A single factory needed hundreds of rail cars at a time when Russia needed ever car to supply their troops yet somehow they held off the Germans in front of Moscow while successfully moving the factories east. Without those factories the Russians could never have defeated the Germans at Stalingrad.
Whether the Germans should have done this or that is irrelevant . Any skillful maneuvering would have only meant that their defeat would have been delayed. The German army lost the war the moment the first German boot set foot on Soviet soil - for a multitude of reasons.
Correct Ask Napoleon
The Germans couldn't have done anything differently to change the outcome but the allies could have stopped the Germans from ever winning a battle. The Soviet propaganda asserted that the battle would be on enemy territory from the beginning. That is the post-war hermeneutic that insists on the blamelessness and omnipotence of the allied powers. The only blame attaches to those who misjudged German intentions, the fact that appeasement was a delaying tactic based on a realistic appraisal of the situation (the potential for German total victory) is inadmissible in this mindset, the fact that the Western allies initiated the war on Germany, and that Germany was reacting to Stalin's long-term aggressive intentions are also inadmissible. Otherwise the extreme losses are difficult to contemplate, and indeed, these losses (in military terms) are downplayed. A world in which Germany occupies the Baltic states, Crimea and the Donbas with heavy interests in the Caucasus and an anti-Communist regime taking power in Russia in the 1940s is a world in which everybody might be a lot better off.
I don't think that taking Moscow would have caused Stalin to surrender.
It was probably better for the Germans to destroy as many Russian troops as possible that to ignore them and take Moscow. It was a transportation nexus and industrial center, and while important, wouldn't have given the Germans victory.
I'm not sure the Germans could have won, but allowing the Russians to build up a large army would have caused defeat earlier.
Nice video by the way. Thank you for making it! 🙂
I've been studying world war II for decades now. Not Stalingrad (definitely not Kursk), not even the Battle of Moscow was the turning point in the east, but this battle. When you think about it, the Germans didn't even occupy all of France, How were they expected or supposed to conquer the Soviet Union? Their treatment of occupied people's also hastened their demise in the east, as per Hitler statement "One only has to kick in the door in the whole rotten structure will come crashing down," this was impossible if the new structure was as bad or worse than the old one. Obviously hindsight is easy, but if one had a time machine and wanted to help the Germans, one would tell Hitler to consolidate his position in the '30s, build a small empire that would attract others to join as opposed to his taking them over, and never invading Poland (also the persecution of the Jews was as stupid politically as it was morally reprehensible). Think of Germany's place in Europe now, in 2024; had the government followed this more modest plan of consolidation (growing financially, and attracting more territory- think NATO now- and of course military growth and technical development- as opposed to expansion, Germany would be everything it is now but more. And millions of people would have had longer better lives.
I don't think this battle was a turning point; but I do think it was the point where the smart commanders started to see that attacking Russia was not the best decision.
So you always add "-O" when word is to hard?
If usa and britain hadn't supplied the bolsheviks with extreme amount of military,raw material,logistic and food aid ,and %100 of the german troops had been on the eastern front, Moscow would have fallen too like Smolensko
True.
This shows what great leaders Roosevelt and Churchill were. They put aside their differences with the Soviet Union to defeat the more dangerous enemy.
@@davidhoward4715 that rabid d@g called st@lin was the most notorious enemy of western civilization
Human narrator?
whats the city of “Smolenkso”? never heard of it. There is city in Russia called “Smolensk”
Even poor divisions still shoot bullets and artillery
hitler slowed himself down
I think thrusting forward and leaving hundreds of tousand enemy armies at your flanks is not logical which could effect operation on a different scales. Just imagine russian winter counter attack in december includes the divisions in ukraine&leningrad that had not been destroyed when the siberian armies came to push germans from moscow. This could result collapse of entire front at that year's winter. Plus losing Moscow didnt yield Russians against Napoleon, while they have an army on the field. Keep that in mind.
Smolensko? Is it similar as Londono and Washingtono? )
Why is it SmolenskO and not Smolensk, LeningradO and not Leningrad?