I was a tanker in an M-1 for 5 years in the '90s. I have operated in sub-zero F. I have also been an infantryman in sub-zero temps. Given a choice I would rather be an infantryman in that weather. The M-1 had a heater. It usually did not work. Touch anything in the tank with your bare hands and risk frost bite. Drive down the road with your head out the top without goggles and risk loosing your eyes. When it is that cold everything on that tank breaks or simply does not work. The engine has to run all the time. The Germans had a fuel shortage so they could not idle the engines. Winter is tanker hell. Summer is not much better. I have measured 140 inside a tank in the summer. I hated being a tanker. So glad when I got back in the infantry. Ask any US Army vet tanker who was stationed in Germany about German winters. I feel for both the German and Russian tankers. Winter has a huge effect on readiness and effectiveness.
Also a big difference between cold-wet and cold-dry. As an infantryman, I much preferred cold-dry. As a mechanized infantry man, I would put my gas mask on to protect my face from icy blast when motoring down the road with my head out. A rotation schedule to get track commander and driver out of that blast before frostbite is absolutely necessary. How to rotate with only 4 in a tank? Darned if I know.
The importance of the Siberian troops was a) that they were very well equipped, including winter gear and b) that they were experienced veterans who had fought many border clashes with Japanese and Manchukuoan troops. Most of them were sent to the Staingrad region in 1942. Among these units was the one of Kim Il-sung, who later became the leader of North Korea. These former Korean and Chinese partisan units were especially valuable, as they had more than a decade experience in fighting the Japanese army. They were highly motivated elite units and, although not so large in numbers, played a crucial role in late 1942 and 1942.
The crew of the German battleship Bismarck were told that their anti-aircraft gunners had shot down 27 of HMS Victorious's Swordfish torpedo bombers. A remarkeable achievement I'm sure that we can all agree; all the more remarkable when one learns that Victorious only launched 9 Swordfish and that all 9 returned safely to the carrier.
? But they weren't? I've never heard of that. And even if it did happen, how are you going to say to the crew that watched them fly, that they shot them all down?
@@F.R.E.D.D2986 With Zhukov, Koniev and Rokossovsky's armies on the verge of encircling Berlin, Goebbels was still claiming final victory (Endsieg) was at hand. As I recall, the anti-aircraft batteries on Bismarck were targeted electronically and had restricted depression; the gun crews simply supplying ammunition. The slowest aircraft speed with which the system could cope was nigh on double that of which the Swordfish was capable. And the guns could not target and track low flying aeroplanes.
@Targaryen Dynasty His American Civil War one was actually really good, I kinda hope he goes back and remakes his World War videos with the same depth as his recent videos.
@@Edax_Royeaux I feel McClellan gets too much hate, even campaigns he "lost" (like the Peninsular and Seven Days Campaign) saw the Confederates lose thousands of more men than him. Theoretically, if he launched invasions like that which in turn saw the Confederates aggressively counterattacking, they could have been bled dry. On the other hand, Grant is shown as someone who just throws men at the enemy whilst Lee is someone who is unexplainably genius when that is not really the case. Lee suffers heavy losses even in victory and fails to actually destroy armies whereas Grant manages to manuever armies so that (despite taking heavy losses) he ultimately destroys the enemy armies (Vicksburg and Appomatox are the only two campaigns of the Civil War which saw armies being destroyed, both by Grant). Whilst the military history is a bit iffy, the oversimplified series did do a splendid job of displaying the political aspects of the war imo.
There's a psychological phenomenon when soldiers think they've won a battle and that the fighting is over. They relax to an extent that leaves them vulnerable to a counterattack that they would normally beat back easily, and often fall into rout. It's turned many battles throughout history.
In college, I knew a family in Ventura (CA) whose parents had survived WW II. I remember the family name as Walati. The father was an Ossetian who had served in the Red Army and the mother was a German military nurse. He was in officer training for the Red Army when the German invasion started. He was part of that mob of Red army men you see in grainy film grimly marched through Red Square directly to the front in November. 1941. He told me, "I couldn't wait to get to the front!" "Ah, to fight the Germans!", I replied. "No, No! To surrender to the Germans. I hated the party and Stalin." I had the sense that he ended up in the SS or Vaslov Russian Liberation Army movement, but I never asked that question. He certainly didn't spend the war in a German prisoner of war camp. He married a German nurse somewhere in 1943-44 and they escaped to the West at the end of the war. There was a trade-off in my mind between the results of Stalin's extreme brutal collectivization and forced industrialization and the morale of the Red Army soldiers in 1941-42. The Soviet Union would have fared much better in 1941-42 with somewhat fewer tanks and airplanes and a lot more men willing to fight to the death for the regime with the equipment at hand.
@@TheImperatorKnight Couldnt get a hold of a email , but I most recomend you TIK to be on the lookout for the "Arnhem 1944 an epic battle revisited - volume 1: tanks and paratroopers" which is basicly a english version of the swedish one from 2017. Its a 2 part er , from Christer Bergström. ISBN 9789188441447
Just a note - despite official Soviet disapproval of popular partisan movement in the first year of war, there were plenty of partisans operating outside of NKVD saboteurs - mostly groups of red army soldiers from encircled units who managed to avoide being taken as POWs. These men often formed gangs of various ideology. Regardless, most of them were just trying to survive.
Correct. Over 300 thousand, and these soldiers made the bulk of the partisans. They were mostly concentrated in Bielorussia, and represented 68% of the total partisan activity in the USSR.
"Mass socialization" sounds like something that George Orwell might object to by saying it is like his concept of "Newspeak" where by changing or getting rid of a word changes the entire meaning of a statement. "Socialization" instead of "rape" alters the meaning of the atrocity especially for those who don't know what it means. RUclips should reevaluate it's guidelines.
We must take into account that great number of POW were male civilians of conscription age counted by Nazi as POW. This is most notable in the case of Kiev encirclement when numbers of POW captured by the Germans greatly exceeded the number off Red Army soldiers "missed in action". Germans were capturing most highly populated areas of Soviet Union where mobilization was not finished or even haven't started. German logic was based upon the fact that from the first days of the war a lot of Red Army soldiers tried to escape encirclement with the support of civilians in civilian clothing. In his famous Order No. 227 "Not a step back!" Joseph Stalin proclaimed that further retreat is unacceptable since the main mobilization territories of the Soviet Union are already captured by the enemy, and Germany could win the war of attrition simply because of higher mobilization resource. This was also true for food-producing territories. The mobilization resource of the USSR radically increased only with the liberation of territories left to the enemy in summer 1941. P.S. I'm just in love with TIK video about order No. 227 "Not a step back!"
These people were mistakenly executed as spies in the Irafsky district, December 31, 1942: (Vladimir) Sandirovitsh Hamitsajev (born 1926), Sandir Orazmagovitsh Hamitsajev (born 1888), Danil Orazmagovitsh Hamitsajev (born 1890), Gubu Hortijev and Dumbul Ivanovitsh Gabejev. Two were Red Army soldiers: Sergeant Jevgeni Durnev and private Anatoli Malyshenko. According to SS-Rottenführer (Corporal) Paavo Merelä, the execution was ordered by the Finnish company commander, SS-Hauptsturmführer (Captain) Karl-Erik Ladau (1916-2009). There is no other evidence of his involvement.
Concerning the comparison in losses, it is important to point out that roughly one third of the fallen Soviet soldiers didn't die in battle, but were murdered as unarmed POWs. I therefore consider them to be closer to civilians. The POW discounted ratio of 1.9 to 1 or 2.4 to 1 would fall even more, if we count these deaths as non-military. Not to mention that the ratio has to compare Soviet forces with *ALL axis forces,* not only with German forces. Seven states attacked the USSR in 1941, plus thousands of OUN partisans in the hinterland. A little side note though: Your notion that "individual initiative was not socialist" (34:04) was true for a later period, but not for the period we are talking about. Khrushchev ranted a lot against "individualism", it was him who put everything under state control. I don't want to elaborate further on the partisan situation, as it is quite specific and too extensive to counter your (and Bergström's) interpretation. Sorry. But: Let me do a little myth busting : ) Up until the late 1950's the *private sector in the Soviet Union* was huge! About 40% of all furniture and 70% of all household items made of metal _(which were not yet electric at the time!)_ were produced by craftsmen or light industry cooperatives, the so called "Artels". Unfortunately there is no English wiki on this, so, try the Russian one: *ru. wikipedia. org/wiki/Артель**#Советское**_время* (interrupted to avoid active link) Khrushchev liquidated this entire sector! He even wanted to liquidate the cooperatives in agriculture and turn kolkhozes into sovkhozes, but that he didn't manage, it would have affected too many people and thus provoke quite a lot of resistance. They tried indirectly, but that produced unintended side effects... Basically, Khrushchev (and the CPSU left wing) wanted to eliminate economy and replace it with "scientific planning". That was the idea. Another element in achieving this was abandoning the piece rate system and making wages more equal. Which in the long run and combined with other factors of course eliminated all incentives to do a good job... This was just crazy! Here the situation prior to Khrushchev's wage reform: _"In 1956, approximately 75 percent of Soviet workers were paid under a piece-rate system, so the majority of Soviet workers could significantly boost their earnings by increasing their output."_ I'd say this is very individualistic. And it indeed was. Khrushchev criticized the wage system and the Artel and Kolkhoz structures as being "individualistic". It was him, who put everything under the control of the communist party, not Stalin. On the contrary. Stalin used to cite Lenin's famous quote: *"Communism is Soviet power plus electrification"* which meant: Communism is not the rule of communists, and it's not the realization of some utopia. It's a *democracy based on councils with a high technological standard.* Turns out, communists are the biggest obstacle to communism...! 🤣
I suspect many of these pows actually were civilians and that the Germans rounded up all men of military age inside the kessels, whether they were wearing Red Army uniform or not
Well did you realy think the situation for Germans soldiers were that much different later in the war. There are also large amounts of German soldiers not returning from soviet PoW camps. Maybe we shouldn't count the Volksturm and Hitler Youth boys, because they did not were proper uniforms. And maybe we should not count the germans soldiers who went in captivity after VE day as losses, because the battle and the war was over. Or the 400K Axis forces which surrenderes in Stalingrad? That doesnt make sense at all. This manipulation of statistics works both ways. 7 nations. Germany, Italy, Hungaria Romanian, Slovakia. That's 5. Hungary, Romania, Slovakia are real industrial giants. Right? Its like Germany would Allie with US and Great Britain and being helped with lend lease. Out of how many states was the soviet union formed 15? 16? With a overall population of 190 million people in 1940? Maintaining the largest army in the world, with twice as more Tanks and aircraft as the next to superpowers combined! The soviets were only outnumbered at the eastern front for the first few month of the war, because of bad coordination and organization. With the end of 1941 they already achieved numerical superiority at the eastern front. Stop twisting the numbers.
На тему Хрущева правильно изложил. Это показывает что СССР в своих периодах разное государство - ранее набирающее силу и дающее надежду и позднее, где Хрущев обделил вниманием весь замысел государства для каждого- обделил вниманием нужды простого человека
@@HaVoC117X Bulgaria and Finland. Also the axis population out number the Soviet population and Italy or Germany alone outnumber the Soviet Union in 1942
The temperature myth is interesting since there exists a simmillar discussion when talking about the Finnish Winter War. Although early 1940 was exceptionally cold late 1939 was unusually mild, something that greatly aided the finnish defenders who lacked winter equipment compared to their Red Army opponents. The mild weather also meant that lakes and rivers didn't freeze and thus could be used as natural barriers by the finns. When the temperature plummeted the finns suffered severe cases of frostbite and since the lakes and rivers froze they could be used by the Soviets as a way to bypass the finnish static strongpoints with ices in some cases being thick enough to even support tanks.
One thing that seems to be forgotten is that German soldiers were fighting in their Summer Uniforms; the winter clothing got delayed in Warsaw; that makes cold temperatures something far harsher on the Germans than on the Soviets. In addition, most of the supplies for the units came from horse-drawn units (as readjusting the Soviet rail lines took long), and guess what extreme cold does to these animals?
@@KnightofAges Especially for idiots. A soldier in a summer uniform becomes a one-time soldier at -10 degrees below zero. And even with -5, you'll get sick. "guess what extreme cold does to these animals" does nothing. Horses can stand the cold very well. Idiots do not know that the red Army had many times more horses. )) And everything was in order.
The drowning of German divisions in seas of soviet riflemen is truly an severe exaggeration - skills and organization within the Soviet army played a larger role in the later stages of the war. They have learnt to organize themselves, tactically and strategically. German officers noted this in their war time reports, that "the Soviet Forces's way of fighting is more and more becoming to look like our own does."; i.e. Soviets learnt Combined-Arms warfare and mobile tactics.
@ Atanassov... But the Germans WERE drowning in a sea of Red soldiers -- at the point of attack. That's where the legend got started. The front was so long that neither army could truly maintain a continuous front -- in the western sense. What happened is that the Soviets 'got wise.' They discovered that it was much better to find a thin sector -- overwhelm it -- and then breach it deeply. With their new-found mobility, it proved very practical to swing left and right -- going miles into the German rear -- even if the starting point was not in a particularly sweet spot. Punching through -- miles away from enemy concentrations -- was the essence of the Blitz. That's what was new about WWII grand tactics. The Americans ran into the same dynamic in France. All obvious river crossing points were well defended. They couldn't get across no matter how intense their artillery. Yet, time and again, the same rivers were crossed in rural settings, where the German defense was thin -- provided by second-line infantry. Once across, the Americans found that it was easy to envelope the urban crossing (with the tank-rated bridges) every time. The elite German formations backed away rather than being trapped. This is what was happening in the East. To the guys getting their azzes kicked -- it always looked like the Soviets were beyond number. Well, that's the way it's supposed to be ! The Soviets finally figured out that you attack weakness -- not strength. Stalin, the dictator, never quite figured that out, but his generals did.
@Radle What you wrote is correct (I have mentioned something similar in one of my other comments), but the context is a different one - it is the post-ww2 description of fighting on the eastern front, where german generals claim to be always numerically inferior to the soviet forces (i.e. strategically) and with a large margin as well (not the usual 1:2, but something like 1:5 or more - for the whole front, as he counted AG Center's disadvantage about 1:4) Incorrect. The Soviet numerical advantage (manpower) (strategically, excl. Finnland, incl. all other allies, based loosely on Glantz): - 19th November 1942 vs. Army Group B - 2.3 : 1; on the whole front: 1.9 : 1; - July 1943 (whole front): 2 : 1 - Dec 1943 (whole front): 2.3 : 1 - June 1944 (whole front): 2.2 : 1 - Dec 1944 (whole front): 3+ : 1 Exchange rate (losses) - somewhat more complex, but falling from 4:1 in 1942, 3:1 (overall, Glantz) 1943, apr. 1:1 in 1944 (overall, G.). Overall means sum of kia, mia, wia. Excluding the WIA improves the rate in favor for the Soviets greatly. Another topic is the rate of replacements, which needs to be researched additionally (also complex, as not dependent on losses only - rotations and economy are a factor too) - it is in between the exchange rate at the front, and the above numbers. We could discuss the numbers in types of weapon systems and firepower too, but it gets more complex (example: numerous soviet guns vs. more ammo per barrel for germans), but they could be traced back to manpower too (tank, artillery, and especially aur force units have their manpower reuqiements too, heavy burden on maintenance and rear area troops). As a result, the often claimed (by whom - see above) 5:1 or above advantage in numbers of the Soviet forces (strategically, for a whole theather of operations, or the whole front, and not only at the point of breakthrough, where it is fully expected) is not supported by any statistical or empirical source. See TIK's video on Mannstein's Charkov counter-offensive in Spring 1943, as well as another of his videos where he goes into exchange rates on the Eastern front.
The socialization of women is very well documented, and many women committed suicide afterwards out of shame. There was originally a policy of no fraternization for the Allied troops, but it was never made official because the Allied High Command knew there was no way such a policy could be enforced. That, and other atrocities committed by both sides on the Easter Front during the war, all but guaranteed that German troops preferred to surrender to Western Forces.
Soviet combatant losses are around 2:1 to German losses. That ratio falls when you include other axis allies. That figure skyrockets when you include civilians. Welcome to the war of extermination. Now you know where the 10 or 20 to 1 myth comes from, it's counting civilians (where do partisans come from?) among combatants...
The Ratio is pretty much 3:1 overall when it comes to Soldiers alone. Germany + Austria lost up to 5 Million Soldiers on all Fronts, while the Soviets lost up to 11 Million against the Germans. But the Ratio skyrockets in the late War, most German Soldiers died in the last Year. So you can asume that the 10:1 ratio was met in the first Year of the War and then went lower and lower of the course of the War.
@@richardadams8036 Or miscalculated as civilians. Take a look at French riots with fire bombs flying. 3: 1 seems more credible. Women also served in the Red Army and typically in developing countries the median age is around 28 years. There are not so many civilians to begin with.
@@richardadams8036 even in 1941 you're not getting 10:1 kill ratios unless you include prisoners who later die in prisoner of war camps Did I mention? This was a war of extermination.
These were counted as missing and around 3 million Soviets died as PoW, so you should count them. Same goes for the German PoWs who died. And of course it was a War of Extermination, did i said otherwise? Its just rough when you look at the Numbers. More German Soldiers died in 1944-1945 then from 1939-1943 ( i cant find specific Numbers for the Soviets split in Years), so many wasted lives on both sides, just disgusting.
A lot of the "history" learned by my generation was from fictionalised accounts such as Sven Hassel. I'm sure some of that bias has influenced thinking. When looking at the tank battles, the thing I found was that the two biggest influences were fuel availability and ground hardness. EG a T-34 has track area of 550mmx3720mm (per track)the Panzer 3 was 360mmx2860mm (per track) this gives totals of a fraction over 4 square meters for the T-34 and only half that for the Panzer III and therefore the ground pressure of the Panzer III was 50% higher than the T-34. The Panzer IV was a little better (400mm width tracks and much longer ground contact) but still 20% more than a T-34. So on soft ground the T-34 definitely had the advantage especially in mud.
@@gordonlawrence1448 They weren't their T-3 and T-4 tanks were not the best money could buy. Although they employed tactics that allowed them to win some battles, but ultimately loose the war.
@sergeontheloose - the Pz III and IV might not had the best ground-pressure or armament/armor stats, but they were a much better platform for their crews (visibility, internal communication, battlefield awareness, latter making 'tactics' possible) - this is the technical part of the reason why it had a clear superiority in the tank vs tank combat (which in turn is a secondary scenario, as most of the fighting situations were tanks vs. infantry and artillery). Quickly: there are more important things than main statistics.
Right on. Turns out, the evidence is the evidence, and stubbornly remains so in spite of political bias. I know that like any historian, Bergstrom will be right about some things, maybe not as right about some others that future historians will put in additional research and legwork into addressing, but I’m intrigued to check out his work.
You will find that from anyone and everyone. Nobody is immune to it, and while I try to follow a policy of judging based off evidence (often being labeled a neo-nazi for it since I would say "Actually Germany..." since saying anything other than "The Germans were pure evil" is socially unacceptable outside of true history fans), there are no doubt things that I will probably choose the wrong evidence at times. There is a lot we are unsure of from that era, and it's only going to grow as the last of those living during then pass away, and often times there will be conflicting evidence, whether real evidence that is unrelated, or fabricated evidence for propaganda purposes.
Yeah very objective, really. Mass rape and gang bang crimes committed by the Wehrmacht. Millions of female victims no matter if a child of 8 or a 90 year old granny, for sure! I don't know which drugs this guy Bergström is doing but it really must be the strongest shit ever to fantasize such bullshit! It just provides an insight into the "objectivity" of this scribbler...
@@firstdreamwalker Christer Bergström is an old school communist. Not kidding, he belong to far left extreme party Called Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna. Meaning 'Socialict Justice party' If you follow this link you see a picture of him with Trotsky T-shirt calling for revolution. efolket.eu/christer-bergstrom-fran-eskilstuna-vill-ha-ett-nytt-parti/
It's nice to once in a while to find someone who agrees with you, you deserved this video TIK, just so you for once could let someone else flip the finger at the nay-sayers. The enjoyment you had making this video was very apparent, and I hope it have given you fresh energy to continue the fight against all the misconceptions of WWII.
I think he was still shocked by the war, but overwhelmed because of the workload, not the surprise attack. I think everyone can understand being overwhelmed by a heavy workload
@@TheImperatorKnight He was malignant narcissist or psychopath, or both - no capacity for much emotion, you are probably right, thanks for mythbusting that Kruschovs desinformation.
In Germany, I've never really come across claims that Soviet War crimes were worse than German war crimes. If anything, Soviet war crimes are glossed over to not create the appearance that German war crimes are in any way being excused. In more educated circles, opinion seems to be that the German soldiers behaved just as savagely as the Soviet soldiers, but the Soviets never came anywhere near the Germans when it come to organized genocide that had its own infrastructure build.
@@ang47 Explain to me then 3 things: What is "the ultimate truth" What is this about "propaganda/hiding history/banning historical names" and what is their "Fate"
in defense of the T-26: it was probably the best tank in the world when it first entered service in the 1930s. it definitely was a force to be reckoned with in the Spanish Civil War. even in 1941 and being vastly inferior to the German tanks in everything else, its 45mm gun still packed enough of a punch to be a threat to the Panzers of the time. greetings from Berlin.
I agree that T-26 is complicated subject. Vickers was one of the best tank of 1930's. Bigger problem was that was old tank in 1941. Heavly used by Red Army in early years, they just start falling because of age. Also Red Army was not that good in maintance of complicated equipment in 1941. As a one of the main tanks of Red Army it was still dangerous opposition to German Panzers, even to Panzer IV. Big portion of German tanks in 1941 was tanks like Pz 38(t), Pz II and Pz III with short 50 mm gun. Also soviet 45 mm was good support gun in useage against soft targets. Many T-26 was use with good effect against Japan's armies in 1945.
@@KnightofAges Yeah, if you look on vehicles based on Vickers E basis, T-26. Polish 7 TP, even whole family of Italian tanks or Finish version there were quite good tanks. Maybe little obselete in 1941, but T-26 with 45 mm canon was still very dangerous to most of German equipment.
Stalin's "breakdown" came after the Germans captured Minsk and sealed a massive pocket on June 28th. NOT in the first week of the war as is assumed here.
When you said ''The unknown mass socialization on the Eastern Front'' I burst out laughing. I'm curious, why didn't you just say ''seizing the means of reproduction''?
The reason is because, even though I had thought of the "collective control of the means of baby production", I somehow hadn't thought of the word "reproduction"... But I will be using your phrasing in future! :)
I really enjoy all of your uploads. One thing I have learned about history is that many historians disagree with another. I fine example of this would be the battle of Tippecanoe which occurred in Battleground, Indiana in the U.S. I was taught in school that Chief Tecumseh was the main figure and that his brother Prophet was a drunk and against his brother’s wishes attacked the U.S. forces commanded by Harrison. About ten years ago a new book came out about the events leading up to and including the battle. The author claims that the Prophet was the Chief while Tecumseh was the war Chief and that Harrison viewed the Prophet as cunning and competent. So it goes. Keep up the great work. Don’t consume your time with doubters, for they will always exists.
It is interesting. The Victor writes the history. In the German's case, due to the Cold War, they as the losers, got to write the first two generations of the history on the Eastern Front.
"I stood beside a bed in hospital. On it lay a girl, unconscious, her long, black hair in wild tumult on the pillow. A doctor and two nurses were working to revive her. An hour before she had been raped by twenty soldiers. We found her where they had left her, on a piece of waste land. The hospital was in Hiroshima. The girl was Japanese. The soldiers were Australians. The moaning and wailing had ceased and she was quiet now. The tortured tension on her face had slipped away, and the soft brown skin was smooth and unwrinkled, stained with tears like the face of a child that has cried herself to sleep." "Socialisation" is understudied among Western troops too, and the people who attempted to investigate it were sidelined and their findings largely repressed.
Well, as far as I know Stavka moved some divisions from Siberia and Far East in October-December 1941, but instead of them formed new divisons. It is much better to have experienced officers and soldiers in well-known formations, then newly formed, made mostly of the reserve personnel. So "old" divisions from Siberia were moved to the frontline and and "new" were formed to take their place on Far East and Eastern Siberia.
Mr. Bergström says Stalin worked 22 1/2 hours one day, 5h in the next, then 24h the following day, then just 5h in the following to take a breather. Then concludes with "Stalin worked 168 hours" that week. Except that means Stalin worked every single hour that week, as a week only has 168 hours. SOMEONE is making things up.
TIK, is there any reason to doubt the official diary? Just asking because the situation at the time and shortly previously had proven that upsetting or showing Stalin in a questionable light was not a good long term survival strategy.
Oil was obviously a huge problem for Germany. I wonder how much winter weather worsened the oil problem - muddy and snowy conditions and cold weather generally make for drastically worse fuel efficiency. Could this be a reason why the long-term oil shortage appeared to be so much more critical in December 1941?
Good point. 🖒🖒 Also, IMHO, when the Germans were attacking, they concentrated their mechanized forces in a small area of their choosing to make a breakthrough there, while the rest of the front line held its ground. However, when the Germans were on the defensive, their mechanized forces would have been forced to travel to many locations to counter multiple unexpected threats. This would have required a greater consumption of fuel than when the Germans were on the offensive. Furthermore, the muddy roads & fields may be part of the reason that the Germans had a much more difficult time dealing with the Soviet counter-attacks near Moscow when the temperature rose to near/above freezing. The mobility of German armour, halftracks, and towed anti-tank guns/artillery would have been severely compromised in such conditions, may have prevented them from reaponding to Soviet break-throughs & plugging numerous gaps in the front line. This may have caused a drop in moral among Germany's infantry units, who were used to a rapid response from the panzers whenever Soviet tanks were spotted. BTW, it's interesting to note that, in the wake of Barbarrossa's failure, that the Germans developed & began to manufacture personal anti-tank weapons (the Panzerschreck & Panzerfaust) & increased the tank-killing ability of the Stug III assault gun, which was originally designed & allocated as an infantry support weapon. Perhaps, initially, these developments weren't due to a lack of tanks & anti-tank guns, as much as the difficulty the Germans were having with supporting infantry units against Soviet armour in a timely fashion?
"Blitzkrieg" also did not work in 1943, because the Germans did not have the aerial superiority: Red Air Force got much stronger and also the Germans had to split their air fleet in three fronts (east, west, south). The earlier big successes were aided greatly by the strong Luftwaffe.
During 1943, above some sections of the Eastern Front, the Germans managed to take at least temporary control of the skies or regain the initiative for a time. For example, the Germans managed to carry-out effective air strikes throughout Operation Citadel, including the use of very effective tank-busting Stukas. Nevertheless, the ground attacks against the Kursk Salient stalled very quickly, and the operation ended up being a failure & a strategic disaster. So, yes, a stronger Red Air Force was an important contributor to the failure of German offensive operations (including 'Blitzkreig' tactics), however it was not the only factor...there were other very important reasons.
The other point which I disagree is the apparent continuous lack of heavy weapons in the Soviet Units: - the Soviet union had a lot of Howitzers and Field Guns, most of the time in more numbers than the Germans; - the Rifle Division is not equivalent to a German Inf. Div. due to organization - a lot of the Support Arms were under Corps, or Army (when the Rifle Corps temp. disappeared) Control; - the Soviet Union had a lot of AT Guns (45mm, 57mm, 76mm divisonal guns), in large quantities, all the times; - not to mention Mortars of any caliber (82mm, 120mm); The reports on lack of those are usually after an defeat, or speedy-retreat; Like the lack of tanks, after hundreds were lost in... disorganized tank attacks (battle of Kalach, your other video - when the soviets counterattacked in the Kalach area); Numbers kept on being replenished; 62nd Army during the early stages of the Stalingrad-city-assault had few guns and mortars, but a month of resupply later, they gained artillery superiority over the 6th Army (October 1942); The main drawback of the Soviet Army at that time is in its strategical (strategic control, order 227) and tactical (lack of training, lack of combined arms warfare) organization, rather than weaponry. All corrected until the end of 1942, hence the outcome of the following operations.
Maybe you are thinking about TO&E. Soviets lacked heavy weapons during the winter offensive. That is why they were relegated to human waves as their attack strategy. The Soviets themselves often wished that they had artillery or tanks to support attacks, but they simply didn't have them in any decent quantity.
@@MrProsat No, they had plenty of artillery in 1942 and onwards, apart from short periods and local defeats (Stalingrad area: 62nd Army, early September 1942, as example). Soviet pure "human wave" attacks were employed almost nowhere. In the city - not at all, it was a small-unit-only environment. Basically, coordination of arms is the reason, why large infantry attacks (not necessarily "human waves") were performed, but due to the very bad coordination in 1941, and the overall bad coordination in 1942, they didn't always receive the needed support/cooperation with the other arms (tanks and artillery, which were there, at least physically). The soviets have more tanks on the battlefield and especially as replacements (i.e. a large turnaround). 5thTank Army had enough of both tanks and artillery, so slicing through the weakly armed 3rd Romanian Army wasn't difficult. Even on the Kotluban Front they had a lot of artillery. It is rather the poor coordination of arms, and also poor reconnaissance, which leads to the collapse (or inefficiency) of combined arms warfare of the Soviet Union, at least until Nov 1942. Not least, the TIK's series on Stalingrad gives a lot of clear indication, that the above is the case (we still have to see the Soviets in their "sugar" side after 19th Nov 1942, when things will look very differently).
16:30 I think 530k is slightly too high for the Finns. In June 1941 the Finnish field army consisted of a bit less than half a million men, not sure if that figure is supposed to include the air force and navy as well. In any case, that figure was too high for the country to bear, and was only as high as it was with the expectation that some of the men could be demobilised within a few months, which they finally were at the end of 1941 and beginning of 1942.
@@nottoday3817 "The Romanian Army had a total of 686,258 men under arms in the summer of 1941 and a total of 1,224,691 men in the summer of 1944." Third axis, Fourth Ally: Romanian Armed Forces In the European War 1941-1945 - Mark Axworthy, Cornel Scafes, Cristian Craciunoiu
Regarding the partisans, as I recall large numbers of Ukranian and other Soviet citizens who ended up on the "wrong" side of the front ultimately ended up being shipped to gulags. As you state, independent thought was not "appreciated" by the Soviets, and it was felt that such citizens may have been "contaminated" by fascist or capitalist ideas.
Just a tiny correction- Anti-tank rifles were actually very useful. But indeed not as anti-tank weapons, but more as anti-material guns. Great for killing trucks, half-tracks, motorbikes and such. And could still take out or at least damage light and medium tanks in ambushes, from the side or rear.
Also their 'bullet proof' glass and lights and other exposed components on the outside of the Panzers, have read reports that even units of Tigers had to be withdrawn for periods of maintenance just to repair such kinds of damage from ATRs.
Actually Comrade Leader Stalin worked 336 hours in a week; Stalin worked TWICE as hard as any man could. CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post and New York Times are report this as true (also know as Prava, Izvestia, Tass)
Hi TIK. I love your channel, and it is so good and entertaining. Thank you for making this. To touch on the issue with ratio between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army, there is a noticeable tension between the statistics over the Russian campaign as a whole and the perception people have on how well the Wehrmacht performed. It is perhaps a bit an over simplification just to look at numbers, and conclude that the Wehrmacht did badly in the Moscow campaign, because the Red Army destabilized the whole Northern front in December 1941, while the total ratio was perhaps close to 1:1. What shines on the Wehrmacht were the battles in which they were successfully delaying Russian advance for many months, facing a ratio of at least 1:3 in favor of the Red Army. The pocket of Demjansk 1941-42, taking Crimea in 1942, the defense of the Baltic republics in 1944, the battle of Korsun-Cherkassy pocket in 1944 and the Siege of Budapest in 1944. Total numbers do not give a clear indication of the ratio on a particular spot in the 3000km wide front. So when the Russians attacked Army group center in 1941 to defend Moscow, they were in the majority at that spot, it is then useless to have one million soldier elsewhere, since the transport was close to impossible due to the bad roads in Russia. People remember the battles that I mentioned earlier, and make the same mistake as some historians did, they conclude that in every situation the Russians had overwhelming numbers in all the battles. Given the fact that the Wehrmacht was before Barbarossa engaged in the Balkans and Greece, it is not hard to imagine they were strained by December, given these circumstances and bad logistics, they did great in 1941. Due to the lack of oil, things were not so different as they were in 1914-1918, compared to that, the Wehrmacht seems way more capable than it was in the Great war.
LOL...that 'Nigel guy' is a military historian lavishly praised by none other than Christer Bergström ie: the subject of this video. **As a scholar on the Eastern Front during World War II, I find Nigel Askey’s Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis, and Military Simulation an absolutely indispensable work. There are a multitude of memoirs and books filled with anecdotes on the Eastern Front and Operation Barbarossa, but Askey’s book is totally unique. It is the first very comprehensive study on the armed forces on both sides. Thus it provides the reader with a most valuable key to the understanding of the hube war on the Eastern Front during World War II. It is a goldmine of information that answers many, many question that rise from reading other Eastern Front books. **
I, as a ww2 reenactor, am often called upon to give ad-hoc lectures and the numbers thing comes up time and again, particularly in relation to tanks. The argument goes that no wonder the red army won with that number of tanks. No skill, just numbers. My retort is that, why is building, transporting, equipping and fielding large numbers of tanks seen as the 'easy' way out? If anything, conducting warfare on the scale that the red army was able to achieve is WAY harder and more complex than Fielding small numbers. The bias staggers me.
I ve been reading about Barbarrosa for all my life, literally everything, and i ve never ever read anything about those rapes, its something i was sure of but its impossible to find material... A subject waiting for a book... But no archives, no survivors, no recollection on the german letters for obvious reasons... Hard to put together...
Dear TIK: Thank you so much. I watch frequently. I tried a few days ago to join at the 10 $ level, but I am not sure it went through to the final step. Officially I live below the poverty level so please understand how much I value your opinions as well as all the great and time-consuming graphics. (In truth I have been living at the same apartment for 40 years under Los Angeles rent control., and my rent is way below the usual market levels.)
He is slowly making his fame, no propaganda, no not verified nonsense - just truth.
4 года назад+1
Thanks again, and happy you found support in your view on the facts. Please keep on looking to more at just tanks. The Human factors and sides are the most interesting. Keep up the good work.
@@ang47 As someone who sees faults in his economic and political videos, I can still say that I feel has done a magnificent job of being as unbiased as he can (that does not mean I think he is wrong in some regards but that doesn't discount the rest of his work for me).
Everyone is biased. Bias is not a pejorative. Perhaps the word you're looking for is prejudiced? It means making a judgement based on your prior assumptions rather than the evidence. I disagree with TIK on many points but I respect his attempts to support his conclusions.
@@ang47 Both me and the original commenter are saying we felt he did as much as he could to have been unbiased. You misread, I did not say that you said he didn't do a good job.
i don't understand the first point one week: 168 hours. (24 x 7) And he worked for 168 hours? Really? And only 5 hours on the 28.? I don't getit. Where am I wrong?
@@williamleskovec4063 You ever wonder if Stalin had dreams about murdering Trotzky? I imagine he'd have a good nights rest if he had a dream about that.
Interesting review, sir! It's true about Stalin working like mad instead of collapsing at the beginning of Barbarossa, his meetings diary confirms this, like you mentioned. He was prostrated the first few hours but not more.
Is it possible these records are false? We know how the Communists like to rewrite history. We even have cases of modern politicians writing minutes AFTER the fact. Thank you.
@@Armageddon4145 Thank you for your response. I've visited China a few times and I was there in the 90's when you could buy Little Red Books of Mao's thoughts and you could see that in different editions various people who had been standing next to Mao were erased from photos. I also read a biography of Mao by his doctor, that he rarely sat at a desk or had big meetings instead preferring to have informal gatherings poolside. Given the Communists complete control over administration in the USSR, I think it's reasonable to question validity of their documents, particularly during Stalin's time. Once again, thank you for answering.
dude, are you able to upload your series as podcasts? its difficult for me to watch a whole episode. i really just want to save a few episodes at a time for my commutes (i live in the sticks and a data connection isnt a guarantee) thanks for all your videos man, ive really learnt a lot from them and theyve inspired me to learn in depth of WW2
So... I'm gathering that the real causes of German defeat in the Soviet-German war were, 1) Logistics. 2) Logistics. 3) Underestimating the Red Army, in other words, a tendency to believe their own propaganda regarding racial superiority during strategic planning such as the hubris that led to the disaster at Stalingrad.
You should read the "Die Wehrmacht" military magazine published to the German soldiers from 1936 to 1944. In no way it ever claims the Russians were "inferior" fighters, taking great pains to note they fight like cornered beasts and are a formidable opponent. What you call "German Propaganda" is actually post-war propaganda destined to create a deliberate image of WW2 Germany. Nothing beats reading the original sources.
Your videos are awesome. I've been teaching and studying history all my life. I focussed on Soviet Military when at University(before the Soviet Collapse) and have really enjoyed your series on Stalingrad. The History of WW2 has gotten so much better once Soviet Archives were open to historians. One small criticism, and this is a mistake many many make: Socialism and Communism are economic constructs, they are not political constructs. A communist or socialist party may control the economy, but what makes a country socialist is economic policy and practice. A socialist economy is a command economy. (almost all economies are really mixed economies, rather than command or free market; one judges whether an economy is command or free based on the degree of their lean towards one or the other of command or free market). Politically, there are only three types of governments: Autocracy, Oligarchy and Democracy. That's it. The political systems of both Germany and the Soviet Union under Stalin were both Autocracies. Don't be fooled by economic terms and propaganda when discussing governments. Of their economic systems; the Soviet Union was definitely far more socialist/command economy, whereas Germany under the NAZI'z was far more of a mixed economy, leaning towards free market. Obviously, as the war progressed, the NAZI economy shifted further towards command economy. In short, to call either the Soviets or NAZI's as socialist is misleading, unless you are trying to make an economic point. In which case, you would be better served discussing the degree to which they are practicing command economics. If I haven't explained this well, I would be more than happy to explain it better. Anyhow, good luck to you and keep up the great work.
@@bag.a.6465 No offense meant, but it is a theory so off the point and so incorrect that it begs the question as to why he would make it. I was here to learn details of the German-Russian portion of the war in WW2. If the presenter is making obvious errors in his assessment of the NAZI economic system, it makes me wonder what other errors he is making. It has sabotaged his entire work- in my view. Which is why I no longer watch these videos. I have no answer as to why he would engage in this debate at all, or as to why he so mistakenly holds to this argument. This is where experts and trained historians prevail. They would rarely allow themselves to be drawn in by this subject, nor would they come to such incorrect conclusions. Both of these mistakes would merely distract from the research they are doing and theories they have reached. In other words, this is where the motives of good research and entertainment diverge. One group is seeking to understand, the other group is seeking to be entertained. I am seeking to understand.
According to the generals and other soldaten it was -38c which caused engine blocks to freeze, engines not to start, guns stocks to jam and troops to shiver due to a lack of winter clothing. Bergstrom cited the 9th army's attack. Is that just an exception? Are we to infer the rest of the German troops were just fine in the cold and horses, men and supplies happy traipsed through the snow to prepare for the final assault?
22 hour working days sounds about right for the most powerful dictator ever. Stephen Kotkin pointed out that all the Soviets WANTED Stalin in power (initially) because he was the hardest worker and most effective bureaucrat. He debunks the Leon Trotsky BS about how Stalin is mediocre
After some initial reservations, Stalin gave Zhukov the support he needed to turn the tide against the Germans. That, in itself, makes Stalin brilliant. He found the right man for the job and gave him unprecedented military power. Zhukov took the ball and ran with it, as they say in American football.
@@continentalgin Zhukov was the star of the General Staff after the performance at the Red Army at Khalkin Gol. Not only that, he was "untainted" by association with the victims of Stalins purges. Hardly makes Stalin brilliant for picking him out of the bunch that he had. Finally, Zhukov's "brilliance" was almost entirely based on having enough credibility to speak somewhat openly to Stalin. He was thereby able to influence Stalin enough to prevent him from repeating disasters that would have ultimately allowed the Germans to gain a victory (or at least go further towards that objective). You are essentially labeling Stalin "brilliant" for (eventually and after great losses) allowing his military people to make military decisions. Hardly the mark of brilliance.
@@dondajulah4168 You seem to misunderstand something - Zhukov was brilliant general and tactician one of the best among many, but Vasilevsky was the one who was in charge of strategy - he and Stalin made all the important decisions, Stalin's incompetence early in the war also comes from his experience from civil war - very different kind of war.
Between the German high generals and their "memoirs" and the Iron Curtain its a wonder we know anything that is actually factual. Many thanx to people like Anton Jolly and the rest that comb the official records in order to sort out the true facts. And thanx to you TIK for digesting and then relating those facts to us.
Such a good topic. Thanks Tik and thanks to that guy that wrote you that question . I definitely will read that author with published that article. Спасибо P. S. I think we must separate socialism as idea and socialism under Stalin. Socialist ideas came from French, and marxism came from Germans . Under Stalin's rule they significantly mutated.
I really think you should start writing WW2 books. Your knowledge is so rich and balanced I sometimes am reluctant to read a ww2 book when I feel half the interpretations will be inaccurate and debunked by you.
Keep up the good work. My Atlas of Glantz's 2nd Battle of Kharkov is on it's way. I appreciate looking at the Eastern Front holistically as opposed to just the military actions. How do you feel about Stahel's assessments? Also, beware the Wheraboo...
Thanks, TIK. You always give me something to think about, rather than simply absorb the conventional wisdom's of the last 70 years. I would love to see you do a video by that addresses many of the claims made in memoirs by the German generals.
Stalin's supposed breakdown was one of the many lies invented by Kruschev fuled by his longtime hate and jealousy against him. You just have to see Stalin's meeting schedule from june 22. He met major red army generals and people's comisars the entire day. He continued this routine until early july when he dissapeared for an entire day, probably for resting. In all this meeting he never met Kruschev because he wasn't even in moscow. This was confirmed by Mikoyan and Molotov after the war. Ps: oh yeah its pretty much what is told in the video
I never bought this, doesn't fit the character of this kind of psycho. Never rang true. "Oh no, boo hoo, I thought me and painter man were moustache fwends".
@@aquilatempestate9527 That said, I have always believed that at first during those first few days of Barbarossa, Uncle Joe Stalin was probably super ultra hyper paranoid about being executed just like so many had been in the recent great purges, with or without a show trial for the military intelligence / foreign affairs failure of being surprise attacked by NAZI Germany & betrayed by Hitler. After all he had spent considerable personal efforts directing dismissals of warning signs & reports as 'false' provocations (possibly by the British?) and quite frankly I think he deserved the gallows or an NKVD bullet to the back of his head and probably new it!
@TEXOCMOTP If I read your reply correctly; Stalin is the "He was dismissing german disinformation." And Stalin again is the "He never dismissed real info" TBH sorry I don't know enough too deeply on this issue, other than the general depiction in TV documentaries, may be a brief article & in a few paragraphs of books, perhaps you know better - only aware that 'the Soviets' at high levels (Molotov?) knew about German mass deployment in the East but were assuaged that they were there only for training for Sealion hiding from British observation etc, were perturbed by German mission in Romanian etc, but that reports of spies (Sorge?) communist sympathisers providing 'Don't shoot' Russian-German translation printings and other reports of 'increased' activity on the border of the Germans etc were actively dis-encouraged by Stalin himself before Barbarossa. I always took it that he, Stalin dismissed info as 'British' disinformation to cajole the USSR into War against Germany, or perhaps that was his excuse. IDK.
@@fyodorgalyukov When it comes to pure military history he's pretty unbiased, but when it comes to anything related to economics he's *extremely* biased. As a hardcore libertarian in his personal beliefs, he opposes anything the state does in economic matters, and frequently distorts, exaggerates and misleads when it comes to discussing topics such as the Great Depression and the New Deal. He thinks any government intervention whatsoever is the same as socialism, which is absurd.
My uncle was on the HMS Trinidad, he was Torpedoed and he spent 6 months in Russia during the war. He used to keep in touch with Friends he made while trying to stay alive. He told me when the Soviets advanced into Europe, hundreds of thousands of Partisans advanced behind them. These people, who had lost everything, with no structure of command, just got payback? I'm not defending it, That's just what he said happened.
One thing that has to be pointed out about the Soviet "partisans" is that 68% of them (around 300.000) were concentrated in Bielorussia, and most actually came from the encircled forces there during the Minsk pocket. Many men scattered instead of surrendering, and they formed armed groups to continue the fight with the Germans. "Those people" can best be described as "majority soldiers that never put down their arms" (somewhat similar to what happened in Yugoslavia, where the Germans didn't have time to properly disarm the Yugoslav Army, allowing for the creating of massive partisan forces there).
I'd like to see a response to Askey. I'm not sure how accurate the Lancaster relative force strength calculations are... but everything else seems like a valid criticism. In particular Axis front losses need to be separated from Overmans derived demographic statistics. This same statistics issue came up with reporting iraqi deaths from 2003 invasion and seeing a huge range of numbers estimating demographic changes vs. actual hard body counts being reported. Something that bothered me about this video and the article its referencing is that when it was considering the effect of the cold weather it mentioned that the Germans fought fine during the extremely cold days and when the cold thawed days afterwards suddenly the Germans had trouble. The effect on trains supplying the German forces was the most significant in the cold spell and supply interruption doesn't immediately show but it does after days of ammunition expenditure. Cold related injuries don't immediately get inflicted on soldiers either. So the effects of the cold you would naturally see after the damage had accumulated not immediately. Honestly the Soviets weren't exactly prepared for the extreme cold either, but their supply lines were shorter so they weren't as adversely effected.
While there is some truth in the things you mention, there are some other things to consider when talking about weather. 1st of all, bringing cold injuries into the argument is a bit pointless, since the soldiers were fighting in cold throughout the winter. Being colder or warmer by a margin would not affect those things. So if someone manifested cold injuries during the warmer days, most likely someone manifested them in the colder days as well. However, there are other aspects to look for. When the weather heats up, the snow starts to become watery, especially with heat sources, such as fires, people or engines around. This is quite bad news for the ones digging their fortifications in the snow and using them for concealment. Not to mention the damage that can be done by water infiltrations. While being a bit colder or a bit warmer does not change the chances of getting cold injuries, staying in humidity DOES. MASSIVELY. With their fortifications ruined, it would be much harder to defend against soviet attacks. However, there is another thing which severly nukes the ideea of 'General Winter'. When proper winter set int, but before the Moskow counter-offensive, the Germans had a great success in Winter after the Autumn rains. The rains turn the soil muddy like hell, making the crossing of vehicles and foot soldiers impossible. So the Winter initially helped the germans.
@@pekkamakela2566 The army size stated here is actually not true, but propably a simple typo. 350k men in the whole Finnish Army is more correct figure. In the attack face in 1941, the largest Finnish army, Karelian army, consisted of 100k men. Additionally there were some units in the north but the actual fighting force was less than 200k (rest were backward units).
@@sturm9699 finnish military strenght was around half a million. Soviets had also rear line troops in the area, so discounting finnish rear troops does not seem to be prudent decision.
@@pekkamakela2566 You misunderstood. The comment of rear line troops was in relation to number of fighting troops. The total amount of Finnish army in WW2 was ~350k. So the point was that there is a typo in the article which states 530k. In the beginning of the war the total number was 337k and at the end ~360k. During the attack phase in the Finnish front it was ~350k containing all forces.
About #6: It was the Arctic cold that halted the German offensive. There was really very little in TIK and Bergström that denied this. they both danced around the subject. Didn't mention the Germans had no winter clothes. At one point say the German's are exhausted and here ignore it. Nit pick about the temp. Point out the Germans repel the soviets from defensive position as if it's major accomplishment. The Artic cold was a major factor in halting the German advance. It was the worst winter in 60 years. Just admit it Comrade TIK.
My english bad i know. About that mass socialization. I come from Poland. My grandparents from both sides, my friends grandparents almost all agree that socialization and stealings were NORMAL when Russians came. My grandparents told me that girls were hidden in woods and cellars. My wifes grandmother said that when Germans came they were giving chocolate to kids when Russians came were giving dic**. I know that Germans did horrible things to man and woman at slavs territory, but because of that we cannot downgrade bestiality of Soviets when they were "liberating".
Surely germans gave chocolate to the civillians during the Warsaw uprising.I believe you havent heard a thing about what they did and germans killed much more polish people than the Soviets did.
@@Feffdc as i said, when they CAME. i did not say that they were nice and good during ocupation. And my whole answer was that RUSSIAN MASS SOCIALIZATION AND robbery WAS NOT A MYTH BUT FACT. u took 1 sentence and put it completly out of context, not cool
Mass "socialization" did happen on both sides. I had(they passed away in the early 2000s) former Wehrmatch acquaintances who bore witness of this happening both at Krakow and towns surrounding Kaliningrad(German SS and some Werhmatch "socialising" Polish women)and a couple elderly women who had been round up with dozens other women and "socialized" by Soviet troops in Berlin during the "Victory celebrations" of the Red Army. Personal perception, yes. But widely shared by both German and Russian population.
I could feel the smugness when I saw your facial expression when you began reading the bit on "Russian numerical superiority". I enjoyed it, like a fine wine.
In the first point its mathematically wrong or the numbers are fudged. According to the article: 1) 22nd June 1941 5:45 - 16:45 - 10 Hours of work 2) 23rd June 1941 - 22 Hours and 35 min 3) 24th June 1941 - 5.5 hours (approx) since they call it "a little over 5 hours" 4) 25th June - 24 Hours 5) 26th June - 24 Hours 6) 27th June - 10.5 Hours (approx) since they call it "a little over 10 hours" 7) 28th June - A little over 5 hours ---> 5.5 hours. Total hours = 101.85 Approximately 14.6 hours a day. (This is at upper estimates here). From where did the article pull out 168 hours or did the author make calculation mistakes?
I believe he worked 24 hours for 25/26 June combined, so we're down to about 76-78 hours. In case you were wondering, the total number of hours in a week is 168. The article suggests Stalin worked for a week without a rest (24x7=168). Not sure who proof read this or maybe it should be proof-maths?
Come on TIK, Askey's works have been reviewed favorably by many prominent historians : " "When complete, this series on Operation Barbarossa will be without peer." David. M. Glantz, Editor-in Chief, Journal of Slavic Military Studies. "An extremely useful resource to military historians seeking detailed assessments of the armed forces on the Russian Front in 1941. They are based on extensive archival research, and provide a level of detail far beyond that found in conventional military histories. Even for Russian Front specialists, they provide a valuable synthesis of data that is otherwise scattered through specialist studies and archival resources, and they offer an unprecedented data-base for military historians studying the 1941 Barbarossa campaign". Steven Zaloga, Journal of Slavic Military Studies." Using a BBC article as source to go on the attack is silly. Especially one that claims Army Group Centre had 1800 tanks and assault guns in december 1941. Another prominent reviewer is: "Askey's book is totally unique. It provides the reader with a most valuable key to the understanding of the huge war on the Eastern Front during World War II. It is a goldmine of information that answers the many, many questions that rise from reading other Eastern Front books. Nigel Askey also deserves praise for the very detailed source references, and the high quality of sources that he has used. When the whole series is completed, it is bound to become the major reference work on the Eastern Front on the same level as John Erickson and David Glantz. Without doubt, Askey's work is a milestone, and an indispensable reference work on Operation Barbarossa for probably decades to come". Christer Bergström, forum.axishistory.com. Author of Operation Barbarossa 1941: Hitler against Stalin (2016), Black Cross/Red Star: Air War over the Eastern Front (2000-2006), Kursk: The Air Battle (2008), Bagration to Berlin (2008), and other books on the Eastern Front. Get off your high horse mate and stick to making those really good battle storm videos
Loved the video. Yeah, the spy story is pretty well known & popular in the East, you'll pronounce Sorge in German manner, like "Zorgee" :) He was later executed when found out. Here's the Wikipedia link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge Hope that helps!
I disagree with you, and according to a statement in at least one of his videos, so does TIK, I'll paraphrase: "always use multiple sources if you're going to study anything seriously."
Do these tank stats count the hundred or so Matildas and Valentines as medium tanks or as "obsolete tankettes"? Or do they discount them completely as some arrived after 1st December?
Great work TIC as usual. The forces massed to face japan is confirmed, by Zhukov in his autobiography published at the 1970s. I remember reading his story of arguing with stalin to send some divisions fro the far east to battle zone near moscow or in the south. I dont remember it clear enough.
BRILLIANT, TIK Can't add anything except for what little my Granfather was released as a German POW back to Germany in 1955. Can't blame him,, now, and cowered when, way back in 1965ish he told me in German (I must've ticked him off) "I marched through and back and up and down a continent without a decent place to shart myself" Acknowledge, the lack of "benzin", always chasing mechanized divisions and catching up because they ran out of petrol 7th Inf./19 Reg. (Bavaria Division) was his assignment if you ever get bored Cheers
Looking forward to this one Tik. I finally caught up with the last of your videos. Just finished a book called, “Neighbors” about a massacre of Jewish citizens in Jedwabne, Poland. Wonder if you have come across that in your studies? Hope all is well!
I’d like to slightly correct the point on the Stalin’s collapse: there was a meeting at the evening of June 29 (in the Kremlin and then they moved to the Defense Commissariat) where Stalin got (according to Mikoyan) totally frustrated by what was happening on the front and on the Western front in particular. After the meeting, he mumbled “Lenin left to us a great heritage and we fucked it up (more literally; shitted it down)”. And moved to his so called Near Dacha. And disappeared. Same Mikoyan (whose memories are generally complementary to Stalin) further recollects that when he, Beria, Molotov came to Stalin the latter had a look as he was he expected that they came to arrest him. Instead, they came to propose him to become the head of a new all-mighty governmental body - the State Defense Committee. Chruschev was not in the “inner circle” at that time so he may have made an unintentional mistake mixing up different events. As regards enigmatic emigres - these are the Whites who emigrated from Russia having lost the Civil war. Some of them (not many) collaborated with the Nazis believing (naively) that after they get rid of the Bolsheviks they can get rid of the Germans. I have not watched the whole video yet.)
I do not get the bashing of t26. The tank was not obsolete by 1941. It was comparable to the panzer 38t. Thinner armor, bigger gun, both had two man turret. 45mm gun in t26 could kill any german tank in 1941 in normal combat ranges. T26 was inferior to panzer 3 and 4, but not the other models used by the axis.
@TEXOCMOTP things might be unusable in original purpose due to no fault of theirs. Failure of an attack is not the tanks fault if tank infantry cooperation is poor and artillery is not even used. T26 was perfectly capable at killing infantry and destroying tanks. They were just used baddly. In 1944 finnish t26 units still killed t34s by ambushing.
Yes, it's funny how that goes. The T-26 entered service in 1931. So it was 10 years old in 1941. It is called "obsolete". While today the American M1 Abrams and the German Leopard 2 entered service with their respective armies in 1979, and are considered in 2020 to be "the best tanks in the world", even though they are over 40 years old. People really don't see how ridiculous their claims are.
@TEXOCMOTP in 1941 the frontal armor on panzer 3 turrets was only 30mm. When you look at period pics, mounting for the extra armor is common, but the plate is not. Also you said it would be useless against infantry? How? It had machine gun and HE rounds, so it could engage infantry.
@@pekkamakela2566 There was also an up-armoured T-26E version screened with I think from memory, up to 40mm frontal appliqué armour hull & turret about 100 were made in Leningrad during the Winter War plus another 100 or so during the Russo-German War, these were able to withstand Finnish 37mm ATG fire in combat ranges and similarly all German & Czech 37mm ATGs & 37mm armed Panzers, so except the 50mm Pz IIIs & Pz IVs, Stug IIIs and the Pz Jagd I, all vulnerable to its 45mm gun, despite its ammunition reliability. The problem for the T-26 was poor Soviet handling tactics wise and lack of maintenance and ammo quality, but they were not obsolete until well into 43.
TIK, "...because that's how logic works." That made me laugh and it was completely correct in the context. It reminded me of Dr. Smith who said regarding an argument, "a tautology, which is not the highest form of logic".
Fantastic work TIK, as mostly always. Thank you for your tireless work in countering the misconceptions around WW2 common in Western audiences. Keep up the good work.
@Bhigr Bond 1: Link in the description. The article is probably based on the facts Bergström collected for his books. If you want to check that, find out which books and go through their sources and their peer-reviews. 2: Nobody said they weren't ever nowhere outnumbered. While the Soviets lost more troops, they were also able to muster more reinforcements giving a total of more men under arms. They weren't greatly outnumbered along the entire front at all times until maybe late 44', for much of the war numbers on each side were not greatly different. They were outnumbered where the Soviets attacked. That's because when you attack you pull your quality maneuver troops into the area you want to attack to outnumber the enemy in said area and achieve a breakthrough. The Soviet Union is a vast state and there simply weren't enough troops to vastly outnumber the Germans at all times everywhere. Throughout the war the entire Red Army wasn't in the West. They had comittments elsewhere to attend to as well.
@Bhigr Bond And you know for a fact that the sources you base these posts on are 100% factually accurate, having tracked them down and controlled them and their peer-reviews so you know for certain, yes? Point being? Nobody said they weren't ever outnumbered. But the fact remains that they weren't outnumbered everywhere at all times. As I said, the Soviets were able to reinforce at a much higher rate and gradually erode the Axis numerical superiority of 41 and use this to concentrate forces in order to achieve local superiority for offensive operations.
They did not lose more troops than the Werhmaht had in service. You accuse people of lying then lie yourself. The Germans recruited 18 million troops during the war the Soviets had lost only 8.7 million KIA.
What I think as a frenchman with a Russian GF about your channel/work : thank you. We used to hear bias and nonsense about french soldiers/army. We know that is not true (well hierarchy... it is) and it's the same about "the resistance", that's why we are reluctant to acknowledge nazi (or german?) bullshits. But some are not... most of them are "proper" historians. Building a friendship between France and Germany was a first task after the war, and it's really a great success... but oh my god : so much bullshits we had to endure from : ancien generals as F.Halder or from French propaganda! (both sides!) From Communist Party wich was extremely powerful in school/university. Some discussions with my GF are not easy (to say the least), but confrontation of ideas are ALWAYS constructive. And FACTS! So : yes listen to your arguments are essential for us : thank you and "keep calm and carry on" ;).
In 1993 I met Valentin Berezhkov (through Dr. Gerald Looney) an interpreter for high level Russian politicians, including Stalin. I asked many questions and I have a signed copy of his personal memoir. While Stalin was not totally out of commission when Barbarossa was launched, Berezhkov said he was afraid, seemed dazed, and was unable to fully make worthwhile decisions. Berezhkov said this caused a lot of command confusion during the first few days.
![[Barbarossa] The Major Errors and Blunders - Or why Barbarossa Failed](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A_3R-Rkn_98/mqdefault.jpg)
I was a tanker in an M-1 for 5 years in the '90s. I have operated in sub-zero F. I have also been an infantryman in sub-zero temps. Given a choice I would rather be an infantryman in that weather. The M-1 had a heater. It usually did not work. Touch anything in the tank with your bare hands and risk frost bite. Drive down the road with your head out the top without goggles and risk loosing your eyes. When it is that cold everything on that tank breaks or simply does not work. The engine has to run all the time. The Germans had a fuel shortage so they could not idle the engines. Winter is tanker hell. Summer is not much better. I have measured 140 inside a tank in the summer. I hated being a tanker. So glad when I got back in the infantry. Ask any US Army vet tanker who was stationed in Germany about German winters. I feel for both the German and Russian tankers. Winter has a huge effect on readiness and effectiveness.
Also a big difference between cold-wet and cold-dry. As an infantryman, I much preferred cold-dry. As a mechanized infantry man, I would put my gas mask on to protect my face from icy blast when motoring down the road with my head out. A rotation schedule to get track commander and driver out of that blast before frostbite is absolutely necessary. How to rotate with only 4 in a tank? Darned if I know.
If you think German winters are bad you should try Russian winters. Thats where they had trouble lol
@@lloydchristmas1086 Napoleon had trouble because that winter was too mild. Rivers were not frozen over, as they normally would be.
I JUST watched a video yesterday about US tanker BOOT CAMP. "Hoooooaaah!!" "We LOVE TANKS!.. Can't wait to get to crush & KILL!" 😏
I love to hear from veterans who are willing to give their perspective, please spread the word, those stories are invaluable.
The importance of the Siberian troops was a) that they were very well equipped, including winter gear and b) that they were experienced veterans who had fought many border clashes with Japanese and Manchukuoan troops. Most of them were sent to the Staingrad region in 1942. Among these units was the one of Kim Il-sung, who later became the leader of North Korea. These former Korean and Chinese partisan units were especially valuable, as they had more than a decade experience in fighting the Japanese army. They were highly motivated elite units and, although not so large in numbers, played a crucial role in late 1942 and 1942.
The crew of the German battleship Bismarck were told that their anti-aircraft gunners had shot down 27 of HMS Victorious's Swordfish torpedo bombers. A remarkeable achievement I'm sure that we can all agree; all the more remarkable when one learns that Victorious only launched 9 Swordfish and that all 9 returned safely to the carrier.
?
But they weren't? I've never heard of that. And even if it did happen, how are you going to say to the crew that watched them fly, that they shot them all down?
@@F.R.E.D.D2986 With Zhukov, Koniev and Rokossovsky's armies on the verge of encircling Berlin, Goebbels was still claiming final victory (Endsieg) was at hand.
As I recall, the anti-aircraft batteries on Bismarck were targeted electronically and had restricted depression; the gun crews simply supplying ammunition. The slowest aircraft speed with which the system could cope was nigh on double that of which the Swordfish was capable. And the guns could not target and track low flying aeroplanes.
They were so badass, they destroyed even the planes which those pesky Brits had no idea existed!
@@DotepenecPL Dream on.
You wouldn't recognise sarcasm if it kicked you, would you?
The first 3 points are like ''WW2 oversimlified debunked''
@Targaryen Dynasty well the name is oversimplified so yeah bot the best source to get in depth on a certin subject.
Targaryen Dynasty thats why he is called oversimplified...
@Targaryen Dynasty His American Civil War one was actually really good, I kinda hope he goes back and remakes his World War videos with the same depth as his recent videos.
@@Edax_Royeaux Him running for the democrats in 1864 should already tell you everything.
@@Edax_Royeaux I feel McClellan gets too much hate, even campaigns he "lost" (like the Peninsular and Seven Days Campaign) saw the Confederates lose thousands of more men than him. Theoretically, if he launched invasions like that which in turn saw the Confederates aggressively counterattacking, they could have been bled dry.
On the other hand, Grant is shown as someone who just throws men at the enemy whilst Lee is someone who is unexplainably genius when that is not really the case. Lee suffers heavy losses even in victory and fails to actually destroy armies whereas Grant manages to manuever armies so that (despite taking heavy losses) he ultimately destroys the enemy armies (Vicksburg and Appomatox are the only two campaigns of the Civil War which saw armies being destroyed, both by Grant).
Whilst the military history is a bit iffy, the oversimplified series did do a splendid job of displaying the political aspects of the war imo.
There's a psychological phenomenon when soldiers think they've won a battle and that the fighting is over. They relax to an extent that leaves them vulnerable to a counterattack that they would normally beat back easily, and often fall into rout. It's turned many battles throughout history.
are u describing a scene in a marriage?
@John Smith exactly. aswell as the ottomans and other turkic groups did this, very interesting
"22hours and 52 minutes" stalin needs to unionise and demand better work conditions^^
he had no one but himself, to whom he could give such demands
lol
In college, I knew a family in Ventura (CA) whose parents had survived WW II. I remember the family name as Walati. The father was an Ossetian who had served in the Red Army and the mother was a German military nurse. He was in officer training for the Red Army when the German invasion started. He was part of that mob of Red army men you see in grainy film grimly marched through Red Square directly to the front in November. 1941. He told me, "I couldn't wait to get to the front!" "Ah, to fight the Germans!", I replied. "No, No! To surrender to the Germans. I hated the party and Stalin." I had the sense that he ended up in the SS or Vaslov Russian Liberation Army movement, but I never asked that question. He certainly didn't spend the war in a German prisoner of war camp. He married a German nurse somewhere in 1943-44 and they escaped to the West at the end of the war. There was a trade-off in my mind between the results of Stalin's extreme brutal collectivization and forced industrialization and the morale of the Red Army soldiers in 1941-42. The Soviet Union would have fared much better in 1941-42 with somewhat fewer tanks and airplanes and a lot more men willing to fight to the death for the regime with the equipment at hand.
How can u keep up with the channel, doing these types of videos and at the same time doing the Stalingrad documentary?
Keep it up man
Short answer - I'm struggling to keep up... Luckily this wasn't a difficult video to make
@@TheImperatorKnight Couldnt get a hold of a email , but I most recomend you TIK to be on the lookout for the "Arnhem 1944 an epic battle revisited - volume 1: tanks and paratroopers" which is basicly a english version of the swedish one from 2017. Its a 2 part er , from Christer Bergström. ISBN 9789188441447
Just a note - despite official Soviet disapproval of popular partisan movement in the first year of war, there were plenty of partisans operating outside of NKVD saboteurs - mostly groups of red army soldiers from encircled units who managed to avoide being taken as POWs. These men often formed gangs of various ideology. Regardless, most of them were just trying to survive.
Correct. Over 300 thousand, and these soldiers made the bulk of the partisans. They were mostly concentrated in Bielorussia, and represented 68% of the total partisan activity in the USSR.
"The unknown wave of mass socialization"
It is silly what youtube forces people to say.
"Mass socialization" sounds like something that George Orwell might object to by saying it is like his concept of "Newspeak" where by changing or getting rid of a word changes the entire meaning of a statement. "Socialization" instead of "rape" alters the meaning of the atrocity especially for those who don't know what it means. RUclips should reevaluate it's guidelines.
''back in the day we had RAPE''
RUclipsr idubbbz
its not silly. it's sinister
We must take into account that great number of POW were male civilians of conscription age counted by Nazi as POW. This is most notable in the case of Kiev encirclement when numbers of POW captured by the Germans greatly exceeded the number off Red Army soldiers "missed in action". Germans were capturing most highly populated areas of Soviet Union where mobilization was not finished or even haven't started. German logic was based upon the fact that from the first days of the war a lot of Red Army soldiers tried to escape encirclement with the support of civilians in civilian clothing.
In his famous Order No. 227 "Not a step back!" Joseph Stalin proclaimed that further retreat is unacceptable since the main mobilization territories of the Soviet Union are already captured by the enemy, and Germany could win the war of attrition simply because of higher mobilization resource. This was also true for food-producing territories. The mobilization resource of the USSR radically increased only with the liberation of territories left to the enemy in summer 1941.
P.S. I'm just in love with TIK video about order No. 227 "Not a step back!"
These people were mistakenly executed as spies in the Irafsky district, December 31, 1942:
(Vladimir) Sandirovitsh Hamitsajev (born 1926), Sandir Orazmagovitsh Hamitsajev (born 1888), Danil Orazmagovitsh Hamitsajev (born 1890), Gubu Hortijev and Dumbul Ivanovitsh Gabejev. Two were Red Army soldiers: Sergeant Jevgeni Durnev and private Anatoli Malyshenko.
According to SS-Rottenführer (Corporal) Paavo Merelä, the execution was ordered by the Finnish company commander, SS-Hauptsturmführer (Captain) Karl-Erik Ladau (1916-2009). There is no other evidence of his involvement.
BlackRed CrossStar!
Don't dead open inside.
I had such a schizophrenic idea when i was 14. Mine was red star on a golden cross.
How very NazBol
Concerning the comparison in losses, it is important to point out that roughly one third of the fallen Soviet soldiers didn't die in battle, but were murdered as unarmed POWs. I therefore consider them to be closer to civilians. The POW discounted ratio of 1.9 to 1 or 2.4 to 1 would fall even more, if we count these deaths as non-military. Not to mention that the ratio has to compare Soviet forces with *ALL axis forces,* not only with German forces. Seven states attacked the USSR in 1941, plus thousands of OUN partisans in the hinterland.
A little side note though: Your notion that "individual initiative was not socialist" (34:04) was true for a later period, but not for the period we are talking about. Khrushchev ranted a lot against "individualism", it was him who put everything under state control. I don't want to elaborate further on the partisan situation, as it is quite specific and too extensive to counter your (and Bergström's) interpretation. Sorry.
But: Let me do a little myth busting : )
Up until the late 1950's the *private sector in the Soviet Union* was huge! About 40% of all furniture and 70% of all household items made of metal _(which were not yet electric at the time!)_ were produced by craftsmen or light industry cooperatives, the so called "Artels".
Unfortunately there is no English wiki on this, so, try the Russian one:
*ru. wikipedia. org/wiki/Артель**#Советское**_время* (interrupted to avoid active link)
Khrushchev liquidated this entire sector! He even wanted to liquidate the cooperatives in agriculture and turn kolkhozes into sovkhozes, but that he didn't manage, it would have affected too many people and thus provoke quite a lot of resistance. They tried indirectly, but that produced unintended side effects...
Basically, Khrushchev (and the CPSU left wing) wanted to eliminate economy and replace it with "scientific planning". That was the idea. Another element in achieving this was abandoning the piece rate system and making wages more equal. Which in the long run and combined with other factors of course eliminated all incentives to do a good job... This was just crazy! Here the situation prior to Khrushchev's wage reform:
_"In 1956, approximately 75 percent of Soviet workers were paid under a piece-rate system, so the majority of Soviet workers could significantly boost their earnings by increasing their output."_
I'd say this is very individualistic. And it indeed was. Khrushchev criticized the wage system and the Artel and Kolkhoz structures as being "individualistic". It was him, who put everything under the control of the communist party, not Stalin. On the contrary. Stalin used to cite Lenin's famous quote: *"Communism is Soviet power plus electrification"* which meant: Communism is not the rule of communists, and it's not the realization of some utopia. It's a *democracy based on councils with a high technological standard.*
Turns out, communists are the biggest obstacle to communism...! 🤣
I suspect many of these pows actually were civilians and that the Germans rounded up all men of military age inside the kessels, whether they were wearing Red Army uniform or not
Well did you realy think the situation for Germans soldiers were that much different later in the war. There are also large amounts of German soldiers not returning from soviet PoW camps. Maybe we shouldn't count the Volksturm and Hitler Youth boys, because they did not were proper uniforms. And maybe we should not count the germans soldiers who went in captivity after VE day as losses, because the battle and the war was over. Or the 400K Axis forces which surrenderes in Stalingrad? That doesnt make sense at all.
This manipulation of statistics works both ways.
7 nations. Germany, Italy, Hungaria Romanian, Slovakia. That's 5.
Hungary, Romania, Slovakia are real industrial giants. Right? Its like Germany would Allie with US and Great Britain and being helped with lend lease.
Out of how many states was the soviet union formed 15? 16?
With a overall population of 190 million people in 1940?
Maintaining the largest army in the world, with twice as more Tanks and aircraft as the next to superpowers combined! The soviets were only outnumbered at the eastern front for the first few month of the war, because of bad coordination and organization. With the end of 1941 they already achieved numerical superiority at the eastern front. Stop twisting the numbers.
На тему Хрущева правильно изложил. Это показывает что СССР в своих периодах разное государство - ранее набирающее силу и дающее надежду и позднее, где Хрущев обделил вниманием весь замысел государства для каждого- обделил вниманием нужды простого человека
@@HaVoC117X Bulgaria and Finland. Also the axis population out number the Soviet population and Italy or Germany alone outnumber the Soviet Union in 1942
@@raidenromeo8427 Bulgaria did not enter the war against the USSR, the Soviets declared war on them when they got to Bulgaria's border
Thank you TIK. Keep fighting for objective truth or at least the ability to debate history with facts, reason and an open mind.
The temperature myth is interesting since there exists a simmillar discussion when talking about the Finnish Winter War. Although early 1940 was exceptionally cold late 1939 was unusually mild, something that greatly aided the finnish defenders who lacked winter equipment compared to their Red Army opponents. The mild weather also meant that lakes and rivers didn't freeze and thus could be used as natural barriers by the finns. When the temperature plummeted the finns suffered severe cases of frostbite and since the lakes and rivers froze they could be used by the Soviets as a way to bypass the finnish static strongpoints with ices in some cases being thick enough to even support tanks.
One thing that seems to be forgotten is that German soldiers were fighting in their Summer Uniforms; the winter clothing got delayed in Warsaw; that makes cold temperatures something far harsher on the Germans than on the Soviets. In addition, most of the supplies for the units came from horse-drawn units (as readjusting the Soviet rail lines took long), and guess what extreme cold does to these animals?
@@KnightofAges
Especially for idiots. A soldier in a summer uniform becomes a one-time soldier at -10 degrees below zero. And even with -5, you'll get sick.
"guess what extreme cold does to these animals"
does nothing. Horses can stand the cold very well.
Idiots do not know that the red Army had many times more horses. )) And everything was in order.
The drowning of German divisions in seas of soviet riflemen is truly an severe exaggeration - skills and organization within the Soviet army played a larger role in the later stages of the war.
They have learnt to organize themselves, tactically and strategically. German officers noted this in their war time reports, that "the Soviet Forces's way of fighting is more and more becoming to look like our own does."; i.e. Soviets learnt Combined-Arms warfare and mobile tactics.
@ Atanassov... But the Germans WERE drowning in a sea of Red soldiers -- at the point of attack. That's where the legend got started. The front was so long that neither army could truly maintain a continuous front -- in the western sense.
What happened is that the Soviets 'got wise.' They discovered that it was much better to find a thin sector -- overwhelm it -- and then breach it deeply. With their new-found mobility, it proved very practical to swing left and right -- going miles into the German rear -- even if the starting point was not in a particularly sweet spot.
Punching through -- miles away from enemy concentrations -- was the essence of the Blitz. That's what was new about WWII grand tactics.
The Americans ran into the same dynamic in France. All obvious river crossing points were well defended. They couldn't get across no matter how intense their artillery. Yet, time and again, the same rivers were crossed in rural settings, where the German defense was thin -- provided by second-line infantry. Once across, the Americans found that it was easy to envelope the urban crossing (with the tank-rated bridges) every time. The elite German formations backed away rather than being trapped.
This is what was happening in the East.
To the guys getting their azzes kicked -- it always looked like the Soviets were beyond number. Well, that's the way it's supposed to be ! The Soviets finally figured out that you attack weakness -- not strength. Stalin, the dictator, never quite figured that out, but his generals did.
@Radle What you wrote is correct (I have mentioned something similar in one of my other comments), but the context is a different one - it is the post-ww2 description of fighting on the eastern front, where german generals claim to be always numerically inferior to the soviet forces (i.e. strategically) and with a large margin as well (not the usual 1:2, but something like 1:5 or more - for the whole front, as he counted AG Center's disadvantage about 1:4)
Incorrect. The Soviet numerical advantage (manpower) (strategically, excl. Finnland, incl. all other allies, based loosely on Glantz):
- 19th November 1942 vs. Army Group B - 2.3 : 1; on the whole front: 1.9 : 1;
- July 1943 (whole front): 2 : 1
- Dec 1943 (whole front): 2.3 : 1
- June 1944 (whole front): 2.2 : 1
- Dec 1944 (whole front): 3+ : 1
Exchange rate (losses) - somewhat more complex, but falling from 4:1 in 1942, 3:1 (overall, Glantz) 1943, apr. 1:1 in 1944 (overall, G.). Overall means sum of kia, mia, wia. Excluding the WIA improves the rate in favor for the Soviets greatly.
Another topic is the rate of replacements, which needs to be researched additionally (also complex, as not dependent on losses only - rotations and economy are a factor too) - it is in between the exchange rate at the front, and the above numbers.
We could discuss the numbers in types of weapon systems and firepower too, but it gets more complex (example: numerous soviet guns vs. more ammo per barrel for germans), but they could be traced back to manpower too (tank, artillery, and especially aur force units have their manpower reuqiements too, heavy burden on maintenance and rear area troops).
As a result, the often claimed (by whom - see above) 5:1 or above advantage in numbers of the Soviet forces (strategically, for a whole theather of operations, or the whole front, and not only at the point of breakthrough, where it is fully expected) is not supported by any statistical or empirical source.
See TIK's video on Mannstein's Charkov counter-offensive in Spring 1943, as well as another of his videos where he goes into exchange rates on the Eastern front.
The socialization of women is very well documented, and many women committed suicide afterwards out of shame. There was originally a policy of no fraternization for the Allied troops, but it was never made official because the Allied High Command knew there was no way such a policy could be enforced. That, and other atrocities committed by both sides on the Easter Front during the war, all but guaranteed that German troops preferred to surrender to Western Forces.
Soviet combatant losses are around 2:1 to German losses. That ratio falls when you include other axis allies. That figure skyrockets when you include civilians. Welcome to the war of extermination. Now you know where the 10 or 20 to 1 myth comes from, it's counting civilians (where do partisans come from?) among combatants...
The Ratio is pretty much 3:1 overall when it comes to Soldiers alone.
Germany + Austria lost up to 5 Million Soldiers on all Fronts, while the Soviets lost up to 11 Million against the Germans.
But the Ratio skyrockets in the late War, most German Soldiers died in the last Year.
So you can asume that the 10:1 ratio was met in the first Year of the War and then went lower and lower of the course of the War.
@@richardadams8036 Or miscalculated as civilians. Take a look at French riots with fire bombs flying. 3: 1 seems more credible. Women also served in the Red Army and typically in developing countries the median age is around 28 years. There are not so many civilians to begin with.
@@richardadams8036 even in 1941 you're not getting 10:1 kill ratios
unless you include prisoners who later die in prisoner of war camps
Did I mention? This was a war of extermination.
These were counted as missing and around 3 million Soviets died as PoW, so you should count them.
Same goes for the German PoWs who died.
And of course it was a War of Extermination, did i said otherwise?
Its just rough when you look at the Numbers.
More German Soldiers died in 1944-1945 then from 1939-1943 ( i cant find specific Numbers for the Soviets split in Years), so many wasted lives on both sides, just disgusting.
@@QuizmasterLaw He said the ration is 3:1 and you reply by saying it's not 10:1. I think you have issues with your brain, soviet boot licker.
A lot of the "history" learned by my generation was from fictionalised accounts such as Sven Hassel. I'm sure some of that bias has influenced thinking. When looking at the tank battles, the thing I found was that the two biggest influences were fuel availability and ground hardness. EG a T-34 has track area of 550mmx3720mm (per track)the Panzer 3 was 360mmx2860mm (per track) this gives totals of a fraction over 4 square meters for the T-34 and only half that for the Panzer III and therefore the ground pressure of the Panzer III was 50% higher than the T-34. The Panzer IV was a little better (400mm width tracks and much longer ground contact) but still 20% more than a T-34. So on soft ground the T-34 definitely had the advantage especially in mud.
The biggest myth is that "german engineering is the best in the world". it is not.
@@sergeontheloose at the time they were far in advance. What is going on now is not the same as what was going on then.
@@gordonlawrence1448 They weren't their T-3 and T-4 tanks were not the best money could buy. Although they employed tactics that allowed them to win some battles, but ultimately loose the war.
@@sergeontheloose You are not taking into account the circumstanced of the production.
@sergeontheloose - the Pz III and IV might not had the best ground-pressure or armament/armor stats, but they were a much better platform for their crews (visibility, internal communication, battlefield awareness, latter making 'tactics' possible) - this is the technical part of the reason why it had a clear superiority in the tank vs tank combat (which in turn is a secondary scenario, as most of the fighting situations were tanks vs. infantry and artillery).
Quickly: there are more important things than main statistics.
The soviet partisans fought mostly against the hiwis and the police battalions formed of the locals, which collaborated with the nazis in 1941-43.
Right on. Turns out, the evidence is the evidence, and stubbornly remains so in spite of political bias. I know that like any historian, Bergstrom will be right about some things, maybe not as right about some others that future historians will put in additional research and legwork into addressing, but I’m intrigued to check out his work.
You will find that from anyone and everyone. Nobody is immune to it, and while I try to follow a policy of judging based off evidence (often being labeled a neo-nazi for it since I would say "Actually Germany..." since saying anything other than "The Germans were pure evil" is socially unacceptable outside of true history fans), there are no doubt things that I will probably choose the wrong evidence at times. There is a lot we are unsure of from that era, and it's only going to grow as the last of those living during then pass away, and often times there will be conflicting evidence, whether real evidence that is unrelated, or fabricated evidence for propaganda purposes.
@@DrewPicklesTheDark nobody is crying over the defeat of germany, most enjoy it
@@freefall9832 I sense some hostility.
@@DrewPicklesTheDark haha I suppose I am pleased with the defeat of germany
I have read Christer Bergström and he is doing an excellent job in his books. He really tries to be objective unlike what we read in older literature.
Are you kidding? Have you read his Barbarossa book? It a pile of crap.
Yeah very objective, really. Mass rape and gang bang crimes committed by the Wehrmacht. Millions of female victims no matter if a child of 8 or a 90 year old granny, for sure! I don't know which drugs this guy Bergström is doing but it really must be the strongest shit ever to fantasize such bullshit! It just provides an insight into the "objectivity" of this scribbler...
@@firstdreamwalker Christer Bergström is an old school communist. Not kidding, he belong to far left extreme party Called Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna. Meaning 'Socialict Justice party'
If you follow this link you see a picture of him with Trotsky T-shirt calling for revolution.
efolket.eu/christer-bergstrom-fran-eskilstuna-vill-ha-ett-nytt-parti/
It's nice to once in a while to find someone who agrees with you, you deserved this video TIK, just so you for once could let someone else flip the finger at the nay-sayers.
The enjoyment you had making this video was very apparent, and I hope it have given you fresh energy to continue the fight against all the misconceptions of WWII.
What are you on about? The video is replete with inaccuracies! lol
I quite liked the old Stalin story. Makes me feel a whole lot better about myself getting overwhelmed.
I think he was still shocked by the war, but overwhelmed because of the workload, not the surprise attack. I think everyone can understand being overwhelmed by a heavy workload
@@TheImperatorKnight Wow, thanks for the reply. I love your channel.
@@TheImperatorKnight He was malignant narcissist or psychopath, or both - no capacity for much emotion, you are probably right, thanks for mythbusting that Kruschovs desinformation.
In Germany, I've never really come across claims that Soviet War crimes were worse than German war crimes. If anything, Soviet war crimes are glossed over to not create the appearance that German war crimes are in any way being excused.
In more educated circles, opinion seems to be that the German soldiers behaved just as savagely as the Soviet soldiers, but the Soviets never came anywhere near the Germans when it come to organized genocide that had its own infrastructure build.
WATCH "EUROPA THE LAST BATTLE"
On bitchute
Too bad, the comments above me are literal Nazis. You had a valid point nonetheless.
@@ang47
Germany today is a country without soul.
@@zexal4217 You are a complete moron.
@@ang47 Explain to me then 3 things:
What is "the ultimate truth"
What is this about "propaganda/hiding history/banning historical names"
and what is their "Fate"
in defense of the T-26: it was probably the best tank in the world when it first entered service in the 1930s. it definitely was a force to be reckoned with in the Spanish Civil War. even in 1941 and being vastly inferior to the German tanks in everything else, its 45mm gun still packed enough of a punch to be a threat to the Panzers of the time.
greetings from Berlin.
I agree. It is an important tank, if out of date by 1941
I agree that T-26 is complicated subject. Vickers was one of the best tank of 1930's. Bigger problem was that was old tank in 1941. Heavly used by Red Army in early years, they just start falling because of age. Also Red Army was not that good in maintance of complicated equipment in 1941. As a one of the main tanks of Red Army it was still dangerous opposition to German Panzers, even to Panzer IV. Big portion of German tanks in 1941 was tanks like Pz 38(t), Pz II and Pz III with short 50 mm gun. Also soviet 45 mm was good support gun in useage against soft targets. Many T-26 was use with good effect against Japan's armies in 1945.
It was certainly not a "tankette". And neither were the BT series. Fast and with a 45mm cannon is not a "tankette" by any means.
@@KnightofAges Yeah, if you look on vehicles based on Vickers E basis, T-26. Polish 7 TP, even whole family of Italian tanks or Finish version there were quite good tanks. Maybe little obselete in 1941, but T-26 with 45 mm canon was still very dangerous to most of German equipment.
Most tanks were destroyed by anti-tank guns and infantry, t-26 was easy target for them
Stalin's "breakdown" came after the Germans captured Minsk and sealed a massive pocket on June 28th. NOT in the first week of the war as is assumed here.
When you said ''The unknown mass socialization on the Eastern Front'' I burst out laughing. I'm curious, why didn't you just say ''seizing the means of reproduction''?
The reason is because, even though I had thought of the "collective control of the means of baby production", I somehow hadn't thought of the word "reproduction"... But I will be using your phrasing in future! :)
@@TheImperatorKnight We are all going to hell.
do you think this very funy?
black humor must also have limits..
@@maps9 does it though? I find this pretty amusing meself
@@maps9 I thought it was funny, and I don't believe in censoring rape jokes. But it is indeed pretty dark.
I really enjoy all of your uploads. One thing I have learned about history is that many historians disagree with another. I fine example of this would be the battle of Tippecanoe which occurred in Battleground, Indiana in the U.S. I was taught in school that Chief Tecumseh was the main figure and that his brother Prophet was a drunk and against his brother’s wishes attacked the U.S. forces commanded by Harrison. About ten years ago a new book came out about the events leading up to and including the battle. The author claims that the Prophet was the Chief while Tecumseh was the war Chief and that Harrison viewed the Prophet as cunning and competent. So it goes.
Keep up the great work. Don’t consume your time with doubters, for they will always exists.
I remember that Kings and Generals did a series about Tecumseh
It is interesting. The Victor writes the history. In the German's case, due to the Cold War, they as the losers, got to write the first two generations of the history on the Eastern Front.
"I stood beside a bed in hospital. On it lay a girl, unconscious, her long, black hair in wild tumult on the pillow. A doctor and two nurses were working to revive her. An hour before she had been raped by twenty soldiers. We found her where they had left her, on a piece of waste land. The hospital was in Hiroshima. The girl was Japanese. The soldiers were Australians. The moaning and wailing had ceased and she was quiet now. The tortured tension on her face had slipped away, and the soft brown skin was smooth and unwrinkled, stained with tears like the face of a child that has cried herself to sleep."
"Socialisation" is understudied among Western troops too, and the people who attempted to investigate it were sidelined and their findings largely repressed.
Also; Joy Division.
"mass socialization"
Well played
Well, as far as I know Stavka moved some divisions from Siberia and Far East in October-December 1941, but instead of them formed new divisons. It is much better to have experienced officers and soldiers in well-known formations, then newly formed, made mostly of the reserve personnel. So "old" divisions from Siberia were moved to the frontline and and "new" were formed to take their place on Far East and Eastern Siberia.
The Far East (Primorsky) and Eastern Siberia were lightly garrisoned. Most of the Siberian troops came from West Siberia.
"Stalin went for 168 hours during that entire week"
TIK: Those are rookie numbers - you gotta pump those numbers up
Wait, there are only 168 hours in a week
@@konstantinriumin2657 That means nothing to the Most Beloved Sun of the Nations. Comrade Generalissimus can transcendent both time and space.
Mr. Bergström says Stalin worked 22 1/2 hours one day, 5h in the next, then 24h the following day, then just 5h in the following to take a breather. Then concludes with "Stalin worked 168 hours" that week. Except that means Stalin worked every single hour that week, as a week only has 168 hours. SOMEONE is making things up.
@@KnightofAges Our beloved father of nations is resting his eyelids.
@@KnightofAges You obviously know nothing of True Communism. Off to the camps with you.
Excelent presentation, personally I love hystorians that break the popular myths of the WWII.
TIK, is there any reason to doubt the official diary? Just asking because the situation at the time and shortly previously had proven that upsetting or showing Stalin in a questionable light was not a good long term survival strategy.
This is a good point. TIK usually casts a critical eye on the official German reports so why not with the Soviet ones?
@@ElGrandoCaymano Because TIK's primary focus is being anti-German. All other objectives in his videos are secondary to that.
Oil was obviously a huge problem for Germany. I wonder how much winter weather worsened the oil problem - muddy and snowy conditions and cold weather generally make for drastically worse fuel efficiency. Could this be a reason why the long-term oil shortage appeared to be so much more critical in December 1941?
Good point. 🖒🖒 Also, IMHO, when the Germans were attacking, they concentrated their mechanized forces in a small area of their choosing to make a breakthrough there, while the rest of the front line held its ground. However, when the Germans were on the defensive, their mechanized forces would have been forced to travel to many locations to counter multiple unexpected threats. This would have required a greater consumption of fuel than when the Germans were on the offensive.
Furthermore, the muddy roads & fields may be part of the reason that the Germans had a much more difficult time dealing with the Soviet counter-attacks near Moscow when the temperature rose to near/above freezing. The mobility of German armour, halftracks, and towed anti-tank guns/artillery would have been severely compromised in such conditions, may have prevented them from reaponding to Soviet break-throughs & plugging numerous gaps in the front line. This may have caused a drop in moral among Germany's infantry units, who were used to a rapid response from the panzers whenever Soviet tanks were spotted.
BTW, it's interesting to note that, in the wake of Barbarrossa's failure, that the Germans developed & began to manufacture personal anti-tank weapons (the Panzerschreck & Panzerfaust) & increased the tank-killing ability of the Stug III assault gun, which was originally designed & allocated as an infantry support weapon. Perhaps, initially, these developments weren't due to a lack of tanks & anti-tank guns, as much as the difficulty the Germans were having with supporting infantry units against Soviet armour in a timely fashion?
Part of the problem is that the Soviet oil deliversies stopped.
"Blitzkrieg" also did not work in 1943, because the Germans did not have the aerial superiority: Red Air Force got much stronger and also the Germans had to split their air fleet in three fronts (east, west, south). The earlier big successes were aided greatly by the strong Luftwaffe.
During 1943, above some sections of the Eastern Front, the Germans managed to take at least temporary control of the skies or regain the initiative for a time. For example, the Germans managed to carry-out effective air strikes throughout Operation Citadel, including the use of very effective tank-busting Stukas. Nevertheless, the ground attacks against the Kursk Salient stalled very quickly, and the operation ended up being a failure & a strategic disaster. So, yes, a stronger Red Air Force was an important contributor to the failure of German offensive operations (including 'Blitzkreig' tactics), however it was not the only factor...there were other very important reasons.
And yet, over Kursk Luftwaffe flew more sortirs than VVS.
So your comment makes no sense.
The other point which I disagree is the apparent continuous lack of heavy weapons in the Soviet Units:
- the Soviet union had a lot of Howitzers and Field Guns, most of the time in more numbers than the Germans;
- the Rifle Division is not equivalent to a German Inf. Div. due to organization - a lot of the Support Arms were under Corps, or Army (when the Rifle Corps temp. disappeared) Control;
- the Soviet Union had a lot of AT Guns (45mm, 57mm, 76mm divisonal guns), in large quantities, all the times;
- not to mention Mortars of any caliber (82mm, 120mm);
The reports on lack of those are usually after an defeat, or speedy-retreat; Like the lack of tanks, after hundreds were lost in... disorganized tank attacks (battle of Kalach, your other video - when the soviets counterattacked in the Kalach area); Numbers kept on being replenished; 62nd Army during the early stages of the Stalingrad-city-assault had few guns and mortars, but a month of resupply later, they gained artillery superiority over the 6th Army (October 1942);
The main drawback of the Soviet Army at that time is in its strategical (strategic control, order 227) and tactical (lack of training, lack of combined arms warfare) organization, rather than weaponry. All corrected until the end of 1942, hence the outcome of the following operations.
Yes, and the KV-1 was the Tiger tank of 1941.
German had no tank that could kill it.
Maybe you are thinking about TO&E. Soviets lacked heavy weapons during the winter offensive. That is why they were relegated to human waves as their attack strategy. The Soviets themselves often wished that they had artillery or tanks to support attacks, but they simply didn't have them in any decent quantity.
@@MrProsat No, they had plenty of artillery in 1942 and onwards, apart from short periods and local defeats (Stalingrad area: 62nd Army, early September 1942, as example).
Soviet pure "human wave" attacks were employed almost nowhere. In the city - not at all, it was a small-unit-only environment.
Basically, coordination of arms is the reason, why large infantry attacks (not necessarily "human waves") were performed, but due to the very bad coordination in 1941, and the overall bad coordination in 1942, they didn't always receive the needed support/cooperation with the other arms (tanks and artillery, which were there, at least physically).
The soviets have more tanks on the battlefield and especially as replacements (i.e. a large turnaround). 5thTank Army had enough of both tanks and artillery, so slicing through the weakly armed 3rd Romanian Army wasn't difficult. Even on the Kotluban Front they had a lot of artillery.
It is rather the poor coordination of arms, and also poor reconnaissance, which leads to the collapse (or inefficiency) of combined arms warfare of the Soviet Union, at least until Nov 1942.
Not least, the TIK's series on Stalingrad gives a lot of clear indication, that the above is the case (we still have to see the Soviets in their "sugar" side after 19th Nov 1942, when things will look very differently).
16:30 I think 530k is slightly too high for the Finns. In June 1941 the Finnish field army consisted of a bit less than half a million men, not sure if that figure is supposed to include the air force and navy as well. In any case, that figure was too high for the country to bear, and was only as high as it was with the expectation that some of the men could be demobilised within a few months, which they finally were at the end of 1941 and beginning of 1942.
yeah. the ideea that the Romanian army would reach 1million, not stated by the article, but mentioned by TiK seems really unlikely to me.
@@nottoday3817 "The Romanian Army had a total of 686,258 men under arms in the summer of 1941 and a total of 1,224,691 men in the summer of 1944."
Third axis, Fourth Ally: Romanian Armed Forces In the European War 1941-1945 - Mark Axworthy, Cornel Scafes, Cristian Craciunoiu
Regarding the partisans, as I recall large numbers of Ukranian and other Soviet citizens who ended up on the "wrong" side of the front ultimately ended up being shipped to gulags. As you state, independent thought was not "appreciated" by the Soviets, and it was felt that such citizens may have been "contaminated" by fascist or capitalist ideas.
The same thing happened to many of the Soviet POWs, especially those who were sent to Germany to work in factories.
TIK, you are incredible! As a BSME and a few other degrees, I appreciate your attention to detail.
Just a tiny correction- Anti-tank rifles were actually very useful. But indeed not as anti-tank weapons, but more as anti-material guns. Great for killing trucks, half-tracks, motorbikes and such. And could still take out or at least damage light and medium tanks in ambushes, from the side or rear.
Also their 'bullet proof' glass and lights and other exposed components on the outside of the Panzers, have read reports that even units of Tigers had to be withdrawn for periods of maintenance just to repair such kinds of damage from ATRs.
Schürzen as invented to defeat Russian AT rifles.
Just a side note: TIK, Sorge (Зорге) is rather spelled like 'Zorge'; Richard is just fine;
The same with Zhukov it's not "Зуков" it's "Жуков" like "viSion"
@@alexandrvylegzhanin7598 The "Zh" sounds almost exectly like the last sound in a word "garage".
The end of point one is written badly. It claims that Stalin worked 168 hours for that week. There are only 168 hours IN A WEEK
Actually Comrade Leader Stalin worked 336 hours in a week; Stalin worked TWICE as hard as any man could. CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post and New York Times are report this as true (also know as Prava, Izvestia, Tass)
The entire article is filled with an immense Soviet bias.
@@ITILII ugh. Hack.
Hi TIK. I love your channel, and it is so good and entertaining. Thank you for making this. To touch on the issue with ratio between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army, there is a noticeable tension between the statistics over the Russian campaign as a whole and the perception people have on how well the Wehrmacht performed. It is perhaps a bit an over simplification just to look at numbers, and conclude that the Wehrmacht did badly in the Moscow campaign, because the Red Army destabilized the whole Northern front in December 1941, while the total ratio was perhaps close to 1:1. What shines on the Wehrmacht were the battles in which they were successfully delaying Russian advance for many months, facing a ratio of at least 1:3 in favor of the Red Army. The pocket of Demjansk 1941-42, taking Crimea in 1942, the defense of the Baltic republics in 1944, the battle of Korsun-Cherkassy pocket in 1944 and the Siege of Budapest in 1944. Total numbers do not give a clear indication of the ratio on a particular spot in the 3000km wide front. So when the Russians attacked Army group center in 1941 to defend Moscow, they were in the majority at that spot, it is then useless to have one million soldier elsewhere, since the transport was close to impossible due to the bad roads in Russia. People remember the battles that I mentioned earlier, and make the same mistake as some historians did, they conclude that in every situation the Russians had overwhelming numbers in all the battles. Given the fact that the Wehrmacht was before Barbarossa engaged in the Balkans and Greece, it is not hard to imagine they were strained by December, given these circumstances and bad logistics, they did great in 1941. Due to the lack of oil, things were not so different as they were in 1914-1918, compared to that, the Wehrmacht seems way more capable than it was in the Great war.
That Nigel guys is a prominent BSer on the axis “history” forums. Can’t expect much objectivity from people like that.
Is he? I didn't know that
What's a BSer?
@@g-rexsaurus794 Something that usually equates with something solid that comes out of a Saurus!
LOL...that 'Nigel guy' is a military historian lavishly praised by none other than Christer Bergström ie: the subject of this video.
**As a scholar on the Eastern Front during World War II, I find Nigel Askey’s Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis, and Military Simulation an absolutely indispensable work. There are a multitude of memoirs and books filled with anecdotes on the Eastern Front and Operation Barbarossa, but Askey’s book is totally unique. It is the first very comprehensive study on the armed forces on both sides. Thus it provides the reader with a most valuable key to the understanding of the hube war on the Eastern Front during World War II. It is a goldmine of information that answers many, many question that rise from reading other Eastern Front books.
**
So link his profile or just STFU, kiddo.
I, as a ww2 reenactor, am often called upon to give ad-hoc lectures and the numbers thing comes up time and again, particularly in relation to tanks. The argument goes that no wonder the red army won with that number of tanks. No skill, just numbers. My retort is that, why is building, transporting, equipping and fielding large numbers of tanks seen as the 'easy' way out? If anything, conducting warfare on the scale that the red army was able to achieve is WAY harder and more complex than Fielding small numbers. The bias staggers me.
I ve been reading about Barbarrosa for all my life, literally everything, and i ve never ever read anything about those rapes, its something i was sure of but its impossible to find material... A subject waiting for a book... But no archives, no survivors, no recollection on the german letters for obvious reasons... Hard to put together...
You've got the sources in my Barbarossa book.
Christer Bergström thank you! The rape in the invasion well deserves a book! Vastly overlooked subject. Thank you again.
@@christerbergstrom2957 Respect for your work, sir! Cheers from the Baltics
Dear TIK: Thank you so much. I watch frequently. I tried a few days ago to join at the 10 $ level, but I am not sure it went through to the final step. Officially I live below the poverty level so please understand how much I value your opinions as well as all the great and time-consuming graphics. (In truth I have been living at the same apartment for 40 years under Los Angeles rent control., and my rent is way below the usual market levels.)
Tik, you are a good, no, a great historian. And you have a good sense of humor. Love your videos.
He is slowly making his fame, no propaganda, no not verified nonsense - just truth.
Thanks again, and happy you found support in your view on the facts. Please keep on looking to more at just tanks. The Human factors and sides are the most interesting. Keep up the good work.
The most unbiased historian I've listened to so far, love your videos keep it up!
unbiased lmao
@@ang47 As someone who sees faults in his economic and political videos, I can still say that I feel has done a magnificent job of being as unbiased as he can (that does not mean I think he is wrong in some regards but that doesn't discount the rest of his work for me).
Everyone is biased. Bias is not a pejorative. Perhaps the word you're looking for is prejudiced? It means making a judgement based on your prior assumptions rather than the evidence. I disagree with TIK on many points but I respect his attempts to support his conclusions.
@@zexal4217 I didnt say anywhere that he didnt do a good job
@@ang47 Both me and the original commenter are saying we felt he did as much as he could to have been unbiased. You misread, I did not say that you said he didn't do a good job.
i don't understand the first point
one week: 168 hours. (24 x 7)
And he worked for 168 hours? Really? And only 5 hours on the 28.?
I don't getit. Where am I wrong?
Sounded like a mistake, but the point I guess still stands, Stalin worked for most of the time during that week.
@@zexal4217 yeah the point he makes is still valid.
He was fighting the fascists in his dreams.
@@williamleskovec4063 You ever wonder if Stalin had dreams about murdering Trotzky? I imagine he'd have a good nights rest if he had a dream about that.
I guess it's meant to project that Stalin was trying to go for 168 but had small "break downs" where he was forced to rest.
Interesting review, sir!
It's true about Stalin working like mad instead of collapsing at the beginning of Barbarossa, his meetings diary confirms this, like you mentioned. He was prostrated the first few hours but not more.
Is it possible these records are false? We know how the Communists like to rewrite history. We even have cases of modern politicians writing minutes AFTER the fact. Thank you.
@@fazole Stalin's meetings diary is a perfectly genuine document, uncontested by every serious historian.
@@Armageddon4145
Thank you for your response.
I've visited China a few times and I was there in the 90's when you could buy Little Red Books of Mao's thoughts and you could see that in different editions various people who had been standing next to Mao were erased from photos. I also read a biography of Mao by his doctor, that he rarely sat at a desk or had big meetings instead preferring to have informal gatherings poolside.
Given the Communists complete control over administration in the USSR, I think it's reasonable to question validity of their documents, particularly during Stalin's time. Once again, thank you for answering.
You are realy comparing a biography of Mao by his doctor with a document? I mean, you are realy doing it. Wtf...
@@Damatis
No, I'm not. I'm comparing Communist methods of propaganda, lying and historical manipulation. Read.
dude, are you able to upload your series as podcasts? its difficult for me to watch a whole episode. i really just want to save a few episodes at a time for my commutes (i live in the sticks and a data connection isnt a guarantee)
thanks for all your videos man, ive really learnt a lot from them and theyve inspired me to learn in depth of WW2
all good for you.
So... I'm gathering that the real causes of German defeat in the Soviet-German war were,
1) Logistics.
2) Logistics.
3) Underestimating the Red Army, in other words, a tendency to believe their own propaganda regarding racial superiority during strategic planning such as the hubris that led to the disaster at Stalingrad.
You should read the "Die Wehrmacht" military magazine published to the German soldiers from 1936 to 1944. In no way it ever claims the Russians were "inferior" fighters, taking great pains to note they fight like cornered beasts and are a formidable opponent. What you call "German Propaganda" is actually post-war propaganda destined to create a deliberate image of WW2 Germany. Nothing beats reading the original sources.
@@KnightofAges do you then, as much as I do, believe that the right side lost the war?
Your videos are awesome. I've been teaching and studying history all my life. I focussed on Soviet Military when at University(before the Soviet Collapse) and have really enjoyed your series on Stalingrad. The History of WW2 has gotten so much better once Soviet Archives were open to historians. One small criticism, and this is a mistake many many make: Socialism and Communism are economic constructs, they are not political constructs. A communist or socialist party may control the economy, but what makes a country socialist is economic policy and practice. A socialist economy is a command economy. (almost all economies are really mixed economies, rather than command or free market; one judges whether an economy is command or free based on the degree of their lean towards one or the other of command or free market). Politically, there are only three types of governments: Autocracy, Oligarchy and Democracy. That's it. The political systems of both Germany and the Soviet Union under Stalin were both Autocracies. Don't be fooled by economic terms and propaganda when discussing governments. Of their economic systems; the Soviet Union was definitely far more socialist/command economy, whereas Germany under the NAZI'z was far more of a mixed economy, leaning towards free market. Obviously, as the war progressed, the NAZI economy shifted further towards command economy. In short, to call either the Soviets or NAZI's as socialist is misleading, unless you are trying to make an economic point. In which case, you would be better served discussing the degree to which they are practicing command economics. If I haven't explained this well, I would be more than happy to explain it better. Anyhow, good luck to you and keep up the great work.
I mean just look at his Hitler was a Socialist video if you wanna find out his point. And his Public X Private video.
@@bag.a.6465 No offense meant, but it is a theory so off the point and so incorrect that it begs the question as to why he would make it. I was here to learn details of the German-Russian portion of the war in WW2. If the presenter is making obvious errors in his assessment of the NAZI economic system, it makes me wonder what other errors he is making. It has sabotaged his entire work- in my view. Which is why I no longer watch these videos. I have no answer as to why he would engage in this debate at all, or as to why he so mistakenly holds to this argument. This is where experts and trained historians prevail. They would rarely allow themselves to be drawn in by this subject, nor would they come to such incorrect conclusions. Both of these mistakes would merely distract from the research they are doing and theories they have reached. In other words, this is where the motives of good research and entertainment diverge. One group is seeking to understand, the other group is seeking to be entertained. I am seeking to understand.
@@christianstough6337 Are you saying the economy of Nazi Germany is an entertainment point for him to research?
According to my father endless, deep mud was the far bigger problem then freezing temperatures.
According to the generals and other soldaten it was -38c which caused engine blocks to freeze, engines not to start, guns stocks to jam and troops to shiver due to a lack of winter clothing. Bergstrom cited the 9th army's attack. Is that just an exception? Are we to infer the rest of the German troops were just fine in the cold and horses, men and supplies happy traipsed through the snow to prepare for the final assault?
Excellent, to the point, clear, substantiated and convincing. A piece of cake. To quote a (in)famous colonel: "I love it when a plan comes together".
22 hour working days sounds about right for the most powerful dictator ever. Stephen Kotkin pointed out that all the Soviets WANTED Stalin in power (initially) because he was the hardest worker and most effective bureaucrat.
He debunks the Leon Trotsky BS about how Stalin is mediocre
I haven't had time to read a lot of Stephen Kotkin's work, but what I've read so far, and his lectures online, have been really interesting
Oh, one can certainly be both mediocre and hard-working. Hammerstein-Equord has a pretty good quote on this one.
After some initial reservations, Stalin gave Zhukov the support he needed to turn the tide against the Germans. That, in itself, makes Stalin brilliant. He found the right man for the job and gave him unprecedented military power. Zhukov took the ball and ran with it, as they say in American football.
@@continentalgin Zhukov was the star of the General Staff after the performance at the Red Army at Khalkin Gol. Not only that, he was "untainted" by association with the victims of Stalins purges. Hardly makes Stalin brilliant for picking him out of the bunch that he had. Finally, Zhukov's "brilliance" was almost entirely based on having enough credibility to speak somewhat openly to Stalin.
He was thereby able to influence Stalin enough to prevent him from repeating disasters that would have ultimately allowed the Germans to gain a victory (or at least go further towards that objective). You are essentially labeling Stalin "brilliant" for (eventually and after great losses) allowing his military people to make military decisions. Hardly the mark of brilliance.
@@dondajulah4168 You seem to misunderstand something - Zhukov was brilliant general and tactician one of the best among many, but Vasilevsky was the one who was in charge of strategy - he and Stalin made all the important decisions, Stalin's incompetence early in the war also comes from his experience from civil war - very different kind of war.
21:50 Glad you kept your word and responded to him. Just watched it and see it mentioned here.
Between the German high generals and their "memoirs" and the Iron Curtain its a wonder we know anything that is actually factual. Many thanx to people like Anton Jolly and the rest that comb the official records in order to sort out the true facts. And thanx to you TIK for digesting and then relating those facts to us.
@TIK your opinion on Eddy Bauer's bookseries "Second World War" ?
I'm with you 100% TIK, keep up the good work!
Nice videos mate, keep at it!
Such a good topic. Thanks Tik and thanks to that guy that wrote you that question . I definitely will read that author with published that article. Спасибо
P. S. I think we must separate socialism as idea and socialism under Stalin. Socialist ideas came from French, and marxism came from Germans . Under Stalin's rule they significantly mutated.
I really think you should start writing WW2 books. Your knowledge is so rich and balanced I sometimes am reluctant to read a ww2 book when I feel half the interpretations will be inaccurate and debunked by you.
T-70 was a good tank. But, as you say, it was a light tank, suitable for recon units, not slugging matches.
Keep up the good work. My Atlas of Glantz's 2nd Battle of Kharkov is on it's way. I appreciate looking at the Eastern Front holistically as opposed to just the military actions. How do you feel about Stahel's assessments? Also, beware the Wheraboo...
Thanks, TIK. You always give me something to think about, rather than simply absorb the conventional wisdom's of the last 70 years. I would love to see you do a video by that addresses many of the claims made in memoirs by the German generals.
Stalin's supposed breakdown was one of the many lies invented by Kruschev fuled by his longtime hate and jealousy against him. You just have to see Stalin's meeting schedule from june 22. He met major red army generals and people's comisars the entire day. He continued this routine until early july when he dissapeared for an entire day, probably for resting. In all this meeting he never met Kruschev because he wasn't even in moscow.
This was confirmed by Mikoyan and Molotov after the war.
Ps: oh yeah its pretty much what is told in the video
I never bought this, doesn't fit the character of this kind of psycho. Never rang true. "Oh no, boo hoo, I thought me and painter man were moustache fwends".
@@aquilatempestate9527 That said, I have always believed that at first during those first few days of Barbarossa, Uncle Joe Stalin was probably super ultra hyper paranoid about being executed just like so many had been in the recent great purges, with or without a show trial for the military intelligence / foreign affairs failure of being surprise attacked by NAZI Germany & betrayed by Hitler. After all he had spent considerable personal efforts directing dismissals of warning signs & reports as 'false' provocations (possibly by the British?) and quite frankly I think he deserved the gallows or an NKVD bullet to the back of his head and probably new it!
@TEXOCMOTP If I read your reply correctly; Stalin is the "He was dismissing german disinformation." And Stalin again is the "He never dismissed real info"
TBH sorry I don't know enough too deeply on this issue, other than the general depiction in TV documentaries, may be a brief article & in a few paragraphs of books, perhaps you know better - only aware that 'the Soviets' at high levels (Molotov?) knew about German mass deployment in the East but were assuaged that they were there only for training for Sealion hiding from British observation etc, were perturbed by German mission in Romanian etc, but that reports of spies (Sorge?) communist sympathisers providing 'Don't shoot' Russian-German translation printings and other reports of 'increased' activity on the border of the Germans etc were actively dis-encouraged by Stalin himself before Barbarossa.
I always took it that he, Stalin dismissed info as 'British' disinformation to cajole the USSR into War against Germany, or perhaps that was his excuse. IDK.
I absolutely love this Chanel, so thankful that I happened to stumble upon it! Really appreciate the unbiased opinion.
He is not unbiased
@@EndOfSmallSanctuary97 In what way and towards what? Tho tbh i haven't watched this channel in a long time
@@fyodorgalyukov When it comes to pure military history he's pretty unbiased, but when it comes to anything related to economics he's *extremely* biased. As a hardcore libertarian in his personal beliefs, he opposes anything the state does in economic matters, and frequently distorts, exaggerates and misleads when it comes to discussing topics such as the Great Depression and the New Deal. He thinks any government intervention whatsoever is the same as socialism, which is absurd.
@@EndOfSmallSanctuary97 oh well i only focused on the military part. Im not well rounded in economics
My uncle was on the HMS Trinidad, he was Torpedoed and he spent 6 months in Russia during the war. He used to keep in touch with Friends he made while trying to stay alive. He told me when the Soviets advanced into Europe, hundreds of thousands of Partisans advanced behind them. These people, who had lost everything, with no structure of command, just got payback? I'm not defending it, That's just what he said happened.
One thing that has to be pointed out about the Soviet "partisans" is that 68% of them (around 300.000) were concentrated in Bielorussia, and most actually came from the encircled forces there during the Minsk pocket. Many men scattered instead of surrendering, and they formed armed groups to continue the fight with the Germans. "Those people" can best be described as "majority soldiers that never put down their arms" (somewhat similar to what happened in Yugoslavia, where the Germans didn't have time to properly disarm the Yugoslav Army, allowing for the creating of massive partisan forces there).
I'd like to see a response to Askey. I'm not sure how accurate the Lancaster relative force strength calculations are... but everything else seems like a valid criticism. In particular Axis front losses need to be separated from Overmans derived demographic statistics. This same statistics issue came up with reporting iraqi deaths from 2003 invasion and seeing a huge range of numbers estimating demographic changes vs. actual hard body counts being reported.
Something that bothered me about this video and the article its referencing is that when it was considering the effect of the cold weather it mentioned that the Germans fought fine during the extremely cold days and when the cold thawed days afterwards suddenly the Germans had trouble. The effect on trains supplying the German forces was the most significant in the cold spell and supply interruption doesn't immediately show but it does after days of ammunition expenditure. Cold related injuries don't immediately get inflicted on soldiers either. So the effects of the cold you would naturally see after the damage had accumulated not immediately. Honestly the Soviets weren't exactly prepared for the extreme cold either, but their supply lines were shorter so they weren't as adversely effected.
While there is some truth in the things you mention, there are some other things to consider when talking about weather.
1st of all, bringing cold injuries into the argument is a bit pointless, since the soldiers were fighting in cold throughout the winter. Being colder or warmer by a margin would not affect those things. So if someone manifested cold injuries during the warmer days, most likely someone manifested them in the colder days as well.
However, there are other aspects to look for. When the weather heats up, the snow starts to become watery, especially with heat sources, such as fires, people or engines around. This is quite bad news for the ones digging their fortifications in the snow and using them for concealment. Not to mention the damage that can be done by water infiltrations. While being a bit colder or a bit warmer does not change the chances of getting cold injuries, staying in humidity DOES. MASSIVELY. With their fortifications ruined, it would be much harder to defend against soviet attacks.
However, there is another thing which severly nukes the ideea of 'General Winter'. When proper winter set int, but before the Moskow counter-offensive, the Germans had a great success in Winter after the Autumn rains. The rains turn the soil muddy like hell, making the crossing of vehicles and foot soldiers impossible. So the Winter initially helped the germans.
Even finns had numerical superiority in 1941.
Did they? At lest not compared to hardware like tanks, artillery, machineguns, aircrafts and so on.
@@popsey72 not in heavy weapons, but in men. Soviets consentrated their forces against germans.
@@pekkamakela2566 The army size stated here is actually not true, but propably a simple typo. 350k men in the whole Finnish Army is more correct figure. In the attack face in 1941, the largest Finnish army, Karelian army, consisted of 100k men. Additionally there were some units in the north but the actual fighting force was less than 200k (rest were backward units).
@@sturm9699 finnish military strenght was around half a million. Soviets had also rear line troops in the area, so discounting finnish rear troops does not seem to be prudent decision.
@@pekkamakela2566 You misunderstood. The comment of rear line troops was in relation to number of fighting troops. The total amount of Finnish army in WW2 was ~350k. So the point was that there is a typo in the article which states 530k. In the beginning of the war the total number was 337k and at the end ~360k. During the attack phase in the Finnish front it was ~350k containing all forces.
About #6: It was the Arctic cold that halted the German offensive. There was really very little in TIK and Bergström that denied this. they both danced around the subject. Didn't mention the Germans had no winter clothes. At one point say the German's are exhausted and here ignore it. Nit pick about the temp. Point out the Germans repel the soviets from defensive position as if it's major accomplishment.
The Artic cold was a major factor in halting the German advance. It was the worst winter in 60 years. Just admit it Comrade TIK.
My english bad i know.
About that mass socialization. I come from Poland. My grandparents from both sides, my friends grandparents almost all agree that socialization and stealings were NORMAL when Russians came. My grandparents told me that girls were hidden in woods and cellars. My wifes grandmother said that when Germans came they were giving chocolate to kids when Russians came were giving dic**.
I know that Germans did horrible things to man and woman at slavs territory, but because of that we cannot downgrade bestiality of Soviets when they were "liberating".
Surely germans gave chocolate to the civillians during the Warsaw uprising.I believe you havent heard a thing about what they did and germans killed much more polish people than the Soviets did.
@@Feffdc as i said, when they CAME. i did not say that they were nice and good during ocupation. And my whole answer was that RUSSIAN MASS SOCIALIZATION AND robbery WAS NOT A MYTH BUT FACT. u took 1 sentence and put it completly out of context, not cool
Mass "socialization" did happen on both sides. I had(they passed away in the early 2000s) former Wehrmatch acquaintances who bore witness of this happening both at Krakow and towns surrounding Kaliningrad(German SS and some Werhmatch "socialising" Polish women)and a couple elderly women who had been round up with dozens other women and "socialized" by Soviet troops in Berlin during the "Victory celebrations" of the Red Army. Personal perception, yes. But widely shared by both German and Russian population.
Did you just call him Chris de Burgh-strom?
Chris de Burgh Storm?
I was expecting Chis de Ass-burghers.
Christ de bergh!
Lady in Red Army.
I listen to your videos almost every night as I go to sleep. You are doing great work!
sweet dreams of lacking oil, Halder AND von Manstein.
I could feel the smugness when I saw your facial expression when you began reading the bit on "Russian numerical superiority". I enjoyed it, like a fine wine.
In the first point its mathematically wrong or the numbers are fudged.
According to the article:
1) 22nd June 1941 5:45 - 16:45 - 10 Hours of work
2) 23rd June 1941 - 22 Hours and 35 min
3) 24th June 1941 - 5.5 hours (approx) since they call it "a little over 5 hours"
4) 25th June - 24 Hours
5) 26th June - 24 Hours
6) 27th June - 10.5 Hours (approx) since they call it "a little over 10 hours"
7) 28th June - A little over 5 hours ---> 5.5 hours.
Total hours = 101.85
Approximately 14.6 hours a day. (This is at upper estimates here). From where did the article pull out 168 hours or did the author make calculation mistakes?
I believe he worked 24 hours for 25/26 June combined, so we're down to about 76-78 hours. In case you were wondering, the total number of hours in a week is 168. The article suggests Stalin worked for a week without a rest (24x7=168). Not sure who proof read this or maybe it should be proof-maths?
Come on TIK, Askey's works have been reviewed favorably by many prominent historians : " "When complete, this series on Operation Barbarossa will be without peer." David. M. Glantz, Editor-in Chief, Journal of Slavic Military Studies.
"An extremely useful resource to military historians seeking detailed assessments of the armed forces on the Russian Front in 1941. They are based on extensive archival research, and provide a level of detail far beyond that found in conventional military histories. Even for Russian Front specialists, they provide a valuable synthesis of data that is otherwise scattered through specialist studies and archival resources, and they offer an unprecedented data-base for military historians studying the 1941 Barbarossa campaign".
Steven Zaloga, Journal of Slavic Military Studies." Using a BBC article as source to go on the attack is silly. Especially one that claims Army Group Centre had 1800 tanks and assault guns in december 1941.
Another prominent reviewer is: "Askey's book is totally unique. It provides the reader with a most valuable key to the understanding of the huge war on the Eastern Front during World War II. It is a goldmine of information that answers the many, many questions that rise from reading other Eastern Front books. Nigel Askey also deserves praise for the very detailed source references, and the high quality of sources that he has used. When the whole series is completed, it is bound to become the major reference work on the Eastern Front on the same level as John Erickson and David Glantz. Without doubt, Askey's work is a milestone, and an indispensable reference work on Operation Barbarossa for probably decades to come".
Christer Bergström, forum.axishistory.com. Author of Operation Barbarossa 1941: Hitler against Stalin (2016), Black Cross/Red Star: Air War over the Eastern Front (2000-2006), Kursk: The Air Battle (2008), Bagration to Berlin (2008), and other books on the Eastern Front.
Get off your high horse mate and stick to making those really good battle storm videos
Loved the video. Yeah, the spy story is pretty well known & popular in the East, you'll pronounce Sorge in German manner, like "Zorgee" :) He was later executed when found out. Here's the Wikipedia link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge
Hope that helps!
ANTON STALINGRAD BATTLE DATA AND TIK HISTORY ARE ALL YOU NEED TO WATCH CONCERNING EASTERN FRONT HISTORY. OUTSTANDING MATERIAL TIK.
I disagree with you, and according to a statement in at least one of his videos, so does TIK, I'll paraphrase: "always use multiple sources if you're going to study anything seriously."
Yes, I appreciate the sentiment, but Christian is right. Best not to limit yourself to a handful of sources
I suggest you look into Military history visualised as well
Do these tank stats count the hundred or so Matildas and Valentines as medium tanks or as "obsolete tankettes"? Or do they discount them completely as some arrived after 1st December?
Great work TIC as usual. The forces massed to face japan is confirmed, by Zhukov in his autobiography published at the 1970s. I remember reading his story of arguing with stalin to send some divisions fro the far east to battle zone near moscow or in the south. I dont remember it clear enough.
BRILLIANT, TIK
Can't add anything except for what little my Granfather was released as a German POW back to Germany in 1955.
Can't blame him,, now, and cowered when, way back in 1965ish he told me in German (I must've ticked him off) "I marched through and back and up and down a continent without a decent place to shart myself"
Acknowledge, the lack of "benzin", always chasing mechanized divisions and catching up because they ran out of petrol
7th Inf./19 Reg. (Bavaria Division) was his assignment if you ever get bored
Cheers
Looking forward to this one Tik. I finally caught up with the last of your videos. Just finished a book called, “Neighbors” about a massacre of Jewish citizens in Jedwabne, Poland. Wonder if you have come across that in your studies? Hope all is well!
Jedwabne is an overblown myth.
von Vypierdalen Oh yeah? Can you prove it? Your telling me the killings didn’t happen? I find that hard to believe.
I’d like to slightly correct the point on the Stalin’s collapse: there was a meeting at the evening of June 29 (in the Kremlin and then they moved to the Defense Commissariat) where Stalin got (according to Mikoyan) totally frustrated by what was happening on the front and on the Western front in particular. After the meeting, he mumbled “Lenin left to us a great heritage and we fucked it up (more literally; shitted it down)”. And moved to his so called Near Dacha. And disappeared. Same Mikoyan (whose memories are generally complementary to Stalin) further recollects that when he, Beria, Molotov came to Stalin the latter had a look as he was he expected that they came to arrest him. Instead, they came to propose him to become the head of a new all-mighty governmental body - the State Defense Committee.
Chruschev was not in the “inner circle” at that time so he may have made an unintentional mistake mixing up different events.
As regards enigmatic emigres - these are the Whites who emigrated from Russia having lost the Civil war. Some of them (not many) collaborated with the Nazis believing (naively) that after they get rid of the Bolsheviks they can get rid of the Germans.
I have not watched the whole video yet.)
I do not get the bashing of t26. The tank was not obsolete by 1941. It was comparable to the panzer 38t. Thinner armor, bigger gun, both had two man turret. 45mm gun in t26 could kill any german tank in 1941 in normal combat ranges. T26 was inferior to panzer 3 and 4, but not the other models used by the axis.
@TEXOCMOTP things might be unusable in original purpose due to no fault of theirs. Failure of an attack is not the tanks fault if tank infantry cooperation is poor and artillery is not even used. T26 was perfectly capable at killing infantry and destroying tanks. They were just used baddly. In 1944 finnish t26 units still killed t34s by ambushing.
Yes, it's funny how that goes. The T-26 entered service in 1931. So it was 10 years old in 1941. It is called "obsolete". While today the American M1 Abrams and the German Leopard 2 entered service with their respective armies in 1979, and are considered in 2020 to be "the best tanks in the world", even though they are over 40 years old. People really don't see how ridiculous their claims are.
@TEXOCMOTP in 1941 the frontal armor on panzer 3 turrets was only 30mm. When you look at period pics, mounting for the extra armor is common, but the plate is not. Also you said it would be useless against infantry? How? It had machine gun and HE rounds, so it could engage infantry.
@@pekkamakela2566 There was also an up-armoured T-26E version screened with I think from memory, up to 40mm frontal appliqué armour hull & turret about 100 were made in Leningrad during the Winter War plus another 100 or so during the Russo-German War, these were able to withstand Finnish 37mm ATG fire in combat ranges and similarly all German & Czech 37mm ATGs & 37mm armed Panzers, so except the 50mm Pz IIIs & Pz IVs, Stug IIIs and the Pz Jagd I, all vulnerable to its 45mm gun, despite its ammunition reliability. The problem for the T-26 was poor Soviet handling tactics wise and lack of maintenance and ammo quality, but they were not obsolete until well into 43.
TIK, "...because that's how logic works." That made me laugh and it was completely correct in the context. It reminded me of Dr. Smith who said regarding an argument, "a tautology, which is not the highest form of logic".
Richard Sorge
>> That's a German surname.
"REE--hard ZOR--geh"
Fantastic work TIK, as mostly always. Thank you for your tireless work in countering the misconceptions around WW2 common in Western audiences. Keep up the good work.
@Bhigr Bond Facts don't care about wehraboo feelings.
@Bhigr Bond
1: Link in the description. The article is probably based on the facts Bergström collected for his books. If you want to check that, find out which books and go through their sources and their peer-reviews.
2: Nobody said they weren't ever nowhere outnumbered. While the Soviets lost more troops, they were also able to muster more reinforcements giving a total of more men under arms. They weren't greatly outnumbered along the entire front at all times until maybe late 44', for much of the war numbers on each side were not greatly different. They were outnumbered where the Soviets attacked. That's because when you attack you pull your quality maneuver troops into the area you want to attack to outnumber the enemy in said area and achieve a breakthrough. The Soviet Union is a vast state and there simply weren't enough troops to vastly outnumber the Germans at all times everywhere. Throughout the war the entire Red Army wasn't in the West. They had comittments elsewhere to attend to as well.
@Bhigr Bond And you know for a fact that the sources you base these posts on are 100% factually accurate, having tracked them down and controlled them and their peer-reviews so you know for certain, yes?
Point being? Nobody said they weren't ever outnumbered. But the fact remains that they weren't outnumbered everywhere at all times. As I said, the Soviets were able to reinforce at a much higher rate and gradually erode the Axis numerical superiority of 41 and use this to concentrate forces in order to achieve local superiority for offensive operations.
@Bhigr Bond What book? And is it a peer-reviewed work of historical investigation or a memoir?
They did not lose more troops than the Werhmaht had in service.
You accuse people of lying then lie yourself.
The Germans recruited 18 million troops during the war the Soviets had lost only 8.7 million KIA.
TIK-The Soviets had a real problem with reporting their casualties honestly.
What I think as a frenchman with a Russian GF about your channel/work : thank you. We used to hear bias and nonsense about french soldiers/army. We know that is not true (well hierarchy... it is) and it's the same about "the resistance", that's why we are reluctant to acknowledge nazi (or german?) bullshits. But some are not... most of them are "proper" historians. Building a friendship between France and Germany was a first task after the war, and it's really a great success... but oh my god : so much bullshits we had to endure from : ancien generals as F.Halder or from French propaganda! (both sides!) From Communist Party wich was extremely powerful in school/university. Some discussions with my GF are not easy (to say the least), but confrontation of ideas are ALWAYS constructive. And FACTS! So : yes listen to your arguments are essential for us : thank you and "keep calm and carry on" ;).
I like your unbiased analysis of the Eastern front of world war2.
Could you please talk about general zhukov
He'll be addressed when I get to him in the Stalingrad videos
In 1993 I met Valentin Berezhkov (through Dr. Gerald Looney) an interpreter for high level Russian politicians, including Stalin. I asked many questions and I have a signed copy of his personal memoir. While Stalin was not totally out of commission when Barbarossa was launched, Berezhkov said he was afraid, seemed dazed, and was unable to fully make worthwhile decisions. Berezhkov said this caused a lot of command confusion during the first few days.
I agree with this statements