Sorry but I disagree with you regarding American soldiers and shitty aim of Germans in Hollywood films. Anyone who saw the film saving Private Ryan and many others which proceeded it, can tell you that's bs. Yes, in the past Hollywood films did that. But that was before the era of gritty realism in war films from the 90's onward replaced the over patriotic bull that pervaded war films early on.
It's not misconception - it's propaganda. Overall in the west the picture painted of the Soviet Union is more and more in line with it being just as bad if not worse than the 3. Reich and we slowly reach the line in which Hitler becomes the defender against the evil Russian Empire. It's not an error - it's on purpose. No one is that dumb to spread this awful 'misconcept' by mistake. They especially love to show that soviet soldier were shot in the back, that's one of the stories they like to tell the most, that the evil SU send its people to certain death and just shoot everyone who tried to flee. That this war was against an enemy with the plan of total annihilation who had already mass murdered million CIVILIANS(!) - nah, that's not so important. Give it some years and they will tell, that it was Stalin who just killed those ~27 million by being an "evil Russian" (even though he's Georgian...).
The person advocated for usage of the “hugging with your enemy” tactics and probably the one who coined this term was commander of 62nd army Vasiliy Chuikov.
@@Max13Mad I think he’s referring to Trotsky and the early Revolution, which took place on 1905. As it was the same Revolutionaries and idealists that would go on to create the later Revolution.
Vasily Zaitsev's widow Zinaida on the movie Enemy At The Gates: "Vasily is changed completely in the movie. They showed blatant lies. Vasily would have never go as low as doing the things he does in the movie".
Don't forget this piece of garb*ge movie got eventually banned, or a limited release in Russia, because, it caused so much outrage with the inaccurate portrayal of Stalingrad and Red Army soldiers. Especially, offending veterans who were still alive, relatives and historians knowing much about the battle.
Funny how the troops making the assault seem to have almost no weapons or ammo, but the blocking division set up to stop them from running has tons of both.
@@Amen.ahmed1what political gain did the directors get for making this so called “propaganda” Could it not possibly just be poor historical insight in an attempt to make an entertaining flick?
The myth was created in ww2 by the Germans, for a legit reason too. The most famous Soviet SMG of the war, the PPSH-41 had a couple of flaws. The first is that it was a damn bullet hose. It fired so quickly that their drum mags of 71 rounds could be completely emptied in less than 20 seconds. It was so fast that stick magazines weren't even worthwhile, you'd blow through ammo too quickly. The obvious solution is to just carry more drums, but there was another problem. Most drum magazines were paired to a specific gun. So a PPSH-41 made in one factory might not be able to use the same magazines as another one, using each soldier might only have two or three magazines they could use at all. So, it was very common for resupply runners to carry crates of 7.62x25 ammo up to the frontlines instead of bringing weapons, because they'd be running right back to get another ammo batch while the submachine gunners reloaded their magazines. This was compounded by the fact that in Leningrad, it wasn't unheard of for guns to be constructed and sent in the hands of a soldier right into combat outside the factory door. These soldiers also needed ammo brought to them as they took their guns straight from the factory floor and into combat. German, Finnish, and Romanian soldiers saw red army soldiers running around with ammo crates and no guns, and just joked that the Russians must not have enough guns for everyone. It got turned into propaganda, and was later used as fact in the book Stalingrad: Enemy at the Gates, after which the movie was named and copied many ideas, and the movie writers did almost no fact checking
It was the designation of that movie... To dishonour soviet army... By the way no germans were killed except that ones killed by the sniper Zaytsev... Its total propaganda and an insult to the russians whose grandparents were fighting through this war with the most advanced army in the world, which destroyed united allies army in 1940 just in a few months...
@@gnas1897 myth based on russian losses. 6-7 million losses of germans and allys vs 28 millions of soviets. but propaganda forgetting to mention that 20 mill were unarmed civilians.
the myth existed beforehand... it literally started as nazi propaganda. these people are believing nazi propaganda and memoirs in current year. its pathetic
Call of duty and Hollywood in general always the Russians are to blame and all the villains are they. it's especially funny to watch their films about Russians, we really laugh at how they portray us, for us it's a comedy. But most of them believe in what they see, and it's sad.
From Poland: I found this movie strange and only partially convincing as a result of these stupidities. One rifle per two? C'mon. No army in the world fought like that. This shot-up running attack, and the Germans being so obviously prepared? How would they know the attack is coming? Etc., etc. .... Another movie with incredible scenes and overall well played, but this "tactics" stuff so overblown and distorted that it's hard to watch without incredulity.
This is EXACTLY how the Russian army fought in 1914-1917, due to a shortage of rifles. The Germans also 'knew the attack was coming' cause it had been coming at the same time every day for nearly a month straight, and was announced by the blasts of 100 whistles and shouting Russians "URA!"
@@weeboftheleft5113how do you know that it is true about 1914-1917 westerners have never given any credits to the Russians. The Russians weren’t prepared in 1914 like most European countries like France during WW2 but they didn’t sent soldiers with no guns that doesn’t make any sense not now not then. Same with the war now in Ukraine western media said the Russians were fighting with shovels i kid you not 🤨🤪🤪
Thank you for yet another excellent video. I am glad you discussed this topic, as Soviet Army stalingrad veterans were outraged when this movie was shown to them back in the mid-2000s. My grandfather fought in the battle, and what he described was the opposite of what they showed in this movie; they didn't have a shortage of weapons, it's a shortage of men that they had faced at the time.
If I may ask, what your grandfather meant by the shortage of men? I know that the Soviets outnumbered the Germans, so what caused this shortage at the frontline?
@@Progamermove_2003 they couldn't mobilize on time because they lost a great deal of territory and had to evacuate, plus a great deal of troops to the initial blitzkrieg. They only managed to match the Germans numerically by around 1943 when all the logistics were sorted out and fresh troops from Siberia arrived, but until then they faced a massive disadvantage in manpower.
By the time of Stalingrad, the Soviets used smaller sections and abandoned the mass charges of 1941. I don' t think Enemy At The Gates does the Soviets much justice.
@@NotTheLastOne It's the inna curacies which make it worse. By the Summer of 1942 the Red Army had plenty of weapons and it was learning how to avoid mass German encirclements. The Soviets in Enemy At the Gates is more like the Russian Army of 1914. A ludicrous assumption. Not a great film in any sense.
@The_Jaguar_ Knight Yes that is very true. I think the attitude of the Soviet High Command was ' throw as many as we can into the fight, some will get through.
It is important to note that a lot of the myths portrayed in this scene come from German accounts of the war. Mostly by generals trying to justify their loss in the war. Unfortunately not a lot of military history came out of the USSR until the late 80's so many of these myths have found their way into fact.
bruh, imagine trying to justify your loss by telling your commanders that the enemy doesn't have guns and they just send human waves at you.. hol' up.. kinda same shit in Ukraine right now, Russians fighting with shovels.
Yes and no. German officers were looking for comfy NATO positions post war and exaggerated their experiences to make them seem more valuable. At the same time the USSR didn't want to take away the impression that it was an inexhaustible uber power ready to throw hundreds of millions of people into faces of an under strength West.
Interesting indeed. I find Patton's quote "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity" to be my favorite. Sink or swim is how I see that.
6:10 about the bullets uses by stukas, theese are 7.92 mm mg so the machinegun bullets showed in the movie are realistic, the german veteran should have been hit by a .50cal (12.7mm) this caliber had see a lot use in the allied planes, british planes have 20mm so i don’t think somebody can survive a 20mm shell in the lung, anyway great job for you video :D
I doubt you can survive a .50 cal either ... the exit wound caused by a 12.7 mm bullet is huge (you can stick your fist through one)... Spitfires and Hurricanes had .303 (about 7.7 mm) machine guns either as main guns or as aiming aids for heavier guns... Surviving a 7.7 mm is just as possible as surviving a 7.62mm (considering that most weapons in WW2 were of similar calibers)
By 1941 they were starting to field the Stuka 87D which had 20mm cannons, but those were designed for anti armour missions and fielded in very limited numbers. They certainly wouldn't be using them to strafe a bunch of open topped dinghies.
People tend to believe that the Soviets were a bunch of mismanaged farmers and whilst this isn’t far from the truth the Soviets were far more structured than people give them credit for. Because war isn’t just about shooting as many enemies but is also a war of logistics, if you can organize and then reorganize an army as well as successfully set up a stable support network then you can beat the enemy (most of the time) a great example would be he African campaign where incompetent or dogmatic commanders would ignore the needs of logistics as well as adapting to new situations, vs the more flexible and capable Germans. But as soon as a solid supply line was established and aid from America in the form of tanks and supplies the British started to gain the upper hand, and whilst the British are credited with the main battle tank conceit it’s actually the Soviets who pioneered the universal tank concept with the T34 series
@@turturek69 Fun fact: The Finns sued for peace in the Winter War and had to agree to harsher terms than the soviet union demanded before the war started. The soviets wanted some territory that was strategically important and they got it, if they wanted to annex Finland they could have. What IS true, however, is that they lost an amount of troops that far outstripped the amount that they expected. The territory they gained ended up not being important because Nazi Germany didn't invade through scandinavia.
@@imatreebelieveme6094 I highly doubt that it would have ended with a single ultimatum since the Soviets showed interest in restoring Russian Empire borders with the Baltics and Finland. On top of that, the area they wanted from Finland held the only defensive line Finland had in that small strip of land that acted as the gateway to the capital of Finland, Helsinki.
@@irkkunen4933 but fins lost the winter war and the continuation war, also they started the winter war by getting allied with germany and invading parts of northern small parts of USSR
Small side note, the machine guns coming off of a Stuka were actually firing the same round as the German machine guns on the ground. Granted they did actually have more energy as they were firing from a moving target, but they were the same rounds.
@@kanyewhite429 Man, the firing rate of aeroplanes is depicted wrong in every Hollywood film ever. It gets worse with modern planes. Just look at Top Gun or Stealth. It's like they're firing 9mm submachine guns. Hollywood in general has hard time acknowledge the existence of autocannons.
If anything a more accurate depiction of Stalingrad would be like the last battle in Saving Private Ryan; Soviets holding position in a congested urban environment with not just street to street fighting but room to room. General Chuikov who was in charge of Stalingrad's defense had his units fight close quarters combat with the Germans to make their air cover less effective. If they tried fighting in the open and at a distance they would just be pounded into the dirt by the Luftwaffe.
I always recall a conversation that i have with a former soviet navy captain how's dad fought in stalingrad and his uncle saw some action in Leningrad, he told me that the only unarmed red soldiers there was either due to being trasnfered to a penal battalion, a practice that was abandoned really quickly and soldiers who lost they equipment while crossing the volga, to him Hollywood just took some stories told by german soldiers and some misconceptions of the soviet organization to make a film with no intention to ask te already available soviet veterans, which is a shame, cuz many of the histories from the Battle of Stalingrad are just amazing, the most amazing part was that both of our uncles fought in the battle of Krasny Bor, but in different sides of the battle, sometimes reality if far more incredible than fiction
Why ask when you can portray Russians in how is expected from Hollywood? It was 2001, so opinion, that Russians -is just a civilised barbarian, who wins war just by masses, not by some kind of intelligent thought, was very prevalent in media. So much so, that even in Russia there this guy, Nikita Mikhalkov, producer, that made films that's fully based on these misconception.
If you didn't know, dear reader, one reason of many that the city of Stalingrad was defended so vociferously is that it had a weapons manufacturing factory that continued to produce ppsh smgs during the entire battle. They would at times be taken directly to the frontlines from the finishing shop. So while it's cinematic to have an every other soldier rifle distribution, the Soviets did not want for arms.
Multiple factories actually. They also had a couple ammo producers (both of 7.62 tokarev and 7.62x54), a tractor factory that produced many artillery pieces and military vehicles, and a steel plant that supplied tank manufacturers
@@ratatataget And the city itself was bombed to rubble. These "factories" might've been ad-hoc facilities with minimal advanced equipments. Afterall, it's not easy to equip and supply millions of soldiers when your enemy has a significant aerial superiority.
@@Progamermove_2003 yeah only thearotical way I can think it kinda happend is that there were parts of the guns and some soldiers decidet to put them together. But thats just a speculation and it probly didnt happen
I have two Mosins myself. A Tula made in 1942, and a Izhevsk from 1943. Both are really rough compared to pre and post war Mosins, but that's extra history. There was a large stain along part of the Tula rifle from just in front of the magazine to about the sling eyelet. The stories i heard when I bought it claim it to be blood. I may have to see about testing it some day.
Wow, never expected anyone but Russians themselves to clarify the rumors and propaganda regarding Soviets, NKVD and Battle of Stalingrad. Even explained the order 227 “Not a Single Step Back.” Spot on! It feels like I’m listening to English translation of Russian documentary and records. You did spectacular research! Respect.
@@theonehappyorc1235 eh, what about me, am I so bad? I Just don’t want more Russians to die in a useless war being led by a man that doesn’t care about his people
@@theonehappyorc1235 Извините, русофобия - это просто неконтролируемая фобия. Страх перед русскими исходит из эволюции и ДНК в нашей генетике. У русских тоже была бы фобия или страх перед другими людьми, если бы существовала другая группа или орда людей, совершенно неудержимых и непревзойденных, обладающих силой стереть вашу цивилизацию и людей с лица планеты, если бы они захотели. Это довольно страшно, на самом деле очень страшно, если подумать. Итак, русофобия такая же, как и арахнофобия, люди просто естественно боятся опасных вещей, которые могут их убить, особенно вещей или людей, которые имеют силу стереть с лица планеты весь ваш народ и страну и совершенно бесподобны и неудержимы.
@@nicklibby3784неконтролируемая фобия? Да вы шутник, батя. Вы на полном серьёзе считаете, что если американца с момента его рождения полностью изолировать от общества и возможности познавать мир, то при виде русского он сразу же от ужаса в ступор впадет что ли? Мракобесие и бред.
closer to BOLLYWOOD on drugs lol. Only thing missing is the character doing flippy-kicky gay pseudo kung-fu dancing; twirling the Reich soldiers to death.
The boat scene was so worse than the rest. Crossing the Volga at day and not at night, rifle bullets from german Stukas, big smokey ships instead of smaller wooden boats, the train station right on the river shore, unarmed and untrained soldiers sent to battle, etc, etc, etc, everything was wrong. Note that Kruschev and General Chuikov's superior, General Yemerenko, crossed the Volga a couple of times to talk to Chuikov in person, so cross the river wasn't so dangerous like Hollywood thinks. And yes, the Red Army had anti-air guns on both sides of the river, as well as air support (yes, the soviets also had planes, MIG's and Sukhois didn't come out of nowhere in the 50's...) and since the mid september the Lufftwaffe lost the air superiority because most of their planes were sent to maintenance and they have a shortage of mechanical parts as well as fuel due to supplying issues.
actually its a well known Russophobic propagandist directing this. also anti-semite and anti-communist, so basically the worst person ever to make a war movie about this topic.
The Ju-87 Stuka was strafing with 7.92mm. rifle calibre bullets, so the movie is 100% accurate regarding effects here. The Soviet IL-2 Stormovik strafed with 12.7mm. & 14.5mm. AP bullets, which do a massive amount of injury to whatever they hit.
Early IL-2s used a mixture of weaponry which included, 7.62 ShVAS, 12.7mm Berezin UB(Defensive armament), 20mm ShVAK, 23mm VYa-23 and 37mm NS-37. 14.5mm KPVT were invented in 1949, 4 years after the second world war, and the only soviet weapon that used 14.5x114mm were PTRS and PTRD anti-tank rifles.
Spitfires and Hurricanes had .303s during the Battle of Britain. His airplane bullet comment has to be the silliest thing I've heard him say. He's generally really good.
If the Red Army had fought like what is depicted in the 1st part of this movie, the Germans would have taken the city in like 2 days! Seriously? The Red Army is doing its best impression of George Pickett's charge, but up the streets of Stalingrad? Did the filmmakers not understand anything about how real war works? Thanks for the video. Your expressions made me grin, because I can see your utter lack of belief and/or disgust of how history is ruined by this movie. CORRECTION: I was wrong about COD WAW, it really was COD 1 I should have said. Other stupid choices. Krushchev was a party person in Stalingrad yet the movie makes him one of the commanders. He wasn't. I was surprised that Chuikov wasn't in the movie as commander of 62nd Army. We did see FM Paulus, but you would only know it from the credits, and his headquarters were not out in the open as shown. This was a fight to the death, and after Operation Uranus, the 6th army was doomed. Von Manstein's 11th Army could not break through...................so many inaccuracies in this movie and not a lot of the "real" history. If you took away the historical origins of this movie, it is kind of an interesting sniper movie, but that doesn't excuse the nonsense at the start of the movie. The Russians were getting Lend-Lease and they were starting to really crank out war goods, so there was not a shortage of guns like is shown. The Germans were on the Volga, but only in spots by the 20th of September 1942. So many inaccuracies here..............sigh. They also tried to cross the Volga at night, due to Luftwaffe attacks.........on and on. And, going by the date stated at the start, Zhukov and other Soviet commanders would start to form the plan for Operation Uranus at the end of September 1942. See TIK's latest episode on Stalingrad (26) for an in depth discussion on this. Even if the 6th army took Stalingrad, there is no way they would have turned back Uranus.
In fact general pickett's charge was a lot more organized and was initially a march which turned into a charge when they neared the union line at cemetary ridge
Incorrect, the COD game with the "the man with the rifle shoot and the man without the rifle follows" is Call of duty 1. World at war had the sniper scenes in it, but none of the suicidal charges.
Also, the funny part is, the charge shown in the movie, which irl isn't at the same date than shown in the movie and neither did Zaitzev land then (he landed in a safe sector too), the Soviets won and were able to push back the Germans and prevented them to reach the volga in that sector by reinforcing the Soviet troops by quickly crossing more troops in the city.
@@angelsoffurtitude I'd like to think the World at War one wasn't a suicidal charge like in this movie but a failed counter attack in the square which led to significant casualties while on the retreat.
At 6:08 minor correction: the main machine gun in a Stuka dive bomber is actually an MG17 variant, so that is surprisingly accurate since they were chambered at 7.92
Glad to see several comments stating this. I too commented on this matter. And to be fair, it's surprising the movie didn't have the boat exploding to smithereens upon being hit by the rifle caliber bullets. Imagine if it was a Michael Bay movie.
There was a Russian who's farther was a veteran on my street and before he died he gave me a medal that looked just like that medal you showed while talking of the 13th
"When Germans shoot at Americans, storm trooper aiming..." In fairness though this was a battle in '42 when the German Heer was at its finest. That wasn't the case by '44 when the US and Nazi Germany really went at it. In fact, the US Army faced 2nd/3rd rate garrison forces that had been skimmed of their finest troops to feed the meat grinder in the east. These guys, except for maybe the 352nd and the usual paras and panzer truppen, spent way more time build fortifications than properly training, so oddly enough US troops in the west were somewhat superior to their German foes in basic troop quality. At least that was the case with the standard heer grenadier divisions in Normandy.
In fact in Normandy the British/commonwealth forces fought the most elite and armoured German divisions near Caen, while the Americans focused on breaking out had to fight mostly second rate troops.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD It was the 101st Airborn paratrooper division that took Caen. Those are US troops of higher than average quality. Perhaps check your sources more carefully next time.
I recommend to read 'Vassili Grossman - Stalingrad' to have a understanding of the period before and during the the war. You just can't understand history and current happening by watching some movies and Propaganda by media. I was myself in Bosnia in '97 and later at the University the professors teached untrue things based on journalists who went on patrol with us. The thing is.. it was always a just an organised tour from the Press officer and we were instructed before. It was theatre.
I had no idea about the myth of order 227. So all these movies and video games never got it right ? I genuinely thought that order 227 was actually an order to shoot retreating soldiers from the battlefield I learnt something today
The order actually includes a part on the blocking detachments (which is what you describe) but they where rarely used and when they where they mostly detained the men, sent them back in their unit or if it was more serious on penal battalions and rarely shot. They didn't have the capability to shoot indiscriminately. It's common sense that that wouldn't help at all.
I just read Anthony beevor book's on Stalingrad and the order was focused on both sides (officers and soldiers) he also says that soldiers indeed get shot from retreating or surrender and officers get downgraded from rank and get sent to penal battalions but he didnt mentioned that officers established order on retreating soldiers from mass rout
You'd be surprised how much disinfo there is on the USSR especially the Stalin era. It's basically entire libraries of lies/exaggerations like this to justify the Cold War and suppression of domestic Communists
@@ACM1PT95 Maybe British historians are not the most impartial interpreters of Soviet history? Case in point; Beevor is one of the people responsible for popularizing the meme of raping Soviet troops in Germany, something most people know about on account of that and it's many media depictions. Yet only very few people are aware that the Brits and also Americans did plenty of mass raping of their own in Germany, because you won't see US/British historians making that much of a topic at all, to learn about that you have to dive into overwhelmingly German language sources which usually do not see NYT bestseller books and Hollywood movies made out of them.
I think this myth of order 227 actually comes from the Korean war. In the Korean War U.S. soldiers witnessed retreating Chinese soldiers get gunned down by Chinese commissars with submachine guns and there would be times when waves of soldiers would attack where some men only had 5 rounds of ammunition in one hand and a knife in the other. The events depicted in Enemy at the Gates mirrors more of these Korean war stories than what the actual history of the battle of Stalingrad and order 227 tells us.
Interesting fact, the whole mass rush tactic did exist for the Soviet Union, HOWEVER, It was only used for what were called Shrafbats or as you may famously know as Penal Battalions.
Source? To my knowledge while penal battalions were sent on the more dangerous assignments they were not used for literal human wave tactics. On a whole they only happened in desparation and outside the norm.
@@XMysticHerox Source is my great grandfather. He was captured in Ukraine at 16 during ww2 (he was fighting Germans and Russians) and was forced to rush German guns with no weapons but somehow survived, and made his way up the ranks and out of the rush battalion. He was later wounded near Yugoslavia when he was a commander of an anti-tank gun. There is an eye witness source for you.
Nice to see some historical fact checking ;) I like this movie, but as brutal and bloody the eastern front was, especially for the Soviet side, realistic accounts of the battle do not depict chaos, terror or lack of resources in the Red Army like the movie does.. especially in 42, when they had stopped the invasion the year before at Moscow and Rzhev, and rebooted their war effort, helped by the landlease program, and had time to correctly train their massive reserves, plan their counter-offensives rationally, and under the command of talented generals such as Zhukov, Rokossovky or Koniev. A fearful, terrorized and under-supplied army just thrown into a meatgrinder would'nt have stopped then defeated the German army as they did!!
@@An_Cummanach yes and no. If you study the situation a bit closer, the chances of being in a infantry fire fight without a weapon during ww1 was really small. Most of the troopers who did not get their issued weapons yet where kept in the training regiments. The ones who got sent to an active regiment tended to be assigned to non combat roles and waited for their assigned weapons to come in. Sure there was times when some of them ended up in combat, but that was rare and far between.
Your so right bout the music in Enemy at the Gates being very epic. Actually one of my all time favorite movie soundtracks!! The "Tania Theme". I just love it!!
"When the one with the rifle dies, the one with the bullets has to fumble around trying to pick up the gun off of his dead comrade's corpse, who might have landed on it or have a deathgrip on it, then loads the bullets into it while under fire, then he can shoot!"
This movie is what every single person refers to every single time when they talk about Russian army past or present. It’s crazy how many people just blindly believe it when there’s so much access to information right in the same device they’re looking at now. People still our stuff is always the best because it costs so much more than Russia’s stuff. Ours costs so much more because we the tax payer are being fleeced to line the pockets of the few. While citizen and soldier suffer alike.
As you being a Young Man, I find you extremely Knowledgeable about the topics you speak on, You are witty and make me laugh at times as well. You do Well at your youtube thing, I wish you all the success you can have.
Thank you. I always suspected that the movie version is not quite accurate. Although I am not an investigative journalist, I base my opinion on human nature. So, it would not make sense for the NKVD to kill their own soldiers a-la banzai method, specially when their own soldiers can later kill them (they carry weapons, they'd have to be constantly taking weapons away from them, that would be nuts, specially during war). This kind of psychological thinking about movies of all types is recurrent in my thinking, such as, for example, why not carry two or more weapons that are fully loaded, so as to not have to reload so often.....or constantly be on the lookout for food and related other gear (cannibalizing stuff) etc... Thank you. This does not mean I believe all of your commentaries but at least its refreshing to see someone make some apparently normalizing psychological profile of what was occurring. I am not an expert.
5:35 "Bullets from airplanes are way bigger than your typical bullet for you rifle". It is true, when you talk about american planes with .50 cal M2 Browning machine guns, but the Ju-87 that showed here had a 7,9 mm MG-17 7,9 mm machine gun. Exact the same caliber as a Mauser 98k rifle.
The planes, Ju-87's, attacking the boats had 2 forward-firing 8mm (7.92mm to be exact) machine guns. This was the same cartridge used in the K98, the standard German rifle of WW2. Yes, there were Ju-87's with 37mm guns but they were not added until 1943, after this battle. Were Russian soldiers shot by their own officers & commissars? Yes, but not as depicted in the movie. Officers & commissars were often shot by their commanders for failing to meet their battle objectives. The USSR did not have a shortage of men. But they did have a shortage of train men in 1942.
I really liked your take and the information you gave on what really happened in the battle. Tbh this movie pissed me off because of all the inaccuracies.
18:00 Order 227 only sanctions unauthorized withdrawals, that is, it forbids a commander to issue a withdrawal order without first asking and gaining permission from higher echelons of command. It was enforced, and commanders who did order a withdrawal without permission were shot no questions asked. Even Chuikov was once suspected that he moved his headquarters across Volga without permission (which he did not, his headquarters were basically at the very frontline, many of his staff officers killed in artillery strikes, himself being at least once buried alive). NKVD blocking detachments did exist and they did have orders to shoot retreating units, but they were only deployed in the back of penal battalions, units made of "criminals" (understanding that this is quite a broad term in the USSR), people that would otherwise be shot so they were expendable, and the missions which these battalions were sent to could be considered pretty much suicidal (such as the charge from "Enemy at the Gates"). However, units that were deployed in Stalingrad were in a sense elite units, so although I don't know for sure, I consider very unlikely that there were any penal battalions in Stalingrad.
Many compliments for your historical description of the events of the Stalingrad 's battle, correpting the sensationalism of the film At the end of your video you show a book on that event: I couldn't read the title, because you held it away from the camera, for a few seconds Could you please mention the title, because I m interested on it Best regards from Italy
Your comments and research are pretty good, the research is solid, I would say one small nuance : don't underestimate the fear and chaos of WWII, sometimes when you see officers pulling soliders and pushing them somewhere, it's not because they were disorganized, it's not because they were cattle or were sent clueless and without weapon, in fact the soviet was very well organized and the soviet soldiers were even more 'efficient" and cold-blooded than the germans. But sometimes it was simply because some soldiers were experiencing a "shock paralysis" or just the view of the horror in front of them that would make some of them completely loose hope or motivaton to go. That happened a lot in some battles, specially the ones where very young soldiers were brought (guys under 20 sometimes 18) and also because most of the time, for a big part of them, it was their FIRST battle, so when they arrived, it was the first thing they would see, straight from their peaceful countryside. So yeah, pretty much all what you said is true, but there's also many cases of soldiers that are shocked, paralyzed from fear or falls in desperation when they arrived on the battlefield, simply because both WWI and WWII were the most violent wars ever seen in history and that's why they caused dozens of millions of deaths. There's a reason why both of these wars are called, in many countries from different authors, in all kind of literature, in all languages : hell Always keep in mind that no matter how good an army is, it's composed of humans, not robots, they can have feelings, they can be traumatized etc... When you watch of footage of veterans of the WWI, some of them are completely traumatized, not just mentally, but even physically, they loose their capacity to speak, to walk, sometimes to recognized their relatives... Besides that tiny detail, as you say it in the video, the soviet army didn't any issue of production or having weapons or anything like that, they were well equiped The biggest issue of the soviet army was ironically its biggest strenght : a too big army Too many soldiers to coordinate, to move around, to transport etc...
Actually majority of Axis aircraft such as the Stuka used a General purpose machine gun shooting the 8mm rifle round. German planes typically didn’t have cannons or big caliber rounds like the American aircraft. Of course they’re exceptions.
@@historylegends also read different accounts where German troops used explosive tipped 8mm against the Russians on the Eastern Front. All comes down to the sources. The Soviet Forces actually were very disciplined soldiers and fought well. The German forces completely miscalculated the will and power of the Red Army.
At 6:36 men... I didn't know the soviets had the technology of an auto regenerating ammo revolver that could shoot more than 6 bullets. Also the "No step backwards order" if i'm correct was not only ordered during the battle (post first attack) but also it was targeted to officers not NCOs or low ranking soldiers. A better depiction of this attack is portrayed in the game Call Of Duty Finest hour, where they attack more organized, at night and on boats
How young you look in this video man! You are my favorite youtuber... always hoping that u came up with a biger amount of content. !Abrazo de trinchera!
The makers of the film must have taken inspiration from Antoinette's Beaver to portray the Soviets. First off, the Soviets were still fighting hard inside Stalingrad and had retained most of the river crossings, and Mamaev Kurgan, which was briefly taken over by the Germans, was also taken back. And the Germans would use mostly artillery fire to target the boats carrying Soviet reinforcements into the city across the Volga. On the East Bank, the Soviets had kept their anti-air units, heavy artillery and the Katyusha Rockets, while the Germans used Luftwaffe mostly in the cities. There are a lot of inaccuracies in the film, mostly motivated by anglo propaganda.
2:34 soviets wouldn’t really wear helmets, they would more often wear ushankas or pilotkas, my great grandfather who fought on the soviet army said the same thing, it was seen as cowardly to wear it
During the large battles of the American Revolution groups similar to NKVD were stationed behind the Continental Army front lines to stop retreats. And yes, they would shoot retreating soldiers if necessary to stop them. I don't know if the British did the same thing, but it seems likely.
I think some parts of America was still feeling the after affect of the Red Scare. And that's why the Russians are being portrayed they way they are in this movie.
Very interesting to see this ,can easily be fooled by Hollywood,but some of these things didn't happen like giving out rifles and some only having ammo handed to the soldiers,glad to be enlightened even though I like this film it's quite enjoyable,thanks mate of history legends 👍🏼👍🏼
I've always thought this scene from Enemy at the Gates was intended to show the audience the kind of desperate situation that the Soviet Union faced in 1941. I've read descriptions of the battle of Vyazma that talked of Soviet soldiers attacking with only the front rank armed. By Stalingrad, the situation was much better, but the feeling of desperation, that the country was on the verge of defeat and collapse, was very much present. For the average American or Western audience, they may not know how desperate those 1941 battles were, so I feel like the intention of this scene (from the train onward) is to portray the urgency and desperation, by showing this Stalingrad attack as though it was part of one of the great encirclement battles of Barbarossa. That kind of attack DID happen in WW2, just not at Stalingrad.
the siege of Vyasma was a defense from the Soviets and later and fight to break out of encirclement they was regular soldiers and well-armed for the beginning of the war. later on, there were suicidal attacks from the Soviets during Operation Mars(front Rzhev-Sychyovka-Vyazma) but those were newly formed and equipped troops from the east. there were human wave attacks like portrayed in the movie but it was due to lack of heavy equipment as the battle of Stalingrad was raging on in the south and inflexible, outdated infantry tactics combined with an incompetent and inexperient command, but all the troops were armed with Riffle and light mortal but no tanks, guns air support.
The original intention was to portray the Soviet army as winning using sheer weight of numbers. And endless horde tactics. This whole thing is lifted from guderians memoirs on the war where he described fighting the soviets like a rock In an endless sea of Slavic hordes.
NKVD, as the military police, in fact always fight in the front. When the frontline commander is lack of troops, they will push up the NKVD since they are at least equipped and soldiers. The NKVD shooting their own comrades part is so stupid, since the Red Army was lack of manpower in Stalingrad, especially as those who already crossed. Why do they shoot these retreating soldiers and help the Germans? Even the Red Square battle in the movie is true. The fleeing soldiers will only retreat as far as the river bank, since there is no way they can cross the river by their own. Then why do not let them retreat and regroup them? The previous crossing sense just showed the emergency to get as many soldiers as possible to cross the river, and the battle sense just destroyed all of it. It is pretty ironic and the movie has no logic at all.
Fine analyses. All this film is depicted is anti-communism propaganda. The "no one step back" order for exemple is misinterpreted by the Western side after the war probably for propaganda reasons. They also alleged soviet POWs were imprisoned to goulag after their liberation, which is a total fake. An other fake is the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-agression pact depicted as a alliance which was not the case.
How exactly did the troops in Stalingrad know exactly that only half of new arrivals would receive a rifle? Especially considering how the germans kept attacking the troops crossing the river? Say you had 108 rifles and 220 new arrivals. What exactly would the final 4 guys do? Or worse you had 108 rifles and 90 arrivals because the germans had been unusually good at sinking your boats. Better question. Why not simply equipp your new recruits with rifles outside of Stalingrad so when they cross the river they were already armed.That way they could also attempt to engage aircraft attacking them. So many questions.🤔
This movie single-handedly shaped how at least two generations are thinking about the Soviet army in WW2. I can hear this unarmed soldier concept from literally everywhere.
Приветствую автора данного канала. К сожалению я не знаю английского языка. Так что пришлось воспользоваться переводчиком ютуба. Надеюсь он не слишком сильно исказил ваши слова. Было интересно услышать вас как иностранца и как историка. Фильм Враг у ворот. Это фильм с большими искажениями, и это не удивительно снимали то американцы которые явно далеки от истории советского союза. Что не говори но идеологический подтекст на мой взгляд никуда не денешь. И эти натяжки искажения возможно были допущены намеренно что бы показать советский союз не с хорошей стороны. Но к сожалению антисоветская риторика на событий того времени и того государство СССР, теперь не только веет с запада, но с конца 80-х теперь она укоренена и в России и в остальных постсоветских странах. Каждый раз у нас в стране снимают нелепые фильмы о войне которые якобы сделаны "по секретны документам" однако на проверку эти фильмы оказываются жуткой дрянью. Только из редко делают фильмы без антисоветского подтекста. СССР уже нет более 30 лет, но многим из власть имущих не даёт покоя успехи и достижения СССР. Что не говори а капитализм со страх смотрит на возможное возвращение Советского союза. И потому и льются на историю СССР тонны недосказанности , преувеличении и откровенной лжи.
The film is totally insane. I have lots of criticism towards the Soviet Army but it was definitely far better than showed in the film - and I despise the way the Russians are shown in the film - even Nazis look more human than these caricatures for men and women uttering slogans and being treated like animals. Not real Russians. As regards the Volga crossing - this was mostly done at nights for obvious reasons (although emergency day crossings also happened but in this case Russians were at least trying to cover them with smoke).
16:55 well of course in most films portraying the Soviets it just mass hordes so of course the Germans are going to hit, while in movies portraying the West they are in squads and are behind cover, also besides films from the 50s-60s(with some exceptions) I have yet to see any WW2 movie that portrays the Germans as Star Wars Stormtroopers.
My father served in army, he said that the quality was ass. Cars were made so badly that they would leak oil and use 20-25l of gasoline. Basically anything was poorly made because it would be made in mass production because of plan economy and no one cared about quality, all you had to do is to make it as fast as possible, that's the only requirement but since everyone was paid hourly, there was no intention to do anything fast really so a lot of workers drank at work
@@01iverQueen I don't think the planned economy and government in your father's time didn't care about the quality of life, goods and weapons. As far as I know, life in the 60s and 70s was the best.
This movie absolutely enraged me when it came out. I basically see it as thinly veiled Nazi propaganda. But over the last twenty years Russian filmmakers have repeated all of its disgusting tropes, and even worse. From Mikhalkov's Burnt by the Sun 2 to Bondarchuk's Stalingrad to whatever ****head made 'Onward to Paris'.
If you would like to see more HistoryLegends videos, consider supporting me on Patreon:
► www.patreon.com/thehistorylegends
I call bullshit. You know as well as anybody else the prisoners were cannon fodder
Your comment at the beginning about playing this in a Call of Duty is correct. The game you are talking about is Call of Duty: Finest Hour, I think.
Sorry but I disagree with you regarding American soldiers and shitty aim of Germans in Hollywood films. Anyone who saw the film saving Private Ryan and many others which proceeded it, can tell you that's bs. Yes, in the past Hollywood films did that. But that was before the era of gritty realism in war films from the 90's onward replaced the over patriotic bull that pervaded war films early on.
It's not misconception - it's propaganda. Overall in the west the picture painted of the Soviet Union is more and more in line with it being just as bad if not worse than the 3. Reich and we slowly reach the line in which Hitler becomes the defender against the evil Russian Empire.
It's not an error - it's on purpose. No one is that dumb to spread this awful 'misconcept' by mistake.
They especially love to show that soviet soldier were shot in the back, that's one of the stories they like to tell the most, that the evil SU send its people to certain death and just shoot everyone who tried to flee.
That this war was against an enemy with the plan of total annihilation who had already mass murdered million CIVILIANS(!) - nah, that's not so important.
Give it some years and they will tell, that it was Stalin who just killed those ~27 million by being an "evil Russian" (even though he's Georgian...).
The person advocated for usage of the “hugging with your enemy” tactics and probably the one who coined this term was commander of 62nd army Vasiliy Chuikov.
There's only two historically accurate parts in the movie,
1. Soviets and Germans fought a battle in Stalingrad.
2. There was a sniper named Wassily.
HAHAHA
*Vasilyi
Vassili
And Ron Pearlman was there with aluminium teeth
Weasly*
Soviet troops went into the city armed. I think the writers got confused with the Russian Army in 1914.
Hahahhaha , Love you remembering the bolsheviks marching
@@slavicmapper2968 bolsheviks marching? In 1914?? What are you talking about??
Even Russian Army in 1914 are still decently equipped, let alone a country with an industrial production that surpassed Germany
@@Sodapop-rd5ku I was referring to the Imperial Russian Army under the command of Tsar Nicholas II at least until he was deposed
@@Max13Mad I think he’s referring to Trotsky and the early Revolution, which took place on 1905.
As it was the same Revolutionaries and idealists that would go on to create the later Revolution.
Vasily Zaitsev's widow Zinaida on the movie Enemy At The Gates: "Vasily is changed completely in the movie. They showed blatant lies. Vasily would have never go as low as doing the things he does in the movie".
I wonder what she was talking about in regards to "low". Was it the sex scene? 😂that is typical Hollywood.
@@lastword8783 damn what a shame because that was the only good scene in the movie
sadly her protest is irrelevant, what relevant is how much money holywood could cash in from this movie
The scene was so cringe, it is clear example of Holywoodization in order to please mass audience. It has no place in the movie.
Don't forget this piece of garb*ge movie got eventually banned, or a limited release in Russia, because, it caused so much outrage with the inaccurate portrayal of Stalingrad and Red Army soldiers. Especially, offending veterans who were still alive, relatives and historians knowing much about the battle.
Funny how the troops making the assault seem to have almost no weapons or ammo, but the blocking division set up to stop them from running has tons of both.
American propaganda and still going on
Soviet blocking shots with their heads like Rocky blocked punches from Drago with his head in Rocky IV. Nothing new!
@@Amen.ahmed1 nope out of date info.
That's how it worked, really.
@@Amen.ahmed1what political gain did the directors get for making this so called “propaganda”
Could it not possibly just be poor historical insight in an attempt to make an entertaining flick?
Its crazy that this movie is So popular that it created a myth!
The myth already existed, this movie just made it 1000× more popular.
The myth was created in ww2 by the Germans, for a legit reason too. The most famous Soviet SMG of the war, the PPSH-41 had a couple of flaws. The first is that it was a damn bullet hose. It fired so quickly that their drum mags of 71 rounds could be completely emptied in less than 20 seconds. It was so fast that stick magazines weren't even worthwhile, you'd blow through ammo too quickly. The obvious solution is to just carry more drums, but there was another problem. Most drum magazines were paired to a specific gun. So a PPSH-41 made in one factory might not be able to use the same magazines as another one, using each soldier might only have two or three magazines they could use at all. So, it was very common for resupply runners to carry crates of 7.62x25 ammo up to the frontlines instead of bringing weapons, because they'd be running right back to get another ammo batch while the submachine gunners reloaded their magazines. This was compounded by the fact that in Leningrad, it wasn't unheard of for guns to be constructed and sent in the hands of a soldier right into combat outside the factory door. These soldiers also needed ammo brought to them as they took their guns straight from the factory floor and into combat.
German, Finnish, and Romanian soldiers saw red army soldiers running around with ammo crates and no guns, and just joked that the Russians must not have enough guns for everyone. It got turned into propaganda, and was later used as fact in the book Stalingrad: Enemy at the Gates, after which the movie was named and copied many ideas, and the movie writers did almost no fact checking
It was the designation of that movie... To dishonour soviet army... By the way no germans were killed except that ones killed by the sniper Zaytsev... Its total propaganda and an insult to the russians whose grandparents were fighting through this war with the most advanced army in the world, which destroyed united allies army in 1940 just in a few months...
@@gnas1897 myth based on russian losses. 6-7 million losses of germans and allys vs 28 millions of soviets. but propaganda forgetting to mention that 20 mill were unarmed civilians.
the myth existed beforehand... it literally started as nazi propaganda. these people are believing nazi propaganda and memoirs in current year. its pathetic
Call of duty and Hollywood in general always the Russians are to blame and all the villains are they.
it's especially funny to watch their films about Russians, we really laugh at how they portray us, for us it's a comedy.
But most of them believe in what they see, and it's sad.
This is a French movie if I remember correctly
@@nastynate4916 yeah the director is French with British actors with bad Russian accents.
No one serious about history actually believes the movie is accurate.
From Poland: I found this movie strange and only partially convincing as a result of these stupidities. One rifle per two? C'mon. No army in the world fought like that. This shot-up running attack, and the Germans being so obviously prepared? How would they know the attack is coming? Etc., etc. .... Another movie with incredible scenes and overall well played, but this "tactics" stuff so overblown and distorted that it's hard to watch without incredulity.
Actually an army did fight like that.
The imperial army of tsarist Russia
@@An_Cummanach one of the reasons revolution happened
This is EXACTLY how the Russian army fought in 1914-1917, due to a shortage of rifles. The Germans also 'knew the attack was coming' cause it had been coming at the same time every day for nearly a month straight, and was announced by the blasts of 100 whistles and shouting Russians "URA!"
@@weeboftheleft5113 thats not true, read about Brusilov in WW1
@@weeboftheleft5113how do you know that it is true about 1914-1917 westerners have never given any credits to the Russians. The Russians weren’t prepared in 1914 like most European countries like France during WW2 but they didn’t sent soldiers with no guns that doesn’t make any sense not now not then. Same with the war now in Ukraine western media said the Russians were fighting with shovels i kid you not 🤨🤪🤪
Thank you for yet another excellent video. I am glad you discussed this topic, as Soviet Army stalingrad veterans were outraged when this movie was shown to them back in the mid-2000s.
My grandfather fought in the battle, and what he described was the opposite of what they showed in this movie; they didn't have a shortage of weapons, it's a shortage of men that they had faced at the time.
If I may ask, what your grandfather meant by the shortage of men?
I know that the Soviets outnumbered the Germans, so what caused this shortage at the frontline?
@@Progamermove_2003 they couldn't mobilize on time because they lost a great deal of territory and had to evacuate, plus a great deal of troops to the initial blitzkrieg. They only managed to match the Germans numerically by around 1943 when all the logistics were sorted out and fresh troops from Siberia arrived, but until then they faced a massive disadvantage in manpower.
By the time of Stalingrad, the Soviets used smaller sections and abandoned the mass charges of 1941. I don' t think Enemy At The Gates does the Soviets much justice.
enemy at the gate is a trash movie
@@NotTheLastOne It's the inna curacies which make it worse. By the Summer of 1942 the Red Army had plenty of weapons and it was learning how to avoid mass German encirclements. The Soviets in Enemy At the Gates is more like the Russian Army of 1914. A ludicrous assumption. Not a great film in any sense.
@@jasonmussett2129 all in all it is a misleading product
@@NotTheLastOne Totally agree. The 1993 German movie Stalingrad is so much better. Check it out.
@The_Jaguar_ Knight Yes that is very true. I think the attitude of the Soviet High Command was ' throw as many as we can into the fight, some will get through.
It is important to note that a lot of the myths portrayed in this scene come from German accounts of the war. Mostly by generals trying to justify their loss in the war. Unfortunately not a lot of military history came out of the USSR until the late 80's so many of these myths have found their way into fact.
bruh, imagine trying to justify your loss by telling your commanders that the enemy doesn't have guns and they just send human waves at you.. hol' up.. kinda same shit in Ukraine right now, Russians fighting with shovels.
Yes and no. German officers were looking for comfy NATO positions post war and exaggerated their experiences to make them seem more valuable. At the same time the USSR didn't want to take away the impression that it was an inexhaustible uber power ready to throw hundreds of millions of people into faces of an under strength West.
@@4X10SWait so you're saying Ukrainian well equipped infantry are losing to shovel infantry?
That's a bit embarrassing for both of them
Patton said never walk new recruits past dead or dying, wounded soldiers.
Interesting
Interesting indeed. I find Patton's quote "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity" to be my favorite. Sink or swim is how I see that.
Thats not a principle that could apply to stalingrad tho
That first mission on that old school Cod is 🏆🏆🏆
@@historyandpoliticsexplaine4876 sex’s
6:10 about the bullets uses by stukas, theese are 7.92 mm mg so the machinegun bullets showed in the movie are realistic, the german veteran should have been hit by a .50cal (12.7mm) this caliber had see a lot use in the allied planes, british planes have 20mm so i don’t think somebody can survive a 20mm shell in the lung, anyway great job for you video :D
Thank you for the clarification!
I doubt you can survive a .50 cal either ... the exit wound caused by a 12.7 mm bullet is huge (you can stick your fist through one)... Spitfires and Hurricanes had .303 (about 7.7 mm) machine guns either as main guns or as aiming aids for heavier guns... Surviving a 7.7 mm is just as possible as surviving a 7.62mm (considering that most weapons in WW2 were of similar calibers)
Yeah the later version of stukas did have 20mm later changed to ground hunting 37mm but that was a bit later :P
Stukas were equipped with pretty much anything ranging from 7.92mm all the way to 37mm. Yea likely 7.92mm since this was still fairly early war.
By 1941 they were starting to field the Stuka 87D which had 20mm cannons, but those were designed for anti armour missions and fielded in very limited numbers. They certainly wouldn't be using them to strafe a bunch of open topped dinghies.
People tend to believe that the Soviets were a bunch of mismanaged farmers and whilst this isn’t far from the truth the Soviets were far more structured than people give them credit for. Because war isn’t just about shooting as many enemies but is also a war of logistics, if you can organize and then reorganize an army as well as successfully set up a stable support network then you can beat the enemy (most of the time) a great example would be he African campaign where incompetent or dogmatic commanders would ignore the needs of logistics as well as adapting to new situations, vs the more flexible and capable Germans. But as soon as a solid supply line was established and aid from America in the form of tanks and supplies the British started to gain the upper hand, and whilst the British are credited with the main battle tank conceit it’s actually the Soviets who pioneered the universal tank concept with the T34 series
Germans thought that abt the soviets and the soviets tought that abt the finns
@@turturek69 Fun fact: The Finns sued for peace in the Winter War and had to agree to harsher terms than the soviet union demanded before the war started. The soviets wanted some territory that was strategically important and they got it, if they wanted to annex Finland they could have.
What IS true, however, is that they lost an amount of troops that far outstripped the amount that they expected. The territory they gained ended up not being important because Nazi Germany didn't invade through scandinavia.
Calling Soviets farmers is like calling the Vietnamese farmers, except this time, they actually are.
@@imatreebelieveme6094 I highly doubt that it would have ended with a single ultimatum since the Soviets showed interest in restoring Russian Empire borders with the Baltics and Finland. On top of that, the area they wanted from Finland held the only defensive line Finland had in that small strip of land that acted as the gateway to the capital of Finland, Helsinki.
@@irkkunen4933 but fins lost the winter war and the continuation war, also they started the winter war by getting allied with germany and invading parts of northern small parts of USSR
Small side note, the machine guns coming off of a Stuka were actually firing the same round as the German machine guns on the ground. Granted they did actually have more energy as they were firing from a moving target, but they were the same rounds.
Just commented the same thing. I'm glad I'm not the only one.
But the fire rate was wrongly depicted in the movie. Those are MG 17s
with 1100rpm
@@kanyewhite429 Man, the firing rate of aeroplanes is depicted wrong in every Hollywood film ever. It gets worse with modern planes. Just look at Top Gun or Stealth. It's like they're firing 9mm submachine guns. Hollywood in general has hard time acknowledge the existence of autocannons.
If anything a more accurate depiction of Stalingrad would be like the last battle in Saving Private Ryan; Soviets holding position in a congested urban environment with not just street to street fighting but room to room. General Chuikov who was in charge of Stalingrad's defense had his units fight close quarters combat with the Germans to make their air cover less effective. If they tried fighting in the open and at a distance they would just be pounded into the dirt by the Luftwaffe.
YEs, in a way you're right!
Maybe even like Black Hawk Down. The heavy and brutal urban combat aspect for sure.
Also the soviets thought that they were Superior in melee ( they probaly were )
@@vinz4066 mongol wrestling my dude
@Walker @patriot enfield
And sharpened spades
I always recall a conversation that i have with a former soviet navy captain how's dad fought in stalingrad and his uncle saw some action in Leningrad, he told me that the only unarmed red soldiers there was either due to being trasnfered to a penal battalion, a practice that was abandoned really quickly and soldiers who lost they equipment while crossing the volga, to him Hollywood just took some stories told by german soldiers and some misconceptions of the soviet organization to make a film with no intention to ask te already available soviet veterans, which is a shame, cuz many of the histories from the Battle of Stalingrad are just amazing, the most amazing part was that both of our uncles fought in the battle of Krasny Bor, but in different sides of the battle, sometimes reality if far more incredible than fiction
Why ask when you can portray Russians in how is expected from Hollywood?
It was 2001, so opinion, that Russians -is just a civilised barbarian, who wins war just by masses, not by some kind of intelligent thought, was very prevalent in media. So much so, that even in Russia there this guy, Nikita Mikhalkov, producer, that made films that's fully based on these misconception.
@@Theeight8b Oh, don't get me started on Mikhalkov. Such a brilliant actor, such a corrupt mind.
@@zloychechen5150 And such a bullshit director.
If you didn't know, dear reader, one reason of many that the city of Stalingrad was defended so vociferously is that it had a weapons manufacturing factory that continued to produce ppsh smgs during the entire battle. They would at times be taken directly to the frontlines from the finishing shop.
So while it's cinematic to have an every other soldier rifle distribution, the Soviets did not want for arms.
Multiple factories actually. They also had a couple ammo producers (both of 7.62 tokarev and 7.62x54), a tractor factory that produced many artillery pieces and military vehicles, and a steel plant that supplied tank manufacturers
Wasnt the power in stalingrad cut of?
@@ratatataget And the city itself was bombed to rubble. These "factories" might've been ad-hoc facilities with minimal advanced equipments.
Afterall, it's not easy to equip and supply millions of soldiers when your enemy has a significant aerial superiority.
@@Progamermove_2003 yeah only thearotical way I can think it kinda happend is that there were parts of the guns and some soldiers decidet to put them together. But thats just a speculation and it probly didnt happen
This guy is a legend at analyzing millitary historical stuff
Means a lot thank you!
@@historylegends lots of love from iran mate ;D
@@historylegends When you spoke about taking troops across at night what was that picture from?
Well he's channel is history legends soo....
When he said, "I remember playing this mission, one of the first Call of Duty's." right at the beginning. Yeah yeah...
I have two Mosins myself. A Tula made in 1942, and a Izhevsk from 1943. Both are really rough compared to pre and post war Mosins, but that's extra history. There was a large stain along part of the Tula rifle from just in front of the magazine to about the sling eyelet. The stories i heard when I bought it claim it to be blood. I may have to see about testing it some day.
Wow, never expected anyone but Russians themselves to clarify the rumors and propaganda regarding Soviets, NKVD and Battle of Stalingrad. Even explained the order 227 “Not a Single Step Back.”
Spot on! It feels like I’m listening to English translation of Russian documentary and records. You did spectacular research! Respect.
К сожалению, этот парень всё же западный и русофобия время от времени вываливается из него.
@@theonehappyorc1235 eh, what about me, am I so bad?
I Just don’t want more Russians to die in a useless war being led by a man that doesn’t care about his people
@@theonehappyorc1235 Извините, русофобия - это просто неконтролируемая фобия. Страх перед русскими исходит из эволюции и ДНК в нашей генетике. У русских тоже была бы фобия или страх перед другими людьми, если бы существовала другая группа или орда людей, совершенно неудержимых и непревзойденных, обладающих силой стереть вашу цивилизацию и людей с лица планеты, если бы они захотели.
Это довольно страшно, на самом деле очень страшно, если подумать. Итак, русофобия такая же, как и арахнофобия, люди просто естественно боятся опасных вещей, которые могут их убить, особенно вещей или людей, которые имеют силу стереть с лица планеты весь ваш народ и страну и совершенно бесподобны и неудержимы.
@@nicklibby3784неконтролируемая фобия? Да вы шутник, батя. Вы на полном серьёзе считаете, что если американца с момента его рождения полностью изолировать от общества и возможности познавать мир, то при виде русского он сразу же от ужаса в ступор впадет что ли? Мракобесие и бред.
God knows what those russians are saying
Even google can't tell
Boat scene is plausible to the landing, but the rest of the scene is Hollywood on drugs.
closer to BOLLYWOOD on drugs lol. Only thing missing is the character doing flippy-kicky gay pseudo kung-fu dancing; twirling the Reich soldiers to death.
boat scene not accurate aswell, they crossed during night since during day this would happen
The boat scene was so worse than the rest. Crossing the Volga at day and not at night, rifle bullets from german Stukas, big smokey ships instead of smaller wooden boats, the train station right on the river shore, unarmed and untrained soldiers sent to battle, etc, etc, etc, everything was wrong.
Note that Kruschev and General Chuikov's superior, General Yemerenko, crossed the Volga a couple of times to talk to Chuikov in person, so cross the river wasn't so dangerous like Hollywood thinks. And yes, the Red Army had anti-air guns on both sides of the river, as well as air support (yes, the soviets also had planes, MIG's and Sukhois didn't come out of nowhere in the 50's...) and since the mid september the Lufftwaffe lost the air superiority because most of their planes were sent to maintenance and they have a shortage of mechanical parts as well as fuel due to supplying issues.
They only cross the river during a night.
actually its a well known Russophobic propagandist directing this. also anti-semite and anti-communist, so basically the worst person ever to make a war movie about this topic.
The Ju-87 Stuka was strafing with 7.92mm. rifle calibre bullets, so the movie is 100% accurate regarding effects here.
The Soviet IL-2 Stormovik strafed with 12.7mm. & 14.5mm. AP bullets, which do a massive amount of injury to whatever they hit.
Early IL-2s used a mixture of weaponry which included, 7.62 ShVAS, 12.7mm Berezin UB(Defensive armament), 20mm ShVAK, 23mm VYa-23 and 37mm NS-37. 14.5mm KPVT were invented in 1949, 4 years after the second world war, and the only soviet weapon that used 14.5x114mm were PTRS and PTRD anti-tank rifles.
Spitfires and Hurricanes had .303s during the Battle of Britain. His airplane bullet comment has to be the silliest thing I've heard him say. He's generally really good.
If you get hit by 12.7 round you will have some limbs off
If the Red Army had fought like what is depicted in the 1st part of this movie, the Germans would have taken the city in like 2 days! Seriously? The Red Army is doing its best impression of George Pickett's charge, but up the streets of Stalingrad? Did the filmmakers not understand anything about how real war works? Thanks for the video. Your expressions made me grin, because I can see your utter lack of belief and/or disgust of how history is ruined by this movie. CORRECTION: I was wrong about COD WAW, it really was COD 1 I should have said.
Other stupid choices. Krushchev was a party person in Stalingrad yet the movie makes him one of the commanders. He wasn't. I was surprised that Chuikov wasn't in the movie as commander of 62nd Army. We did see FM Paulus, but you would only know it from the credits, and his headquarters were not out in the open as shown. This was a fight to the death, and after Operation Uranus, the 6th army was doomed. Von Manstein's 11th Army could not break through...................so many inaccuracies in this movie and not a lot of the "real" history. If you took away the historical origins of this movie, it is kind of an interesting sniper movie, but that doesn't excuse the nonsense at the start of the movie. The Russians were getting Lend-Lease and they were starting to really crank out war goods, so there was not a shortage of guns like is shown. The Germans were on the Volga, but only in spots by the 20th of September 1942. So many inaccuracies here..............sigh. They also tried to cross the Volga at night, due to Luftwaffe attacks.........on and on.
And, going by the date stated at the start, Zhukov and other Soviet commanders would start to form the plan for Operation Uranus at the end of September 1942. See TIK's latest episode on Stalingrad (26) for an in depth discussion on this. Even if the 6th army took Stalingrad, there is no way they would have turned back Uranus.
In fact general pickett's charge was a lot more organized and was initially a march which turned into a charge when they neared the union line at cemetary ridge
wokeywood logic
Incorrect, the COD game with the "the man with the rifle shoot and the man without the rifle follows" is Call of duty 1.
World at war had the sniper scenes in it, but none of the suicidal charges.
Also, the funny part is, the charge shown in the movie, which irl isn't at the same date than shown in the movie and neither did Zaitzev land then (he landed in a safe sector too), the Soviets won and were able to push back the Germans and prevented them to reach the volga in that sector by reinforcing the Soviet troops by quickly crossing more troops in the city.
@@angelsoffurtitude I'd like to think the World at War one wasn't a suicidal charge like in this movie but a failed counter attack in the square which led to significant casualties while on the retreat.
At 6:08 minor correction: the main machine gun in a Stuka dive bomber is actually an MG17 variant, so that is surprisingly accurate since they were chambered at 7.92
Glad to see several comments stating this. I too commented on this matter. And to be fair, it's surprising the movie didn't have the boat exploding to smithereens upon being hit by the rifle caliber bullets. Imagine if it was a Michael Bay movie.
There was a Russian who's farther was a veteran on my street and before he died he gave me a medal that looked just like that medal you showed while talking of the 13th
5:40
My grandpa was hit (1940 Netherlands) by a stuka in a train in his lower and the wound was the size of its own hand
in his lower what?
"When Germans shoot at Americans, storm trooper aiming..."
In fairness though this was a battle in '42 when the German Heer was at its finest. That wasn't the case by '44 when the US and Nazi Germany really went at it. In fact, the US Army faced 2nd/3rd rate garrison forces that had been skimmed of their finest troops to feed the meat grinder in the east. These guys, except for maybe the 352nd and the usual paras and panzer truppen, spent way more time build fortifications than properly training, so oddly enough US troops in the west were somewhat superior to their German foes in basic troop quality. At least that was the case with the standard heer grenadier divisions in Normandy.
In fact in Normandy the British/commonwealth forces fought the most elite and armoured German divisions near Caen, while the Americans focused on breaking out had to fight mostly second rate troops.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD you sure?
@@fries3187 Yep I am sure and so are historical records.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD It was the 101st Airborn paratrooper division that took Caen. Those are US troops of higher than average quality. Perhaps check your sources more carefully next time.
@@hunterpayne6167 Sure you ain't got Caen confused for Carentan.
Only UK and Canadian forces actually attacked Caen.
You should definetly review the Stalingrad movie german perspective from the 90s
Dude thanks for correcting those misconceptions
I recommend to read 'Vassili Grossman - Stalingrad' to have a understanding of the period before and during the the war. You just can't understand history and current happening by watching some movies and Propaganda by media. I was myself in Bosnia in '97 and later at the University the professors teached untrue things based on journalists who went on patrol with us. The thing is.. it was always a just an organised tour from the Press officer and we were instructed before. It was theatre.
Can you tell us what was your experience in Bosnian and what journalist got wrong.? I am very interested in your story
I had no idea about the myth of order 227. So all these movies and video games never got it right ? I genuinely thought that order 227 was actually an order to shoot retreating soldiers from the battlefield I learnt something today
The order actually includes a part on the blocking detachments (which is what you describe) but they where rarely used and when they where they mostly detained the men, sent them back in their unit or if it was more serious on penal battalions and rarely shot. They didn't have the capability to shoot indiscriminately. It's common sense that that wouldn't help at all.
The Order was mostly aimed at Officers
I just read Anthony beevor book's on Stalingrad and the order was focused on both sides (officers and soldiers) he also says that soldiers indeed get shot from retreating or surrender and officers get downgraded from rank and get sent to penal battalions but he didnt mentioned that officers established order on retreating soldiers from mass rout
You'd be surprised how much disinfo there is on the USSR especially the Stalin era. It's basically entire libraries of lies/exaggerations like this to justify the Cold War and suppression of domestic Communists
@@ACM1PT95 Maybe British historians are not the most impartial interpreters of Soviet history?
Case in point; Beevor is one of the people responsible for popularizing the meme of raping Soviet troops in Germany, something most people know about on account of that and it's many media depictions.
Yet only very few people are aware that the Brits and also Americans did plenty of mass raping of their own in Germany, because you won't see US/British historians making that much of a topic at all, to learn about that you have to dive into overwhelmingly German language sources which usually do not see NYT bestseller books and Hollywood movies made out of them.
There's a book by Ziatsev himself called "За Волгой для нас земли не было [There is no land across Volga for us]" about these events.
I think this myth of order 227 actually comes from the Korean war. In the Korean War U.S. soldiers witnessed retreating Chinese soldiers get gunned down by Chinese commissars with submachine guns and there would be times when waves of soldiers would attack where some men only had 5 rounds of ammunition in one hand and a knife in the other. The events depicted in Enemy at the Gates mirrors more of these Korean war stories than what the actual history of the battle of Stalingrad and order 227 tells us.
Don't believe that either
They act like in some films that the Germans had terrible aim, when in fact they were heavily trained for 5 years
prob cause the ones who were trained were mostly dead and the others were the civillian inexperienced volkssturm
@@jager2237 By late 1942 they probably still had some fairly well trained personel. But after that it was all downhill.
@@Prometheus7272 they all were elite. After the Russians and aboorigans they lost a hella. By 1942 they also had lost quite some stoopid
By 43 I don't think there where many in the German army trained for that much. And I don't think any movie shows Germans having bad aim 😆
This film is all wrong, made by french director
I just realized how heavily inspired this is by cod 1 stalingrad mission
I think it's the other way round
I love military history and watching your videos thank you
Interesting fact, the whole mass rush tactic did exist for the Soviet Union, HOWEVER, It was only used for what were called Shrafbats or as you may famously know as Penal Battalions.
Source? To my knowledge while penal battalions were sent on the more dangerous assignments they were not used for literal human wave tactics. On a whole they only happened in desparation and outside the norm.
Lol penal battalions are known for dangerous jobs like getting rid of mines
Its shTrafbats sir. And mass rush tactic is another myth.
@@XMysticHerox Source is my great grandfather. He was captured in Ukraine at 16 during ww2 (he was fighting Germans and Russians) and was forced to rush German guns with no weapons but somehow survived, and made his way up the ranks and out of the rush battalion. He was later wounded near Yugoslavia when he was a commander of an anti-tank gun. There is an eye witness source for you.
They did exist.
Nice to see some historical fact checking ;) I like this movie, but as brutal and bloody the eastern front was, especially for the Soviet side, realistic accounts of the battle do not depict chaos, terror or lack of resources in the Red Army like the movie does.. especially in 42, when they had stopped the invasion the year before at Moscow and Rzhev, and rebooted their war effort, helped by the landlease program, and had time to correctly train their massive reserves, plan their counter-offensives rationally, and under the command of talented generals such as Zhukov, Rokossovky or Koniev. A fearful, terrorized and under-supplied army just thrown into a meatgrinder would'nt have stopped then defeated the German army as they did!!
That mission is actually in THE FIRST CoD. But yeah, barrier squads barely ever killed their own troops. Most of them were from penal battalions.
The 1 gun per 2 men concept only existed under WWI as Imperial Russia had a very little industrial capacity
And China in WW2.
No army would be insane enough to send unarmed men to battle.
@@bbcmotd They did though
@@bbcmotd the Russian empire did though
@@An_Cummanach yes and no. If you study the situation a bit closer, the chances of being in a infantry fire fight without a weapon during ww1 was really small.
Most of the troopers who did not get their issued weapons yet where kept in the training regiments.
The ones who got sent to an active regiment tended to be assigned to non combat roles and waited for their assigned weapons to come in.
Sure there was times when some of them ended up in combat, but that was rare and far between.
It would be cool if you reacted to war games and see if they are historical correct.
like HOI4? Call of Duty World at War? Company of Heros?
Wargames go for hollywood factor, not history at all. Especially bigger companies. Smaller independent companies make best and more accurate wargames.
@@AndyP998 true
@@AndyP998 Gajin's Enslisted was pretty belivable I think
Your so right bout the music in Enemy at the Gates being very epic. Actually one of my all time favorite movie soundtracks!! The "Tania Theme". I just love it!!
"When the one with the rifle dies, the one with the bullets has to fumble around trying to pick up the gun off of his dead comrade's corpse, who might have landed on it or have a deathgrip on it, then loads the bullets into it while under fire, then he can shoot!"
This movie is what every single person refers to every single time when they talk about Russian army past or present. It’s crazy how many people just blindly believe it when there’s so much access to information right in the same device they’re looking at now. People still our stuff is always the best because it costs so much more than Russia’s stuff. Ours costs so much more because we the tax payer are being fleeced to line the pockets of the few. While citizen and soldier suffer alike.
Great vid keep up the good work!
I can't believe this movie is 20 years old now! I saw this in the theaters with my classmates.
Love your Content MY FRIEND
This is great. You should do part 2.
I always loved the music in this film!
Subscribed!
6.27. That revolver tho....I want a 6 shot revolver that fires 14 shots
As you being a Young Man, I find you extremely Knowledgeable about the topics you speak on, You are witty and make me laugh at times as well. You do Well at your youtube thing, I wish you all the success you can have.
Thank you. I always suspected that the movie version is not quite accurate. Although I am not an investigative journalist, I base my opinion on human nature. So, it would not make sense for the NKVD to kill their own soldiers a-la banzai method, specially when their own soldiers can later kill them (they carry weapons, they'd have to be constantly taking weapons away from them, that would be nuts, specially during war). This kind of psychological thinking about movies of all types is recurrent in my thinking, such as, for example, why not carry two or more weapons that are fully loaded, so as to not have to reload so often.....or constantly be on the lookout for food and related other gear (cannibalizing stuff) etc... Thank you. This does not mean I believe all of your commentaries but at least its refreshing to see someone make some apparently normalizing psychological profile of what was occurring. I am not an expert.
'Stalingrad' from Antony Beevor is also a great book on this battle.
great work!
5:35 "Bullets from airplanes are way bigger than your typical bullet for you rifle". It is true, when you talk about american planes with .50 cal M2 Browning machine guns, but the Ju-87 that showed here had a 7,9 mm MG-17 7,9 mm machine gun. Exact the same caliber as a Mauser 98k rifle.
The planes, Ju-87's, attacking the boats had 2 forward-firing 8mm (7.92mm to be exact) machine guns. This was the same cartridge used in the K98, the standard German rifle of WW2. Yes, there were Ju-87's with 37mm guns but they were not added until 1943, after this battle. Were Russian soldiers shot by their own officers & commissars? Yes, but not as depicted in the movie. Officers & commissars were often shot by their commanders for failing to meet their battle objectives. The USSR did not have a shortage of men. But they did have a shortage of train men in 1942.
I really liked your take and the information you gave on what really happened in the battle. Tbh this movie pissed me off because of all the inaccuracies.
Hollywood movie about Russians... what could go wrong?
Please rate the battle of Carentan of Band of Brothers. It was my favorite battle scene.
That was good and gritty and showed just a taste of urban combat. Stalingrad was FAR worse though.
18:00 Order 227 only sanctions unauthorized withdrawals, that is, it forbids a commander to issue a withdrawal order without first asking and gaining permission from higher echelons of command. It was enforced, and commanders who did order a withdrawal without permission were shot no questions asked. Even Chuikov was once suspected that he moved his headquarters across Volga without permission (which he did not, his headquarters were basically at the very frontline, many of his staff officers killed in artillery strikes, himself being at least once buried alive).
NKVD blocking detachments did exist and they did have orders to shoot retreating units, but they were only deployed in the back of penal battalions, units made of "criminals" (understanding that this is quite a broad term in the USSR), people that would otherwise be shot so they were expendable, and the missions which these battalions were sent to could be considered pretty much suicidal (such as the charge from "Enemy at the Gates"). However, units that were deployed in Stalingrad were in a sense elite units, so although I don't know for sure, I consider very unlikely that there were any penal battalions in Stalingrad.
why am I only now finding your channel. Fantastic stuff.
Welcome aboard!
HistoryLegends: "what would empty handed soldiers do on the front line?"
1914-1917 Russia: good question, let's find out :D
This is also a delusion. Empty-handed people cannot fight‚ there is no point in sending them somewhere.
Many compliments for your historical description of the events of the Stalingrad 's battle, correpting the sensationalism of the film At the end of your video you show a book on that event: I couldn't read the title, because you held it away from the camera, for a few seconds Could you please mention the title, because I m interested on it Best regards from Italy
When I was ten years old watched this movie well, I believed it... Now I see that this is just a rough propaganda...
This channel deserves 38.1 million instead of 38.1k subs
You made a fantastique work. Encore une fois, je suis impressionné par-là qualité de ta recherche. Merci 🙏
Your comments and research are pretty good, the research is solid, I would say one small nuance : don't underestimate the fear and chaos of WWII, sometimes when you see officers pulling soliders and pushing them somewhere, it's not because they were disorganized, it's not because they were cattle or were sent clueless and without weapon, in fact the soviet was very well organized and the soviet soldiers were even more 'efficient" and cold-blooded than the germans. But sometimes it was simply because some soldiers were experiencing a "shock paralysis" or just the view of the horror in front of them that would make some of them completely loose hope or motivaton to go. That happened a lot in some battles, specially the ones where very young soldiers were brought (guys under 20 sometimes 18) and also because most of the time, for a big part of them, it was their FIRST battle, so when they arrived, it was the first thing they would see, straight from their peaceful countryside. So yeah, pretty much all what you said is true, but there's also many cases of soldiers that are shocked, paralyzed from fear or falls in desperation when they arrived on the battlefield, simply because both WWI and WWII were the most violent wars ever seen in history and that's why they caused dozens of millions of deaths. There's a reason why both of these wars are called, in many countries from different authors, in all kind of literature, in all languages : hell
Always keep in mind that no matter how good an army is, it's composed of humans, not robots, they can have feelings, they can be traumatized etc...
When you watch of footage of veterans of the WWI, some of them are completely traumatized, not just mentally, but even physically, they loose their capacity to speak, to walk, sometimes to recognized their relatives...
Besides that tiny detail, as you say it in the video, the soviet army didn't any issue of production or having weapons or anything like that, they were well equiped
The biggest issue of the soviet army was ironically its biggest strenght : a too big army
Too many soldiers to coordinate, to move around, to transport etc...
We expect more from u. This is very good fury reviw was topnotch
Perfect job, my friend,very knowledgeable.
Actually majority of Axis aircraft such as the Stuka used a General purpose machine gun shooting the 8mm rifle round. German planes typically didn’t have cannons or big caliber rounds like the American aircraft. Of course they’re exceptions.
Very interesting! You're right, but don't you think that the impact of a 8mm at this speed would cause greater damage?
@@historylegends in short yes, kinda like how rounds fired down at an enemy is more effective then the same rounds being fired up at the enemies.
@@historylegends also read different accounts where German troops used explosive tipped 8mm against the Russians on the Eastern Front. All comes down to the sources. The Soviet Forces actually were very disciplined soldiers and fought well. The German forces completely miscalculated the will and power of the Red Army.
those who filmed this filmed about themselves and their people, and not about the Soviet people
At 6:36 men... I didn't know the soviets had the technology of an auto regenerating ammo revolver that could shoot more than 6 bullets.
Also the "No step backwards order" if i'm correct was not only ordered during the battle (post first attack) but also it was targeted to officers not NCOs or low ranking soldiers.
A better depiction of this attack is portrayed in the game Call Of Duty Finest hour, where they attack more organized, at night and on boats
I just ended the video and saw you adressed the "not step back" order. Great video!
The soviets mostly used the 7 shot nagant revolver
How young you look in this video man! You are my favorite youtuber... always hoping that u came up with a biger amount of content. !Abrazo de trinchera!
Good video. There is just a little editing mistake at 16:01, you left in the video a scene that you repeated
Oh yes, Thank you for telling me!
The makers of the film must have taken inspiration from Antoinette's Beaver to portray the Soviets.
First off, the Soviets were still fighting hard inside Stalingrad and had retained most of the river crossings, and Mamaev Kurgan, which was briefly taken over by the Germans, was also taken back. And the Germans would use mostly artillery fire to target the boats carrying Soviet reinforcements into the city across the Volga. On the East Bank, the Soviets had kept their anti-air units, heavy artillery and the Katyusha Rockets, while the Germans used Luftwaffe mostly in the cities.
There are a lot of inaccuracies in the film, mostly motivated by anglo propaganda.
2:34 soviets wouldn’t really wear helmets, they would more often wear ushankas or pilotkas, my great grandfather who fought on the soviet army said the same thing, it was seen as cowardly to wear it
It was a strict rule not to wear helmets unless in combat, is this what you’re referring to?
During the large battles of the American Revolution groups similar to NKVD were stationed behind the Continental Army front lines to stop retreats. And yes, they would shoot retreating soldiers if necessary to stop them. I don't know if the British did the same thing, but it seems likely.
The generalisation of "aircraft bullets" being bigger than rifle bullet is a bit of a broad, sweeping statement tho
spot on i like how your one of the only people not bias towards anyone
I think some parts of America was still feeling the after affect of the Red Scare. And that's why the Russians are being portrayed they way they are in this movie.
Very interesting to see this ,can easily be fooled by Hollywood,but some of these things didn't happen like giving out rifles and some only having ammo handed to the soldiers,glad to be enlightened even though I like this film it's quite enjoyable,thanks mate of history legends 👍🏼👍🏼
I've always thought this scene from Enemy at the Gates was intended to show the audience the kind of desperate situation that the Soviet Union faced in 1941. I've read descriptions of the battle of Vyazma that talked of Soviet soldiers attacking with only the front rank armed. By Stalingrad, the situation was much better, but the feeling of desperation, that the country was on the verge of defeat and collapse, was very much present. For the average American or Western audience, they may not know how desperate those 1941 battles were, so I feel like the intention of this scene (from the train onward) is to portray the urgency and desperation, by showing this Stalingrad attack as though it was part of one of the great encirclement battles of Barbarossa. That kind of attack DID happen in WW2, just not at Stalingrad.
the siege of Vyasma was a defense from the Soviets and later and fight to break out of encirclement they was regular soldiers and well-armed for the beginning of the war. later on, there were suicidal attacks from the Soviets during Operation Mars(front Rzhev-Sychyovka-Vyazma) but those were newly formed and equipped troops from the east. there were human wave attacks like portrayed in the movie but it was due to lack of heavy equipment as the battle of Stalingrad was raging on in the south and inflexible, outdated infantry tactics combined with an incompetent and inexperient command, but all the troops were armed with Riffle and light mortal but no tanks, guns air support.
The original intention was to portray the Soviet army as winning using sheer weight of numbers. And endless horde tactics. This whole thing is lifted from guderians memoirs on the war where he described fighting the soviets like a rock In an endless sea of Slavic hordes.
Great review!
NKVD, as the military police, in fact always fight in the front. When the frontline commander is lack of troops, they will push up the NKVD since they are at least equipped and soldiers.
The NKVD shooting their own comrades part is so stupid, since the Red Army was lack of manpower in Stalingrad, especially as those who already crossed. Why do they shoot these retreating soldiers and help the Germans? Even the Red Square battle in the movie is true. The fleeing soldiers will only retreat as far as the river bank, since there is no way they can cross the river by their own. Then why do not let them retreat and regroup them? The previous crossing sense just showed the emergency to get as many soldiers as possible to cross the river, and the battle sense just destroyed all of it.
It is pretty ironic and the movie has no logic at all.
Superb analysis, i have learned a lot of things i din't know, even in Stalindrad of Anthony blink are not mentioned
Fine analyses. All this film is depicted is anti-communism propaganda. The "no one step back" order for exemple is misinterpreted by the Western side after the war probably for propaganda reasons. They also alleged soviet POWs were imprisoned to goulag after their liberation, which is a total fake. An other fake is the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-agression pact depicted as a alliance which was not the case.
How exactly did the troops in Stalingrad know exactly that only half of new arrivals would receive a rifle? Especially considering how the germans kept attacking the troops crossing the river? Say you had 108 rifles and 220 new arrivals. What exactly would the final 4 guys do? Or worse you had 108 rifles and 90 arrivals because the germans had been unusually good at sinking your boats. Better question. Why not simply equipp your new recruits with rifles outside of Stalingrad so when they cross the river they were already armed.That way they could also attempt to engage aircraft attacking them. So many questions.🤔
it was not a misconception it is anti soviet propaganda
This movie single-handedly shaped how at least two generations are thinking about the Soviet army in WW2. I can hear this unarmed soldier concept from literally everywhere.
Приветствую автора данного канала. К сожалению я не знаю английского языка. Так что пришлось воспользоваться переводчиком ютуба. Надеюсь он не слишком сильно исказил ваши слова. Было интересно услышать вас как иностранца и как историка. Фильм Враг у ворот. Это фильм с большими искажениями, и это не удивительно снимали то американцы которые явно далеки от истории советского союза. Что не говори но идеологический подтекст на мой взгляд никуда не денешь. И эти натяжки искажения возможно были допущены намеренно что бы показать советский союз не с хорошей стороны. Но к сожалению антисоветская риторика на событий того времени и того государство СССР, теперь не только веет с запада, но с конца 80-х теперь она укоренена и в России и в остальных постсоветских странах. Каждый раз у нас в стране снимают нелепые фильмы о войне которые якобы сделаны "по секретны документам" однако на проверку эти фильмы оказываются жуткой дрянью. Только из редко делают фильмы без антисоветского подтекста. СССР уже нет более 30 лет, но многим из власть имущих не даёт покоя успехи и достижения СССР. Что не говори а капитализм со страх смотрит на возможное возвращение Советского союза. И потому и льются на историю СССР тонны недосказанности , преувеличении и откровенной лжи.
Эᴛὂ ʜἒ ϕսʌьʍ‚ ἄ ὂ6ӹчʜӹй ῥγᴄὂϕὂ6ϲĸսй ս ἄʜτսϲὂʙἒτᴄκսй ʙӹϲἒῥ‚ ĸἄĸս× ᴄὂτʜս.
The film is totally insane. I have lots of criticism towards the Soviet Army but it was definitely far better than showed in the film - and I despise the way the Russians are shown in the film - even Nazis look more human than these caricatures for men and women uttering slogans and being treated like animals. Not real Russians.
As regards the Volga crossing - this was mostly done at nights for obvious reasons (although emergency day crossings also happened but in this case Russians were at least trying to cover them with smoke).
16:55 well of course in most films portraying the Soviets it just mass hordes so of course the Germans are going to hit, while in movies portraying the West they are in squads and are behind cover, also besides films from the 50s-60s(with some exceptions) I have yet to see any WW2 movie that portrays the Germans as Star Wars Stormtroopers.
My father served in army, he said that the quality was ass. Cars were made so badly that they would leak oil and use 20-25l of gasoline. Basically anything was poorly made because it would be made in mass production because of plan economy and no one cared about quality, all you had to do is to make it as fast as possible, that's the only requirement but since everyone was paid hourly, there was no intention to do anything fast really so a lot of workers drank at work
Which army was your father served?
@@huuphuclecao8712 russian army, he was born in 1965 and he was a ship engineer
@@01iverQueen I don't think the planned economy and government in your father's time didn't care about the quality of life, goods and weapons. As far as I know, life in the 60s and 70s was the best.
@@01iverQueen Besides, if the Soviet weapons and personal belongings were of poor quality, how could they defeat the Germans? by heart?
This movie absolutely enraged me when it came out. I basically see it as thinly veiled Nazi propaganda. But over the last twenty years Russian filmmakers have repeated all of its disgusting tropes, and even worse. From Mikhalkov's Burnt by the Sun 2 to Bondarchuk's Stalingrad to whatever ****head made 'Onward to Paris'.
Very Good Episode. One of my favorite movies
Goebbels would be delighted if he saw this film.
Looking at this scene already gave me chills about the war
Can you please review film 9th company its about soviet-afghan war quite interesting .
Good idea!
As a soviet ww2 historical reenactor its so annoying when people come up to me and say shouldn’t you have 1 rifle per 2 people lmao 🤣