(10/12)Battlefield I The Battle for Russia Episode 10 (GDH)

[drreik]

a major city is not the end of a people . napoleoon took moscow . but russian didn't disappear .

[Hurqq]

Hitler & Stalin-Dumb & Dumber

[sheemsheem]

Hitler is just a fool, GENERALS DO TACTiCAL WORK....Hitler should strictly do political work

[toffanful]

dmacid: I think it is you who are mistaken about allied support for Russia. Total Russian war materials supplied by allies was 4%. Russia needed food, communications, and soft skin trucks from America and Canada. Soviet weaponry was superior to allied military equipment. Also, allied supplies did not reach Soviets in any significant numbers until early 1943, when Germany's defeat was already becoming apparent.

[asebrookb]

It would have been helpful if Great Britain send us some fucking planes!

[KingSkullfuck]

@asebrookb They did. Really shitty planes that they had no use for. You guys apparently turned them into semi-effective tac-bombers and ground support aircraft.

[MrWarpman11]

@asebrookb We were being bombed constantly and all are planes went straight to help the battle of britain.

[martynrobin121]

@MrWarpman11 The Battle of Britain was 1940, The Invasion of Soviet Union was 1941. The British sent Soviets Tanks,Air-Craft,Resources,Equi­pment whitch was VITAL! After the Soviets were humiliated in Barberossa, Most Tanks the Soviets used were British untill they were able to recover and build T-34S tanks. Also the America Trucks,Air-Craft,Resources whitch was also VITAL for Soviet war machine.

[dmacid]

@martynrobin121 How did they send these tanks, equipment and air craft? Did they use one of them Star Trek transporters? Because there was no other way for Britain to reach Russia.

[martynrobin121]

@dmacid WOW YOU ARE DUMB!! You never heard of the OCEAN?? Britain sent the Soviets resources by SEA. The British and then United States supplies to the Soviet Union were vital. Over 85% Of the Vehicles the Soviets used during the war, Came from the Allies and also 35% of Aircraft.

[dmacid]

@martynrobin121 I guess you dont know much about geography. Do you have any idea how long it wouldve taken for the British to sea ship 1000s of tanks? They'd have to go through a large portion of the sea controlled by the Germans and ship these imaginary tanks to Siberia. From there Russians would need to make a 1000 mile trip to the front of the lines. Its laughable to even consider this being even remotely possible, especially knowing that the British fleet was engaged by italians and Germans.

[martynrobin121]

@dmacid The First British Tanks and Supplies,etc arrived in Russia for the Battle of Moscow 1941, And went straight to the Front. The Royal Navy fought the Nazis in the Artic,etc to give Russia supplies, And the United States also sent Tanks,Aircraft,Vehicles. And over 85% of the Vehicles the Soviets used came from the Allies. Just research, Are you honestly saying the British and United States never sent the Soviets supplies by Sea, And it would be impossible???

[dmacid]

@martynrobin121 They never sent them tanks. American tanks were trash in WW2. Russian T-34s and German panthers were vastly superior to them. Also, British army was in dissarray after they were beaten by the Germans time after time in 1940 and 1941. They had no practical way of sending help to the Russians. And not only that but also British gave up on Russians by the time Germans got close to moscow. British estimated Russians were gonna lose the war in 6-8 weeks when Germans crossed Davina

[martynrobin121]

@dmacid ARE YOU STUPID?? Just Research you Idiot, The British sent the Soviets Resources,Supplies by Sea, The FIRST British Tanks,Supplies,etc arrived for the Battle of Moscow,1941. T-34 tanks in 1941, Were too few to make an impact, Most Soviet Tanks,Air-craft were wiped out in Barberossa. Also the U.S sent the Russians Resources,Supplies by SEA! Just Research, Are you honestly saying the British,United States had no possible way to send the Soviets Resources during WW2?? LEARN HISTORY!

[dmacid]

@martynrobin121 Insults, garbage, more insults, making things up. And using CAPS to make your point more relevant. *yawn* next...

[martynrobin121]

@dmacid You make me laugh, And when other People read what you wrote they will laughand think your just dumb. You are an Idiot. The British and United States sent the Soviets Union Supplies,Resources,Tanks,Aircr­aft,etc and the main Supply was Vehicles. Just do your RESEARCH!!

[dmacid]

@martynrobin121 Name 1 US/British made tank or plane that was used by the red army. Just one, please.

[martynrobin121]

@dmacid How old are you?? Your history is very poor. And the Allies sent the Soviets supplies,resources during the war, the most vital supplies were vehicles and over 85% of the Soviet Vehicles came from the Allies. Also 30% of the Soviet Aircraft came from the Allies. Maybe you just research the Allied convoys to the Soviets,etc?? The Soviets used Matilda,Sherman tanks,etc And used alot of Allied Aircraft like the p35,p40,etc,etc just research. The Vehicles were the most vital!

[dmacid]

@martynrobin121 Soviets used SHERMAN TANKS? Are you fucking retarded? And you ask me about my age. Stop talking, child. Just stop, please... Haha, Soviets used Sherman tanks... Not even Americans wanted to use Sherman tanks. They were fucking awful, worst tank of WW2 by far.

[martynrobin121]

@dmacid YES, The Red Army used Sherman tanks and Matilda Tanks and other Allied tanks. This is history and a known fact and research, The Red Army main tank was T-34 but they did use other tanks, And T-34 were too few in 1941 to even make an impact. The U.S sent thousands of Shermans tanks as Stalin ordered in the Lendlease. Also as early as 1941, the Red Army was using British matilda tanks.It wasnt the Tanks that were vital, It was the Vehicles trucks,etc most VITAL. RESEARCH!

[martynrobin121]

@dmacid Are you honestly trying to say, The Soviets didnt use any Allied Tank,Vehicles,Aircraft,etc,etc­?? And the Allies didnt send the Soviets resources,supplies?? Just research its history and fact.

[dmacid]

@martynrobin121 No, they definitely used Shermans. It makes perfect sense. Why use a good tank when you can ue a crappy one.

[martynrobin121]

@dmacid JUST RESEARCH YOU FOOL! The Allies gave the Soviet Union a lendlease, And the Allies sent the Soviets Vehicles,Tanks,Aircraft,etc,et­c by SEA! This is history and FACT! The Red Army used alot of Allied Tanks- Matilda,Cromwell,Sherman,Grant­,etc. You show how much you know about history, When you say- "The Soviets didnt use any Allies Vehicle,Aircraft,Tank,etc" Whitch is false and bullshit. Just research and find out how dumb you are!

[dmacid]

@martynrobin121 I researche it and my research confirmed that you are full of sht.

[martynrobin121]

@dmacid Just research you idiot, Your making a fool out of yourself, I can give you links and evidence if you want? Its a well known fact and part of history, That the Allies during WW2 supplied the Soviet Union and that the Allies gave the Soviet Union a lendlease.

[dmacid]

@martynrobin121 Obviously, especially considering your evidence of Russians using Sherman tanks to defend Moscow, lol. You got some helluva research there. Listen, nobody is disputing the fact that Allies helped Russiansa great deal but you are making yourself look stupid by claiming that they supplied USSR with tanks and planes.

[martynrobin121]

@dmacid LEARN TO READ!!! I said that the FIRST Allied Supplies,Resources arrived for the Battle of Moscow 1941, And the Tanks were British Matilda, And the Red Army used alot of Allied Tanks(Matilda,Cromwell,Sherman­,Grant,etc) And the Allies did send the Soviets thousands of Tanks,Aircraft and countless thousands of Vehicles. THIS IS FACT AND HISTORY, The Allies even gave the Soviets a lendlease. JUST RESEARCH, I can give you links and evidence, Its a FACT AND PART OF HISTORY JUST RESEARCH!

[dmacid]

@martynrobin121 Why would Russians need Allies to send them tanks and planes when they were able to mass produce better tanks and planes themselves. T-34 was the most effective tank in WW2, easy to mass produce, good armor, powerful gun, excellent suspension, wide tracks, everything they needed for combat in muddy Russian terrain. Sherman had narrow tracks and wouldve got stuck very quickly if they ever touched down in Russia. Whats the need for allied tanks if Russians made 53,000 themselves.

[martynrobin121]

@dmacid I have sent you in a message, Evidence and links that show the Allies sent the Soviet Union Tanks,Aircraft,Vehicles,Food,a­mmo,etc and that the Allies gave the Soviet Union a lendlease. And after Barberossa, Most of the Soviet Tanks,Aircraft had been wiped out, Stalin asked for the Allies for AID and the T-34 in 1941, Was too few to make such an Impact. And the Soviet main tank was the T-34, The Allies most vital and main supply to the Soviets was Vehicles(Trucks,etc) Just research!

[mrlatency]

@dmacid

LoL go read a history book - its you that are making yourself look stupid.

[dmacid]

@mrlatency Which one? Find me a history book that says US provided USSR with tanks and planes in WW2.

[mrlatency]

@dmacid You won't read a history book so just look at the figures instead. Youtube won't let me post links so please google "Russian lend lease tanks" in google and click the third link down.

12571 vehicles provided including thousands of tanks by USA alone.

17821 aircraft provided by USA alone.

[dmacid]

@mrlatency First of all, you used wikipedia as your source which is an automatic fail. Secondly, under US shipments to USSR it doesnt say any tanks. Fail again. Read what I said above. Allies helped USSR a great deal with food deliveries, and intelligence. But they did not deliver tanks and fighter planes ffs. And why would they need to. Russia built a shitload of their own. T-34s were better than Shermans, anyway.

[mrlatency]

@dmacid Source isn't wikipedia its the one above WW2total.com go look again. They delivered plenty of tanks and planes sorry if thats hard for you to accept for some reason. You can even find photoes of Russian marked, US made tanks and aircraft just google for a few minutes and you'll find quite a few. Why would they need to? Because the war was a desperate struggle for both Germany and Russia and Russia could use every bit of help it could get.

[dmacid]

@mrlatency Where are these tanks and planes? Look at every major documented battle in Russia in WW2. Russians have never used any American tanks or planes. Maybe they just looked at them, realized how shitty they were and never used them. But seriously, most of Artic convoys went to Britain. The only thing Russians needed in WW2 was food and thats what was sent to them.

[Madaboutsims]

@dmacid so much fail, the USSR recieved tanks and aircraftamaongst many other things, Hurricanes, spitfires, the famous P39 made famous by the russians who used it to great affect, just a ton of all types.

[bombarderoazul]

@Madaboutsims most of that equipment was used for training or for secondary roles. Nearly all frontline equipment was made in russia.

[Madaboutsims]

@bombarderoazul hello, please tell your version of history to the numerous russian P-40, Spitfire, Hurricane, P-39 and P-63 aces and heroes of the soviet union. Not to mention the sherman tank aces, and the RAF personnel who were over there to help train them on the equipment. Infact I know one of those RAF personnel. Ill take his word and known history over your twisted version of events thankyou very much.

[bombarderoazul]

@Madaboutsims i am not saying that the foreign help didn't help, but the vast majority of the equipment of the red army was homemade, and in the first year of the war, the soviet union didn't get any help from anyone. The US and britain, probably wanted to see the evil communists defeated.

[toffanful]

@Madaboutsims Fact: Allied equipment constituted just under 4% of all Soviet war materials during the war. The Battles of Moscow and Stalingrad were fought with Soviet manufactured equipment. Only by the summer of 1943, with Studebaker and Dodge soft-skinned trucks, combined with radio equipment and rail stock did allied help have an impact on eastern front operations, allowing the Soviet rifle and shock divisions a motorized component and mobility on a grand scale.

[gpvx2007]

the capture of Moscow would have made a big difference in favor of the invaders; further defense of the West of USSR would become very difficult, Stalin himself said this in 1945 speaking with Allied Leaders.

[Kratonos]

Deciding to "starve out" Leningrad was a poor move. Taking it quickly would establish port supply lines. The tanks would be re diverted further to diverge their attention on a push towards the east. Leningrad wouldnt so much guarantee victory but more so strengthen the position of the Germans. Those supply lines could have been used later throughout the Soviet Campaign. By the time next year rolled around. Soviets propped their divisions to a decent strength and had some sort of battleplan.

[slick4401]

The Soviet Union of 1940 is not the Russia of 1800. Parallels with Napoleon do not really apply here. Most of the roads and railroads of the country meet and pass through Moscow. That surely means something in strategic terms? After all, Stalin decided to stay there even with the Germans 20 miles away. And in any event, the German army survived the following winter in the open. No. If Moscow had fallen, the country would have disintegrated.

[vaschena]

This documentary try all the time paint Hitler as an incompetent. I don't know if it's true.

[Joey360R]

he turned his back on leningrad which was a major mistake and prob his worse one

[Joey360R]

while hitler decided to focus army group center's energy on leningrad it was actually a good idea because leningrad was a more important city them moscow

the soviets depended heavily on leningrad for its production and that the german army wuda taken that production

plus george zhukov was defending that city and a victory prob would have taken out russia's best commander for the entire war because knowing how crazy stlain is he wuda killed zhukov after a loss

Hitler turned his back on......

[Jonasdarowje]

Farthermore the Axis could have made good use of Black Sea ports instead of being dependent on the bad road system in the center. In the south ethnics like the cossacks, tartars and caucasians welcomend them as liberators from bolshewism, tha`t´s why there were less partisans and more volunteer groups then in the central sector.

Germany depended much on oil for its economy and war machine, so capturing the southern ressoucres was vital for them. That could only be achieved by a quick advance.

[Jonasdarowje]

Instead of taking Moscow the Germans should have focused on the Caucasus and its oil.

After the battle of Kiev there was a 400 km deep gap in the soviet frontlines. Nearly the whole Red Army was concentrated at the capital, stabilising the southern front needed time. Exploiting their success in the south instead of redirecting all the forces to Army Group Center was a far more realistic and promising idea because in the south the summers were longer and the climate in the winter was milder.

[randy95023]

Had they known that over 90% of Soviet POW's would die of neglect, or actual murder the masses of Red Army troops would not have surrendered at Kiev or Smolensk. Had they fought to the end like German 6th Army at Stalingrad or Custer at the Little Big Horn they would have held up the Wehrmacht AND killed thousands of Germans and much German Armor. Stalin was cold blooded but not stupid. He had every right to consider the surrendering troops as "traitors" to the Soviet cause. Sad but true...

[Bullzeye95]

Taking Moscow before winter would have done two things: it would have severely damaged Soviet morale in the wake of Stalin's decision to stay and defend Moscow, and also would have provided the forces with housing during the winter. Instead, they slept in foxholes in the bitter weather while the Russians slept in Moscow. In the spring, the Germans were exhausted and severely frostbitten and the Russians were fresh, and you know the rest.

The war wasn't lost until the first winter.

[Requiredghr18]

@Bullzeye95 I agree with the morale part, but if you consider the napoelonic invasion, the russian army burned moscow so the french could nto benefit from controling it (could of been repeated). Also the russian army was just as crippled as the german army. Both were exausted and stretched to their physical limits. This is why the main russian counter attack did not send the germans into a full route. Also come spring the Germans were fully resupplied and rested for another attack in the south

[Siccxx]

if you were a machine gunner in a intense battle you could kill 300 people in a battle

[TheRawke]

@Siccxx Yeah...as a German machine gunner, because unlike the Soviets, the Wehrmacht didn't hvae the manpower to launch senseless massed infantry assaults where a single machine gun would have that many targets...

[AmericanDream1900]

My Grandfather was in that war. He was in Ukraine. He killed 300 Germans in one battle before being wounded 3 times - one in his head. The bullet was never removed from his head till he died in 1997. Rest in Peace, Granddad, God bless your soul and thank you for helping to free the world from the Nazis.

[fuggsakes]

even the absolute best snipers didnt kill that many

[StrangerThenRedz]

the entire 1941 campaign was fought by the 500,000 mechanised troops while the other 2.5 million non-mechanised were 200 miles behind

[rottenvenetic]

Not so. Every major breakthrough especially after a few static days was achieved with huge infantry support, as the tanks and motorized infantry were, in that year, not many enough and not advanced enough to break through any sort of prepared defenses with many divisions of soldiers in them. Only after breaking into the rear, could the tanks make use of their speed, push the retreating enemy around and stop the enemy from reorganizing to a point where they can counterattack the exposed tanks.

[KingSkullfuck]

@StrangerThenRedz Not entirely true, many of the non-mechanised units were used to sweep through and mop up encircled Soviet armies.

[bombarderoazul]

@StrangerThenRedz germany was not really ready for war with russia in 41, although they were considered a mechanised army, they relied mostly on horses to move their supplies and equipment. They didn't have enough tanks either, by the end of 41 most of their tanks would be lost. Hitler should have waited till summer of 42 to begin his invasion, but maybe by that time soviet union would be stronger, so maybe he made the right decision.

[RiccardoTheBeAst]

@bombarderoazul The only good decision would be to NOT attack at all the Soviet Union or to leave it for "last", after Britain defeat

[lakas50]

leningrad was one of the most important tasks.if army group north storm leningrad and capture IT the whole of army group north would be free.the whole of an army group was dealing with ONE CITY!!!

[Marzaq87]

Leningrad was and is still a massive city. and the finns wasnt interested to help

[ww12tt]

if Hitler had focused on moscow it would have given a great oppertunity, when moscow eventually would be taken, a vast drive north towards Archangels would incerkel more than 11 russian armies, force lenningrads surrender or destruktion and give the germans a chance to focus on the southern oil fields and then stalingrad. then the germans could just make a defensive line as it would be impossible for russian to make a real attack eventually soviet would collapse and peace would be the only choic

[SKudgails]

@ww12tt IF.

[Rico8458]

yup, a bee line for moscow would have ended the war and victory for germany for sure.

[elyex91909]

big big mistake,thats like taking new york city over oil rich texas,its i big blow for and out side troop to take washington or a major city like new york then to take taxes,the greman should have went stra8 for moscow at 100 miles per hour,im not saying they would have won but the out come sure would have been diffrent,

[Rico8458]

finland could have helped take leningrad and then also move on moscow too.

[soldierorsomething]

Finland didint attack because their leader "Mannerheim" knew that the soviets could have not been beaten, so by staying behind stalin was not so harsh on finland, at least thats my guess

[Rico8458]

i always say all 4 million german troops march to moscow only. one super army group straight line to moscow. no where else.

[Rico8458]

this is an excellent series, ther narrator is fantastic

[aggressorwolfen]

This episode is definitely superor to some of the others, however...The production fails to give a complete picture of specific operations like the encirclement at Kiev. Both Hitler and the OKW were concerned about a salient developing around the Kiev area and they had to liquidate that threat before moving on to Moscow.

[aggressorwolfen]

This particular episode covering Operation Barbarossa is the best of the episodes so far. It gives a decent renderng of the strategic picture for both sides and delivers operational details though in very generalized strokes. This coverage of the Eastern Front could have easily been stretched out to five or six times this time length and still would have only been somewhat adequate.

[gopconservative78]

This was the moment Germany lost World War II

[wachaufeuropa]

Yeah I think its actually hard to really say if germans would have truly had a chance to win against Soviets if they had taken Moscow...

What then ? Soviets would have just redeployed around their economic centers and oil fields and encircled the germans even worse.

And what about the winter ? What do you do when all your army is stuck in Moscow in the soviet Winter ?

I dont know man...It was a difficult decision by Hitler. Very difficult indeed.

[Torment1989]

If Moscow would have fallen, the Russian would have lost their main centre of military communications. In other words, all those Soviet division would have been left without orders, tactical objectives and most important of all, without proper communication with the other armies and divisions. If Moscow would have fallen, the Red Army would have collapsed in little more then a week.

[iainhead]

Stalin decided to stay in Moscow even when the Germans were 15 miles away. Could be argued that had Stalin been captured/killed then the union would have fragmented and looked for seperate peace

[wachaufeuropa]

One thing is for sure : The world would have been better off, had Stalin died early.

[ww12tt]

ofcourse it's difficult to say, bt i believe that if Hitler had taken moscow russia would have collapsed. moscow is the center of main russian comunication, and all main roads goes through it. russian supply would be inefficient, or maybe completely out. also on the political scale it is important. it was in moscow were the main party support came from, most russians hated stalin and would be lead to partisans behind russian lines. most people and leaders would loose faith and kapitulate.

[archanticipator]

What is the difference, fallen Moscow or not?

There were many other sities in Russia. Sities-logistics-hub, of cource.

Yes, Moscow was a center. But industriy was beyond the Ural, Caucasus etc.

Yes, This would cost us more soldiers, time.

The question was in the price: life of soldiers and time.

But Germany had not any chance.

[Paciat]

Moscow was important but Germany was never close of capturing it. Even when being 20km from Moscow they still had to break strong defensive lines and then fight in the streets.

[UserUK201]

The problem with that is that the Soviets only redeployed their economic centers AFTER they had successfully defended Moscow. Also you can't more oil fields. If the Germans had captured Moscow than the Soviet Union would have lost more than 33% of their economic capabilities alone. German would have won the war.

[dmacid]

@wachaufeuropa Well, the plan was to establish a defensive line around Volga and northern mountains. Then they were to bomb the remaining industrial centers and completely wipe out the Soviet industrial capabilities. But there was just too much land to take in too short of a time. Plus Hitler made plenty of mistakes and was indecisive when it mattered the most. Russians on the other hand were slow to react but showed a lot of resilience and willingness for self sacrifice to defeat the invaders.

[opinionatedcro]

they shold not have atacked russia before dealing with britain.russia cloud have and would be defeted later no mater the cost for the germans

[Requiredghr18]

Not entriey true, Russia would of had the industrial capacity and the military skill that would easily overwhelm germ

[Bullzeye95]

@Requiredghr18 Considering Stalin's difficult decision to send the entire manufacturing sector to the Urals, I'd definitely agree their industrial capacity would eventually dwarf Germany.

But what military skill? If you'd been watching the rest of the documentary, you'd realize that almost nobody aside from Zhukov and Timoshenko had the slightest idea what they were doing

At first, all the generals were incompetent Bolshevik cronies of Stalin, which is why they almost lost in the first year.

[Requiredghr18]

If you think about it, Stalin's idea of holding to the last man was, in a way, brilliant. This caused the Germans to watse precious time mopping up the encirclements. Also, since Russia's advantages were mass manufacturing and manpower, it could easily replace themlosses compared to german who could not afford it. Yes there were very few skilled leaders, but thats not what i was saying. I considered the overal russian strategy military skill.

[101djarum]

There is no doubt that Joseph Stalin was the best "All time German General"... who else could have captured, wounded, or killed as many Russian soldiers as him? The German should have at least gave him a few Iron Crosses with vodka on the egdes of the medal...

[EvilFingers]

As messed up as it sounds, its actually true, cause he did kill more Russians before, during and after WWII.

[zehrudinRudi]

he was a tiranin and a criminal he was worst then hitler