(2/10) Battlefield II Leningrad Ep6 World War II

[PreludeianGT]

Russians failed to use their Tanks correctly as well. Coming out of tge Spanish Civil War the Soviets concluded tanks supported infantry while Germany saw it the other way around. Thus the under powered battleship tanks.

[Ryssak18]

@PreludeianGT As they said in this documentary it was all Stalins Purge

[gamadjedna9]

WTF? at 7: 11 he says they had 800 tanks

and at 8:11 says they had 600 tanks

[gettincrazywithit]

@gamadjedna9 Just like some historians say Barbarossa started with 2 million axis soldiers, some say 3 and some say 4 million. We will never get the correct #'s..sigh

[poppagdt3]

With all is said and done the biggest mistake the hitler made was not invading Russia. It was wasn't turning his back on the U.K. either. His greatest error was his declaration of war against the real super power...the U.S.A. he became over confident in the early success of his Japanese allies at Pearl Harbor & thought that he would be laying claim to a defeated enemy. Lol. WRONG!!! This is the real reason that the U.S.S.R. was able to stand against the Germans.

[TheAdrianStalker]

@poppagdt3

Do you think that the German declaration of war on USA had anything to do with with the battle of eastern front? After the battle of Britain, Hitler launched offensive against soviet union in mid-1941. USSR is all but alone to fight the German with a little assistance from Britain and USA. It was until D-day in mid-1944, USA marine begin its offensive on France and to Germany. It was with blood of the Soviet soldier and determination to fight to the end which lead to theirs victory.

[eckrich60]

People should consider Viktor Suvorov's perspective on Stalin's aims and ambitions!

[SAMAND33]

I salute Those red army who disroyed the Nazi. Stalin saved many lives, I dont know why people accuse him a killer. Those who died in hands of stalin were fascists who were refusing equality of different races in the soviet union.

[supobostarman]

@SAMAND33 Stalin was a documented butcher that made Hitler's holocaust look like nothing. Feel free to pretend history didn't happen the way it did, but living in a fantasy of revisionist history doesn't make it so. Post Cold War documentation is very specific and enlightening and we know absolutely that Stalin was one of the world's greatest butchers. End of discussion. Facts are facts. Time for you to live with them.

[SAMAND33]

@supobostarman He was a butcher but the Nazis were worst.

[truvianni]

@SAMAND33 Stalin killed more people but the Nazis were worse that seems logical

[truvianni]

@SAMAND33 you really should read more.Stalin killed 50 million of his own people which makes it absurd if not completely stupid to say that all of them were fascists. As for winning the war this was due to great Marshals like Zukow,Koniev and Rokososky among others as well as the T-34 tank and not a man who was a great military leader in his mind and nowhere else

[Mavlik]

Nazi loving on youtube still going strong, i see.

[truvianni]

@Mavlik and denial of Stalin's crimes has not faded either I see 

[MyRickus]

dirty communist bastards 

[dmacid]

@MrPedros1989 Also, we are talking about the heart of Russia here. Leningrad, Moscow and Salingrad were/are Russian biggest cities. Of course Leningrad is now known as St. Petersburg and Stalingrad is known as Volgograd.

[SeregaXAPbKOB]

Vse u nas cherez zhopu...odni Mudaki u vlasti forcing common Soviet soldiers and commanders commit brave acts as they did throughout the WW 2!

[gpvx2007]

Hitler's instinct to attack in 1941 was right & ripe, but he's meddling with his General's tactics & decisions lost him this opportunity

[Eltorofull]

Stalin was the biggest slaughterer of all time

[ABhaim]

field marshall BUSH???

XDD

[stuka80]

@ABhaim Busch....but yeh i c wut u did there hehe

[MrBadrostyle]

russia peaple always strong peaple in the war

[copcorona]

Read Ivan's War! Best book on WW2

[Stresemannite]

Partisans wrecked German suppl y and logistics, aswell as the stupid amount of weapons...Germany had too many types and only some could be relied on 100%. More types means more spare parts and without an outstanding economy that can mass produce, this is impossible.

[MrPedros1989]

@Stresemannite Yep, that's right. If Tigers and Panthers were not "rushed through" but "produced", I think that battle of Kursk could've been won by Axis, which, in the best option available, would drag the war on. Also, Germans produced fine arnaments not prepared for harsh conditions. Sten or PPSh were almost non-maintenance guns, whereas MG44 for instance, which was a brilliant weapon, needed much care IN COMBAT. If it was not cared after, it jammed and you could only throw it at enemies...

[grahwo]

@Stresemannite

the solution => the MP43 ;) wich they did but hitler slowed down the whole process. Its speculated that if it was put into production immediatly after initial trials back when the designs originally emerged.. the outcome of leningrad, Stalingrad and not the least the Normandy campain would have been if not slightly.. but vastly diffrent ;)

[spinynorman230]

...you know what those guys are chanting around 7:50? It's something along the lines of "Germany, Germany's the best, the greatest people, etc. Not surprising?"

[spinynorman230]

lol, these guys are anti-socialist but they've got a general named karls and a plan named marcks? LOL

[illbetilbake]

They are making a pretty big mistake by calling Soviet troops 'Russians'.

[Zythius]

Well, yes, but they are fighting for the Russian government.. Russia is in command of all the troops, and it could be called a russian army..

[stuka80]

@illbetilbake ok i'll bite, why are they making a mistake about that?

[Troublesome2008]

@stuka80

Russia was part of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a collection of many peoples (people from Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). Many people from those areas fought and died in WW2, and they were not all Russians.

[stuka80]

@Troublesome2008 yea i understand that, the germans also fought with allied armies from Romania, Italy, Bulgaria and even volunteers from France and Spain and yet, they were all collectively just coined as "German" when talking about operations in Russia. It's to avoid getting bogged down in details. So they dont have to mention every single ethnicity that fought in a certain battle, or else this documentary would take 10 hours to complete.

[Troublesome2008]

@stuka80

There is a small difference. The USSR was one country. The countries i named were created after The USSR fell apart. Italy was never part of Germany. Neither was Spain etc. Plus, when Italians fought, they were called Italians. When Romanians fought, they were called Romanians (not Germans). They had their own armies and their own flags. Watch any movie about the battle for Stalingrad and sooner or later the Italians and the Romanians will be mentioned. But i understand what you mean.

[MrPedros1989]

@illbetilbake Yep, we have NAZIS (not Germans!) and SOVIETS (not Russians!). When Germans finnaly said that death camps of Oświęcim (Auschwitz-Birkenau, more than milion people killed) they said that it was a job of Nazis. Who can blame them? I would not like to pay for the faults of my ancestors. But why the fuck now they want a stuff of relocated Germans? And if that, why the hell they WON'T pay for rebuilding of Warsaw, which was destroyed by them on purpose...

[dmacid]

@MrPedros1989 Nazi were German and Russians were Soviets. Those who werent Nazi still worked for the Nazi and seemed pretty damn proud to do so. On the other side Russians made up for more than a half of the Soviet army. Youre splitting hairs here.

[truvianni]

@dmacid so what?The English also made up for more than half of the British army but still it is called the British Army not the English army.

[dmacid]

@truvianni Think about that for a second. It was called BRITISH army not English the same way it was called SOVIET army and not Russian. Way to prove my point. Thanks.

[truvianni]

@dmacid actually I got in to some trouble once in Scotland when I told somebody that my stepfather had been in the English air force who said that I ought to call it the British air force or the RAF but never the English since Scots also fight in it and many also lost their lives in WWII

[SAMAND33]

@truvianni Russians and thier soviet states would not win war without Stalin. Stalin said to the people fight or die.

[truvianni]

@SAMAND33 Of course you are free to believe what ever nonsense you choose to but the truth is the war was almost lost because of Stalin and his stupidity of not believing an attack was coming. Furthermore it was the efforts of the peoples of the Soviet Union which along with their great field marshals like Jukow,Rokososky and Koniev which won the war.Stalin was no military strategist and what ever advice he gave did more harm than good.

[SAMAND33]

@truvianni I am saying if Stalin was not the leader the war should have been lost. He was the martial court. First of all he was the one who selected those generals to lead the army because he knew they that they could deliver the victory. So are you convinced if I tell you that the generals did not select them selves?

[truvianni]

@SAMAND33 the only thing I am convinced of is that you are an ignorant man who does not know anything and that replying to your nonsense any further would be a waste of my time so like I said you want to be talk lies and falsehoods go ahead that is what freedom of speech is about.

[SAMAND33]

@truvianni So you are not agree with me if I said "Stalin selected those generals to lead the red army?

[dmacid]

@truvianni EDIT: Bah, wrong video. But yeah, I agree that Soviets and Russians are not the same thing. Still trying to figure out what point I was trying to make there.

[truvianni]

@dmacid Also if you really think about it the Soviet Union was a completely different country than Russia. I mean it was not just a name change but a whole new system

[dmacid]

@truvianni It depends. Before communism Russia was a royalist country. After the fall of USSR they tried democracy but Yeltsin fucked that up. Putin is a strong leader and has made Russia into a superpower once again but I am not sure if I am sold on him being much different than the commies. He seems to lean towards authoritarian rule rather than wanting a legit democratic government. But I do agree than the values of Russians are not the same as the values of Bolsheviks.

[truvianni]

@illbetilbake Of course they are as there were soldiers from the other republics in the Soviet Union but to many who are not so well read I guess would call them Russians even if they were not

[PhilipDK5800]

@illbetilbake. Russians, soviets. Same same

[Richthofen100]

@PhilipDK5800

well...not rly. Soviets could be mongols and kazakstans, uzbekis, ukrainians and so forth.

[Ryssak18]

@Richthofen100 True! +1

[MrJampam]

+ A Small Spanish Fighting Regiment.

[MrJampam]

The Soviets had a fight in Leningrad, even with the small German Force: They We'r Supported by troops of German Captured Nations, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, And Many More, And supported by allies , Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, Hungary,Vichy france and Finland

[Kulmataklaus]

Germans really had small forces for such an enermous task. It looks very hopeless..even on paper..

[DarkHour404]

You think Germany had small forces? where the hell did you learn your history?

[Kulmataklaus]

Share number of efficient battle ready soldiers per square mile of Soviet Russia terroritory.

Then add logistical problems, increase it by 2x by every 50 kilometers.

Then add to count every soviet defensive line manned by larger forces and more available reserves.

Please do not think I am being evil to you. This is just my opinion :/

[DarkHour404]

it has nothing to do with comparing a army to another army, just because Russia was bigger does not mean Germany had a small force. There is only about 2-3 countries today that has over 1 million soldiers.

Germans had 2-3 times of that.

[ww12tt]

the sovjets were more motorized, but they had more men so thats true, but it might be because that they were in the defencive rolle, just a thought

[June28July]

Hmm, I think that the Soviets were much closer to their supplies... I believe that's why they were not as affected by the methods of transportation of their supplies...

[HoustonGD]

Thats correct

[metho20]

good

[itseasyforyou]

awesome