Althought this video is very good, it is only the british perspective and it is biased in quite a few points. First of all no a word is said about what was the prelude of the Russian-German pact, not a word about the Munich agreement and how the British and French sold out Chechoslovakia to Hitler. Not a word about the hopes of the British and French goverments before the war to turn Hitler to east by rejecting an alliance that Stalin proposed to them. As i said it ia in many respects biased
@HoustonGD: Tank you very very much for putting these objective documentations online. A lot of information which you are not told in history in school here in Germany. It changed especially my view of the red army of WWII. Although being german, I cannot feel anything but a deep respect how the Red Army recovered from crushing defeats, changed during the course of the war and eventually conquered more than half of europe.
Houston - Thanks for putting these videos on YouTube. This is by far the most definitive and objective historical review of these major campaigns and battles. The video footage is fantastic. My analysis of the war comes down to air superiority. The Axis and Japanese forces began to lose when they lost air superiority. Many other factors come into play, but I think that it was the single most important reason why they lost.
Thanks to winter war of finland USSR won WW2. After war for finland they upgraded army from their old machines. Thats why Hitler atacked so early so that they wouldnt get any good stuff out. By the end of the war, soviet army was much more highly skilled and advanced than german army have ever been.
hitler didnt decide the time of attack because of the russian military machine he actually underestimated them he wanted russia for the ground recources to fight the americans russia was a unproffesional military till 1943 because before they never got the chance to give its army well equipment and training after this period russia became a well trained well armed war machine
Ignorance is understandable, but your willful ignorance of history, in spite of so much written over WWII, is intellectually lazy. If you don't understand what history has written (let's not talk "victor's" history), then you have no excuse but to read!
I would not say that the germans came to "their aid". Finland was agreed to be in the Soviet sphere of interrest in the MolotovRibbentrop Pact. The finns managed to fend off the sovjets and forced trough a peace (rather than occupation) in the Winter war even though they had to hand over some territory in the peace agreement.
Finland later joined the germans in Operation Barbarossa to regain those territories and give the Soviets some pay back.
UK and France sign up peace treaty with Hitler. Its colled the Munich treaty and with that treaty they sliced and diced Checoslovacia with Hitler. That forced Stalin to sigh similar treaty with Germany and sliced Poland.
Its interesting how the UK and France declared war on Germany for invading Poland. Yet when the USSR did the same they did not declare war on the USSR.
As great as THE WORLD AT WAR was and is a documentary on WWII, BATTLEFIELD remains perhaps the best pure military history ever to appear on television.
After our Russian forces has occupied Berlin, we have found records and archives of the German High Command saying that they were surprised by the Russian counter-attack when they are just less than 20 miles from Moscow and they are surprised that our 1st generation T-34 was practically shell-proof, and they have encountered experimental Russian tank prototypes that even their T-88 cannot even dent! Germany thinks we're pre-industrial age but behind the Urals we are heavily industrialized.
But, did you study your own russia records and archives?
First, Russia may have lose the battle if Hitler proceed with his generals plan of getting moscow straight.
Second, because of him not following that plan, Russian then got the chance to build that T34.
Third, why did Russian get all this technology? Its because they corperate with the allies and archives all that technology to build modern tanks and plane.
Fourth, its because the Japan spare your fore fathers by signing a peace accord.
such that your fore fathers can move themselve from east part of Russia to the West to fight the NAZI!.
Fifth, Stalin did not know that he could win the war and he did tried to flee away form Moscow, dont you study this? He was prepared to board his armor train when things turn out bad. how about this? means its part of the plan? what you called mentally counter attack? come on, dont make my foot laugh.
LOL! thanks. but, i am not really a historian, i just like to know more about war. and i love to debate, as i did not study history in school and by debating, i can learn more from those "real" historian, as they are really kind to teach me more. hahs. thank you anyway. (:
i like to call myself a historian,even though i'm not.I'm into all the wars,from ancient to modern.WW2 is untouchable because of the scale and documentation.I'll see ya at the front singapore.
Sixth, Stalin have tried many times to talk peace with Hitler through your RUSSIAN spies/agents and asked what Hitler want.
Seventh, if all these are what you called mentally warfare? does it mean by sacrificing MILLION AND MILLION of your people, if you had the TECHNOLOGY? FCUK YOU!
furthermore, during that time.. its the Russian weakest moment as shown in Russia intend to conquer Finland. If German were to strike during that time. I think they could just conquer the whole Russia within a year. As Hitler have to only fight on one front.
i not sure.. but, i would said that is because, during that time even th americans and british thought that russia would fall within months. even th germans thought so. as the russians were really weak and do not have the time and capability to defend. however, i think they made it because the allied was providing russians with weapons.
actually, i personally think that if Hitler were to invade Russia before even invading the west. He could win the world war 2. As he stretch his troops far into the west, yet he only gain land and not the resources that could help him to expand and sustain his military machine. On th other hand, if he were to invade Russia first for oil, food and resources that could build more plane and tanks. He could feed a larger group of troops maybe 3 times larger and more efficient?
The Russian mentality in warfare is the same as that in the defeat of Napoleon. Let the enemy invade, let him destroy and devastate as much of your territory, let him cause as much casualties and capture as many of your soldiers and civilians as possible, let him take as much control of the overruned cities and towns. Make him think he is winning, then strike! By that time he has already been worned out, his supply lines stretched to the breaking point, and he is easily outflanked militarily
It seems you are not well versed with WW I and II Russian veterans, & as a battle scarred, cold war veteran who has seen many cold war conflicts up until the vietnam war up until the mid 80s, which is not written in your western newspapers or reported in western news media, it is you who have very little knowledge of the history of WW II for I have seen the archives, still kept hidden by the FSB (formerly the KGB). You were not there, you have not seen the casualties records of WW II & Cold War
whatever, i am kind of lazy to argue with you. Since there isn't really a set of rule to judge whether you are WRONG or i am RIGHT. i am not bothered with your thinking that your RUSSIAN is winning even at the first place by letting others kill your people and burn your land. orps. yep, its part of your strategy eh. I am glad that my country do not practice this kind of strategy. even if your country did practice this, would you go fight in th front line and got killed by your own general
Stalin himself do not know that he could win the war even when the Nazi are at the doorstep of Moscow. He even tried many times to negotiate with Hitler for peace through their spies. Stalin even prepared to flee from Moscow. The only thing that save Russian's ass from being kick is the winter or I should say its Hitler. its because he ignored his general idea of getting Moscow right away starting of the war. Germany had never win a prolong war. They always won a short and fast war.
This is truly the mother of all wars and the father of all campaigns, its epic size, violence, brutality and strategy could create enough interest and intrigue for a lifetime of study.
No actually he claimed that he was betrayed! He realy could not admit that he made grand mistakes. He made very risky Gambits. If you want to make sure you win , you always prepare for the worst case scenario and back off from it. Hitler did it the other way around, he prepared for the best case scenario and moved forward to the worst case, which is disastrous.
Actually, Hitler's signing of a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union was one of the few times that Hitler was politically shrewd. A real cock up for the rest of the show, though.
Couldn't hitler and stalin both be evil? Y'know, like take it in turns? Stalin could have Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday and Hitler have Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday?
Finland defended themselves very well with their 8 divisions. Just think, If the Finns had 18 divisions they could have captured Moscow!! Soviet bullies...
But, in all fairness, let's be realistic. The Russian troops were not professionals. The Russian military doctrine was still heavily based upon the late 19th century model.
On the Finnish side, it is always easier to fight a defensive battle. In terms of logistics, coordination and communications, and manueverobility, defense is easier achieved.
Still, Finland's achievement is no small accomplishment but I doubt they would make it to Moscow.
You dont have to doubt that Finland's would make it to Moscow. Th reason that they won the Russian is partly because they know their own homeland well. They are devided into groups of 10 or 15 and mounted on Ice Skating. and thn th tactic they used is shoot and run. thats why its hard to get them.
your taking about russian at the end of the war - at the start of the war it was a truely aweful force. Most of the fighting was not urban - it was open country where the rifle is king, even when in urban the germans had the st44 (at the end) and also used the PPSH aswell. the russian army lost 10 million soldiers. Germany was fighting the whole of europe nearly and the 2 biggest countrys in the world - USA + Russia. I dont support them but I think the german soldier fought astonishingly well.
pfff you your knowledge is small... there were many proofs and indications, that russians were preparing to attack Germany, I suggest you to read some books about it.
Not necessarily. The campaigns in Poland and France gave the Germans important lessons and training in blitzkrieg, without which a successful eastern campaign could hardly do without on the vast steppes of Russia and Ukraine.
Sorry about the previous messages. That's the way it goes, arguing on the internet :P
I would still like to press my point though. Beginning with the non-aggression pact is just wrong, as it gives a mistaken view of the political landscape leading up to the war.
The Soviet union first tried to stem German aggression during the Anschluss.
On March 17th they proposed a conference with the other big powers. A week later, Chamberlain publicly rejected it in the House of Commons.
March 18, 1939, Litvinov proposed a conference between USSR, France, Britain, Poland, Rumania and Turkey. Chamberlain found the idea 'premature' and would only agree to a decleration, being intensely distrustful of the Russians. Then on April 16th.. I'll just make a quote here, from
Shirer, William L. 1960. "The rise and fall of the third reich", 2nd edition page 583. Secker & Warburg, London.
"On the very day of this discussion between Goering and Mussolini, April 16, the Soviet Foreign Commissar received the British ambassador in Moscow and made a formal proposal for a triple pact of mutual assistance between Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union. It called for a military guarantee by the signatories, to be joined by Poland, if it desired, of all the nations in Central and Eastern Europe which felt themselves menaced by Nazi Germany.
It was Litvinov's last bid for an alliance against the Third Reich, and the Russian Foreign Minister, who had staked his career on a policy of stopping Hitler by collective action, must have thought that at last he would succeed in uniting the Western democracies with Russia for that purpose.
As Churchill said in a speech on May 4, complaining that the Russian offer had not yet been accepted in London, 'there is no means of maintaining an Eastern front against Nazi aggression without the active aid of Russia'. No other power in Eastern Europe, certainly not Poland, possessed the military strength to maintain a front in that region. Yet the Russian proposal caused consternation in London and Paris."
So I think this should be taken into consideration.
I would very much appreciate respect for the producers of this documentary. Any vulgar or hate inspired comments will be deleted. Please limit your comments to 500 to 1,000 characters, and please keep to the subject. I value most peoples views, but ranting in this internet forum is unacceptable. Thanks GDH
poor horses
kostebo1593 1 year ago
Althought this video is very good, it is only the british perspective and it is biased in quite a few points. First of all no a word is said about what was the prelude of the Russian-German pact, not a word about the Munich agreement and how the British and French sold out Chechoslovakia to Hitler. Not a word about the hopes of the British and French goverments before the war to turn Hitler to east by rejecting an alliance that Stalin proposed to them. As i said it ia in many respects biased
stri2003 1 year ago
houstonGD you rock i watch more of your vids on youtube then my combined tv watching every week
punkjock26 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
long live the Italian-German-Romanian alliance! greetings from Italy!
elmalasorte 1 year ago
rule number one of war: never invade russia
ArcticSledgeTank 1 year ago
@HoustonGD: Tank you very very much for putting these objective documentations online. A lot of information which you are not told in history in school here in Germany. It changed especially my view of the red army of WWII. Although being german, I cannot feel anything but a deep respect how the Red Army recovered from crushing defeats, changed during the course of the war and eventually conquered more than half of europe.
TTiger75 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Excellent documentar series. Thank you for posting them HoustonGD
nycterrana 1 year ago
Excellent documentary series. Thank you for posting them HoustonGD
nycterrana 1 year ago 2
Houston - Thanks for putting these videos on YouTube. This is by far the most definitive and objective historical review of these major campaigns and battles. The video footage is fantastic. My analysis of the war comes down to air superiority. The Axis and Japanese forces began to lose when they lost air superiority. Many other factors come into play, but I think that it was the single most important reason why they lost.
terranempire7 1 year ago
there are hundreds of documantarys about the ww2 but i consider these as the best
because they analyze EVERYTHING
before during and after the battles
thank you for these vids
bleushift 1 year ago
@guzicaguzica 27 000 000 but real number could be 25 000 000- 32 000 000
1992kriss 1 year ago
Thanks to winter war of finland USSR won WW2. After war for finland they upgraded army from their old machines. Thats why Hitler atacked so early so that they wouldnt get any good stuff out. By the end of the war, soviet army was much more highly skilled and advanced than german army have ever been.
D3adtrap 1 year ago
@D3adtrap
i disagree with you
hitler didnt decide the time of attack because of the russian military machine he actually underestimated them he wanted russia for the ground recources to fight the americans russia was a unproffesional military till 1943 because before they never got the chance to give its army well equipment and training after this period russia became a well trained well armed war machine
bleushift 1 year ago
@bleushift
I mostly agree, but Hitler did atack so yearly (mostly) bechose of time limit
D3adtrap 1 year ago
Isn't it ironic that Poland was destroyed from the East and West, and in the end the Third Reich was destroyed from East and West?
OzzyFan87 1 year ago
I had totally forgotten that the Soviets had invaded Finland.
I never understood why the Fins had so many pro-German militias set up, and now I remember the Germans came to their aid against the Soviets.
mrceebees14 1 year ago
Ignorance is understandable, but your willful ignorance of history, in spite of so much written over WWII, is intellectually lazy. If you don't understand what history has written (let's not talk "victor's" history), then you have no excuse but to read!
whiff1962 1 year ago
@mrceebees14
I would not say that the germans came to "their aid". Finland was agreed to be in the Soviet sphere of interrest in the MolotovRibbentrop Pact. The finns managed to fend off the sovjets and forced trough a peace (rather than occupation) in the Winter war even though they had to hand over some territory in the peace agreement.
Finland later joined the germans in Operation Barbarossa to regain those territories and give the Soviets some pay back.
Faidros62 1 year ago
UK and France sign up peace treaty with Hitler. Its colled the Munich treaty and with that treaty they sliced and diced Checoslovacia with Hitler. That forced Stalin to sigh similar treaty with Germany and sliced Poland.
ivsny 2 years ago
Its interesting how the UK and France declared war on Germany for invading Poland. Yet when the USSR did the same they did not declare war on the USSR.
thatkidinthegreenhat 2 years ago 6
Real simple.
USSR was an ally.
mrceebees14 1 year ago
No not real simple.
USSR was not an ally at that time, only when Germany attacked the Soviet Union did was an agreement made.
The actual reasons were more prosaic,
1. they had nothing on the line in the case of finland.
2. There were no realistic way of supporting finland militarily
3. they were allready commited to defending Poland against Germany and Germany supported Finland.
Im sure there were other reasons aswell, but as you can see not so wery simple afterall.
dinomand 1 year ago
The Germans had to make more preparations, in order to defeat the USSR
NikiGalabov 2 years ago
As great as THE WORLD AT WAR was and is a documentary on WWII, BATTLEFIELD remains perhaps the best pure military history ever to appear on television.
MichaelThomasMarion 2 years ago 6
happygolucky93 learn your history man,your info is very wrong
historyman8 2 years ago
After our Russian forces has occupied Berlin, we have found records and archives of the German High Command saying that they were surprised by the Russian counter-attack when they are just less than 20 miles from Moscow and they are surprised that our 1st generation T-34 was practically shell-proof, and they have encountered experimental Russian tank prototypes that even their T-88 cannot even dent! Germany thinks we're pre-industrial age but behind the Urals we are heavily industrialized.
darthvader5300 2 years ago
But, did you study your own russia records and archives?
First, Russia may have lose the battle if Hitler proceed with his generals plan of getting moscow straight.
Second, because of him not following that plan, Russian then got the chance to build that T34.
Third, why did Russian get all this technology? Its because they corperate with the allies and archives all that technology to build modern tanks and plane.
Fourth, its because the Japan spare your fore fathers by signing a peace accord.
happygolucky93 2 years ago
such that your fore fathers can move themselve from east part of Russia to the West to fight the NAZI!.
Fifth, Stalin did not know that he could win the war and he did tried to flee away form Moscow, dont you study this? He was prepared to board his armor train when things turn out bad. how about this? means its part of the plan? what you called mentally counter attack? come on, dont make my foot laugh.
happygolucky93 2 years ago
@happygolucky93- "come on, dont make my foot laugh"..haha,your well informed AND funny.
I like the peace talks between you and darthvader5300.I love it when WW2 historians bunp heads without disrespect....you've both kept your honor.
noblepuker 2 years ago
LOL! thanks. but, i am not really a historian, i just like to know more about war. and i love to debate, as i did not study history in school and by debating, i can learn more from those "real" historian, as they are really kind to teach me more. hahs. thank you anyway. (:
happygolucky93 2 years ago
i like to call myself a historian,even though i'm not.I'm into all the wars,from ancient to modern.WW2 is untouchable because of the scale and documentation.I'll see ya at the front singapore.
noblepuker 2 years ago
@happygolucky93 did not he remained in Moscow during the Battle of Moscow?
ssw1989 2 years ago
Sixth, Stalin have tried many times to talk peace with Hitler through your RUSSIAN spies/agents and asked what Hitler want.
Seventh, if all these are what you called mentally warfare? does it mean by sacrificing MILLION AND MILLION of your people, if you had the TECHNOLOGY? FCUK YOU!
happygolucky93 2 years ago
furthermore, during that time.. its the Russian weakest moment as shown in Russia intend to conquer Finland. If German were to strike during that time. I think they could just conquer the whole Russia within a year. As Hitler have to only fight on one front.
happygolucky93 2 years ago
@happygolucky93 ''conquer the whole Russia within a year'' is a fantasy that exists only in your mind my friend
lape2002 1 year ago
@lape2002
i not sure.. but, i would said that is because, during that time even th americans and british thought that russia would fall within months. even th germans thought so. as the russians were really weak and do not have the time and capability to defend. however, i think they made it because the allied was providing russians with weapons.
happygolucky93 1 year ago
actually, i personally think that if Hitler were to invade Russia before even invading the west. He could win the world war 2. As he stretch his troops far into the west, yet he only gain land and not the resources that could help him to expand and sustain his military machine. On th other hand, if he were to invade Russia first for oil, food and resources that could build more plane and tanks. He could feed a larger group of troops maybe 3 times larger and more efficient?
happygolucky93 2 years ago
The Russian mentality in warfare is the same as that in the defeat of Napoleon. Let the enemy invade, let him destroy and devastate as much of your territory, let him cause as much casualties and capture as many of your soldiers and civilians as possible, let him take as much control of the overruned cities and towns. Make him think he is winning, then strike! By that time he has already been worned out, his supply lines stretched to the breaking point, and he is easily outflanked militarily
darthvader5300 2 years ago
you are so wrong. apparently, you have little knowledge about the history of the whole world war 2.
happygolucky93 2 years ago
It seems you are not well versed with WW I and II Russian veterans, & as a battle scarred, cold war veteran who has seen many cold war conflicts up until the vietnam war up until the mid 80s, which is not written in your western newspapers or reported in western news media, it is you who have very little knowledge of the history of WW II for I have seen the archives, still kept hidden by the FSB (formerly the KGB). You were not there, you have not seen the casualties records of WW II & Cold War
darthvader5300 2 years ago
whatever, i am kind of lazy to argue with you. Since there isn't really a set of rule to judge whether you are WRONG or i am RIGHT. i am not bothered with your thinking that your RUSSIAN is winning even at the first place by letting others kill your people and burn your land. orps. yep, its part of your strategy eh. I am glad that my country do not practice this kind of strategy. even if your country did practice this, would you go fight in th front line and got killed by your own general
happygolucky93 2 years ago
and let your general abandon you in th battle? COME ON! pls think straight uh.
happygolucky93 2 years ago
Stalin himself do not know that he could win the war even when the Nazi are at the doorstep of Moscow. He even tried many times to negotiate with Hitler for peace through their spies. Stalin even prepared to flee from Moscow. The only thing that save Russian's ass from being kick is the winter or I should say its Hitler. its because he ignored his general idea of getting Moscow right away starting of the war. Germany had never win a prolong war. They always won a short and fast war.
happygolucky93 2 years ago
Its because they still have the element of surprise at the beginning of the battle.
happygolucky93 2 years ago
This is truly the mother of all wars and the father of all campaigns, its epic size, violence, brutality and strategy could create enough interest and intrigue for a lifetime of study.
DouglasEdward84 2 years ago
@DouglasEdward84 Well put my friend.
TomCody1 2 years ago
No actually he claimed that he was betrayed! He realy could not admit that he made grand mistakes. He made very risky Gambits. If you want to make sure you win , you always prepare for the worst case scenario and back off from it. Hitler did it the other way around, he prepared for the best case scenario and moved forward to the worst case, which is disastrous.
jeffman3003 2 years ago
USSR: 27.000.000 were killed.
Civilians: around 18.000.000.
Soldiers: around 8.700.000.
archanticipator 2 years ago
true stalin is a paranoid bastard that killed millions of soo called lazy phesants the kulaks
hoholeader1 2 years ago
Actually, Hitler's signing of a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union was one of the few times that Hitler was politically shrewd. A real cock up for the rest of the show, though.
whiff1962 2 years ago
The finns embarrassed the Russians so badly during ww2, and it was so well deserved, sneaky russian leadership.
Nickradamus 2 years ago
Thats because the Finns were supplied with German Guns & Ammunition and the Russian Army at the time was Poorly Lead and Trained.
EvilFingers 2 years ago
hey! you are here too. (:
happygolucky93 2 years ago
Of course, Im in Mr Houston's Friends List.
EvilFingers 2 years ago
Q. What did Hitler say, when he finally realized his forces could not defeat the Russians?
A. oops!
EvilFingers 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
jeffman3003 2 years ago
Stalin was #1 evil in the world. If evil exists it was him.
wachaufeuropa 2 years ago 19
Yeah.
Someone should have shot his brains out with a sniper rifle.
That would have been fantastic and make my heart swell with joy.
askjiir 2 years ago
yeah him or Hitler if you ask me they are both number 1
Lurtz0886 2 years ago
Not himself alone, but Hitler was a dreaming child next to him.
Bereft008 2 years ago
Couldn't hitler and stalin both be evil? Y'know, like take it in turns? Stalin could have Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday and Hitler have Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday?
Dinewiz 2 years ago
Finland defended themselves very well with their 8 divisions. Just think, If the Finns had 18 divisions they could have captured Moscow!! Soviet bullies...
randy109 2 years ago
Yes, Finland did defend itself remarkably.
But, in all fairness, let's be realistic. The Russian troops were not professionals. The Russian military doctrine was still heavily based upon the late 19th century model.
On the Finnish side, it is always easier to fight a defensive battle. In terms of logistics, coordination and communications, and manueverobility, defense is easier achieved.
Still, Finland's achievement is no small accomplishment but I doubt they would make it to Moscow.
TheRingil 2 years ago 8
I agree. Street fighting and maybe less knowledge of the shock tactics and tank units would have made it very difficult.
Also, Russians would have anticipated early and stopped it early.
soccom8341576 2 years ago
You dont have to doubt that Finland's would make it to Moscow. Th reason that they won the Russian is partly because they know their own homeland well. They are devided into groups of 10 or 15 and mounted on Ice Skating. and thn th tactic they used is shoot and run. thats why its hard to get them.
happygolucky93 2 years ago
Yes isn't it.lol
HoustonGD 2 years ago
Yes i agree with you. i know that may hard for you to believe, here on youtube. The ultimate place of contradiction and factless-arguement
BigJackCockable 2 years ago
makes sense, 4/5 of the german army was deployed in the east.
Requiredghr18 2 years ago
The figure I produced for a college paper was 77%. However, who knows the real figure its around 80%
HoustonGD 2 years ago
your taking about russian at the end of the war - at the start of the war it was a truely aweful force. Most of the fighting was not urban - it was open country where the rifle is king, even when in urban the germans had the st44 (at the end) and also used the PPSH aswell. the russian army lost 10 million soldiers. Germany was fighting the whole of europe nearly and the 2 biggest countrys in the world - USA + Russia. I dont support them but I think the german soldier fought astonishingly well.
Isthisthelongestname 2 years ago 5
If germans hadn't attacked soviet union first, soviets would have attacked them.
BodzioEntertainment 2 years ago
I believe this.
friedonions 2 years ago
there was never an indication that soviet union was getting ready to attack germany knowing that they are ill equip and not even man power to do so.
sweetasflip 2 years ago
Russia woudl eventually attack germany, germany realized this and decided the best chance they had was in 1941
Requiredghr18 2 years ago
@sweetasflip
pfff you your knowledge is small... there were many proofs and indications, that russians were preparing to attack Germany, I suggest you to read some books about it.
BodzioEntertainment 2 years ago
sure, if having the highest number of deaths in the war sounds like "crushing the wehrmacht" to you.
CerialSquirrel 2 years ago
You're kidding right? You do know how much the Red Army was in the shitter during the 30s right? I'm guessing not.
Erhabenheiten 2 years ago
Does anyone know if this series is available in the U.S. anywhere?
gork44 2 years ago
wel,its the biggest mistake or hitler ,without knowing its strategic n weather invade on Russia n its couse his biggest part of forces were destroyed
Ajeffersom 3 years ago
germany would have defeated russia if it didnt attack europe but russia first
Zaharkl 3 years ago
Not necessarily. The campaigns in Poland and France gave the Germans important lessons and training in blitzkrieg, without which a successful eastern campaign could hardly do without on the vast steppes of Russia and Ukraine.
lektrum 3 years ago
if germany would have atacked russia what army would defend germany proper from invasion in the west? :-s
tanasexu 2 years ago
who said the west wld help then? dont forget the west disliked the communists too
creamycurdy 2 years ago
Sorry about the previous messages. That's the way it goes, arguing on the internet :P
I would still like to press my point though. Beginning with the non-aggression pact is just wrong, as it gives a mistaken view of the political landscape leading up to the war.
The Soviet union first tried to stem German aggression during the Anschluss.
On March 17th they proposed a conference with the other big powers. A week later, Chamberlain publicly rejected it in the House of Commons.
lektrum 3 years ago
March 18, 1939, Litvinov proposed a conference between USSR, France, Britain, Poland, Rumania and Turkey. Chamberlain found the idea 'premature' and would only agree to a decleration, being intensely distrustful of the Russians. Then on April 16th.. I'll just make a quote here, from
Shirer, William L. 1960. "The rise and fall of the third reich", 2nd edition page 583. Secker & Warburg, London.
lektrum 3 years ago
"On the very day of this discussion between Goering and Mussolini, April 16, the Soviet Foreign Commissar received the British ambassador in Moscow and made a formal proposal for a triple pact of mutual assistance between Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union. It called for a military guarantee by the signatories, to be joined by Poland, if it desired, of all the nations in Central and Eastern Europe which felt themselves menaced by Nazi Germany.
lektrum 3 years ago
It was Litvinov's last bid for an alliance against the Third Reich, and the Russian Foreign Minister, who had staked his career on a policy of stopping Hitler by collective action, must have thought that at last he would succeed in uniting the Western democracies with Russia for that purpose.
lektrum 3 years ago
As Churchill said in a speech on May 4, complaining that the Russian offer had not yet been accepted in London, 'there is no means of maintaining an Eastern front against Nazi aggression without the active aid of Russia'. No other power in Eastern Europe, certainly not Poland, possessed the military strength to maintain a front in that region. Yet the Russian proposal caused consternation in London and Paris."
So I think this should be taken into consideration.
lektrum 3 years ago
I would very much appreciate respect for the producers of this documentary. Any vulgar or hate inspired comments will be deleted. Please limit your comments to 500 to 1,000 characters, and please keep to the subject. I value most peoples views, but ranting in this internet forum is unacceptable. Thanks GDH
HoustonGD 3 years ago