(1/12) Battlefield I The Battle of Berlin Episode 12 (GDH)

[nicesinging1]

One thing that always baffled me about the Red Army is their enormous and seemingly inexhaustible manpower. How was the Red Army able to quickly replace lost troops? It is like, the Red Army lose 1 million troops in a battle and another 1 million is quickly replaced in a few days. Literally.

[alanheath]

There is nothing prestigious about dying. Unless others are dying for you. Stalin knew that.

[alanheath]

Was this the most horrific battle ever fought in a city? Surely Stalingrad was worse?

[2bn442RCT]

@alanheath. For some reason the suppression of Warsaw 1944 sticks in my head as the worst battle for civilians. The Battle of Berlin is not only horrible it's outright macabre what transpired during the battle. Mass rapes, suicides SS killing their own people. Just really weird.

[alanheath]

@2bn442RCT I did not think of Warsaw! But yes, more destruction and more deaths were caused in the Warsaw Uprising which in any case lasted much longer than the Battle of Berlin.

[alanheath]

I don't accept that the Soviet capture of Berlin gave the USSR huge expanses of territory. That had already been given to them at Tehran and confirmed at Yalta. The Red Army could have sat on the Oder and done nothing and the occupation zones would have been exactly the same.

Indeed the US pulled out of large areas of Germany having captured cities like Magdeburg, Erfurt, Dessau. To be fair, the Soviets did pull out of Austria too.

[2bn442RCT]

@alanheath The deal was already struck before the capture of Berlin.

[alanheath]

I really like the opening credits and music - really gets one in the mood!!

[raybay30]

To get some idea of the war's fierce ending, Russia lost more troops in the last year than in all the previous years of the war! Guderian ,in his tactical retreat inflicted some of the worst losses on the Russians, in some cases destroying entire divisions. Surrendering to the US/Brits he later said "How can you win if an enemy will take 90% casualties and still fight." Hating communism, his heroic resistance continued, teaching at the US War College during the cold war era.

[artiz32000]

Nazi's could win the war and make Germany in to an other U.S. Problem is Hitler open War in two fronts again. But then again when Hitler launch Barbarossa idea was England is finished. it was a well planned attack but again area they sought to capture is wast with the American material help Russian managed to resist. then Russia recover and hit back all the way.

[MegaBoohoohoo]

american help was very limited and most weapons used on the eastern front were russian. dont fool yourself, russian vets have often spoke how limited the american support was.

[kitekotus]

@MegaBoohoohoo i know people who fighted on german side in eastern front and they said that they have seen a lot of shermans still with white stars on them.

[MicheasTheMighty]

As much as Bolshevism was a poisonous ideology, Russia deserved to take Berlin after the hell the Germans put them through. The Third Reich wrecked their country purposelessly. After the war, Russia and its protectorates were ravaged. Stalin had poured all his resources into total war. Remember people, to the Russians, this was the Great Patriotic War. They got their revenge on the Germans for Barbarossa. What dastardly deed did the Germans perpetrate on the U.S. to warrant us taking the city?

[Andiish08]

if the western allied leaders hadnt underestimated the importance of berlin and the soviet unions will to take it,the world would really

have been different.

[TheRawke]

Well, Stalin promised not to attack Berlin. Infact, he told the Allies that he'd only send some recce in. But apparently 2.5 million Red Army soldiers wetre preparing to take the city. The Allied spearhead stopped at the Elbe and coul've reached Berlin within a day or two - but they didn't. They knew how important Berlin was, but they underestimated Stalin's will to bring Europe under his control. Same game as with Hitler in the 30's, they didn't have time to react.

[krazyrussian101]

They agreed to split the city into 4 zones..it was agreed that Stalin would take the city

[guysmiley00]

@TheRawke What are you talking about? It was agreed at Yalta that eastern Germany would fall under the Soviet sphere of influence. There was never any real chance of an Allied "race to Berlin", not if the Allies wanted to have Soviet help against the Japanese in the Pacific.

[Attila709]

The Ardennes offensive only had a ten percent chance of success. Every German commander knew that, even Hilter. But it was a chance they felt had to be taken.

[Andiish08]

at least the first like 10 days of the offensive were a success for germany;they took the allies extremely by surprise.

[TheRawke]

The Problem of the Ardennes offensive was that it was poorly executed. The fuel and ammo supply was not proper organized because the attack was hastily launched. The idea was'nt bad at all but it failed due to mistakes made by the high command and a variety of problems regarding the infrastructure in the Ardennes. This time the Germans came with a lot of heavy tanks, too heavy for the mountain streets, apparently. Wrong equipment, poor leadership. As simple as that.

[guysmiley00]

@TheRawke It's hard to organize fuel and ammo supplies when you don't have any. My understanding is that one of the reasons the offensive was undertaken was to seize Allied supplies to fuel the faltering German mechanized divisions, as well as taking Antwerp to deny the Allies the deepwater port and split the British and American armies.

[krazyrussian101]

10% where did you get that number?

[Attila709]

Can't remember the exact book. Why? You going to tell me it's wrong and what you read is correct?

[krazyrussian101]

why cant it be 11 percent?

[MicheasTheMighty]

It is depressing how the outcome of WW2 served only to replace one ruthless occupying army with another in many Central and Eastern European nations. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Stalin turned out to be a greater enemy than the original one. All the democracies had in common with the Reds was beating the Nazis into submission. They could have done that without getting cozy with the Bolsheviks.

[gopconservative78]

But the French surrendered.

[MicheasTheMighty]

The French were stuck in a WWI mentality preparing for the German assault. They thought the Maginot Line and the Ardennes forest would make invasion unpalatable for the Germans. Blitzkrieg took them by surprise. Not so much for the British, seeing as how they invented the tactic of blitzkrieg.

[lifes40123]

dude the british lived on a island thats why they could survive the blitzkrieg

[guysmiley00]

@MicheasTheMighty How did the British invent the blitzkrieg? And if they did, why were they so unprepared for it in the Battle of France? Remember, there was a huge British contingent there alongside the French, hence the need for the Dunkirk evacuation.

[alanheath]

@guysmiley00 The person who came up with the idea of blitzkrieg was British. One of its early proponents was Lidell Hart whose books on the two world wars made a big influence on many.

Why so unprepared - good question.

[guysmiley00]

@alanheath That's actually not true - Lidell inserted himself into the concept of Blitzkrieg after the war, even pressuring Guderian to add a paragraph to the British version of his memoirs crediting Lidell, though no such paragraph appeared in the already-published German version. Lidell had his contributions to military theory between the wars, but Blitzkrieg was not a part of it.

[alanheath]

@guysmiley00 There is a photograph - I think of Guderian - where the German thanks Lidell Hart for his contribution. Of course if you are correct then that could have been a post war goodwill (or other) gesture.

[guysmiley00]

@alanheath Yes, that's what I said. Lidell invented his contribution to Blitzkrieg post-war, even pressuring Guderian to credit him in the English translation of his memoirs, when no such credit was given in the original German version. Lidell even destroyed his copy of the letter sent to Guderian begging for credit, and when asked why Guderian had a copy of the letter and Lidell didn't, gave a spectacular non-answer. A pathetic episode for someone with real contributions to his name.

[alanheath]

@guysmiley00 I was sufficiently intrigued by your answer to look more into the subject. I can't give a very complex answer as all my stuff is in boxes having just moved. In the Ten Commandments of a Combat Unit which I think is from 1922 he refers to tactics which are those we would regard as blitzkrieg today BUT he does not refer to tanks but instead of how infantry should be deployed.

Nonetheless I am pretty shocked at your revelation (to me) about this Guderian incident.

[alanheath]

@alanheath The first record that I know of regarding blitzkrieg was then Colonel Fullers article in the May 1920 issue of the Journal of the Royal United Services Institution referring to tanks. Liddell Hart wrote to Fuller and then became on friendly terms bu the latter did not think the former understood how difficult it would be for infantry alone to break through - therefore tanks. In an artilce on 8 Sept. 1926 in the Daily Telegraph Liddell writes of mobility without the word armour.

[2bn442RCT]

@alanheath. The use of the term Blitzkrieg is an interesting example of authors injecting a word from the present to the past. I don't think anyone really used the word "blitzkrieg" during the war. But, I could be wrong.

[guysmiley00]

@alanheath First off, let me make clear that I am in no way an expert on Hart or Guderian or Blitzkrieg.

I assume you're referring to Hart's "indirect approach" and "elastic defence" concepts. While those bear relation to Blitzkrieg, an ill-defined term imposed by later historians, I don't think you can call them "Blitzkrieg", which I at least define as the use of large masses of armor in combined arms operations with aircraft and mechanized infantry, all connected with tactical communications.

[alanheath]

@guysmiley00 One of the problems with words is on definition and yes, what is blitzkreig? And when I think of blitzkrieg it is not just WW2 but also the 1956 and 1967 Arab Israeli wars that come to mind.

[guysmiley00]

@alanheath A good point. I personally think of "blitzkrieg" as the beginning of "combined arms"-type tactics. You're certainly correct about the concept of "blitzkrieg" being imposed on WW2 tactics by later historians - it most definitely wasn't a word or a concept used at the time. The development of the tactic was far more messy and organic.

[2bn442RCT]

@alanheath Very interesting how Guderian was treated after the war. Not a Nazi but certainly very responsible for the military conduct of the war at the beginning and after the July 20th bomb plot. Whereas Kietel and Jodl where looked at as Hitler's cronies, Guderian was deeply respected for his professionalism as Chief of Staff. He spoke fluent English too, which I'm sure helped him appear as a GOOD German allied with the nice west against the drunken communist bullies just across the way.

[guysmiley00]

@gopconservative78 Sure, except for those that didn't. The French resistance was responsible for keeping a whole division of Germans away from the Normandy beachheads, and in the opinion of some British commanders, were the reason the landings succeeded. Read up on the British "Jedburgh" operatives, percursors to CIA-style "military advisors" to friendly native forces, and what they have to say about the French partisans they assisted.

[guysmiley00]

@MicheasTheMighty You're crazy. Have you seen the Russian casualty figures for WWII? One can make a reasonable case that it was the Russians who actually won the war against Germany, with the rest of the Allies playing a fairly minor supporting role.

[MaistoHelix]

Thanks for uploading,excellent doc!

[hkfl8087]

wha!!!what a video!good job GD!

[GermanSniperBayArea]

These are great videos. Russian counter attacks in the east made huge advances, and inflicted major losses on the Germans.

[hatakashi1900]

Excellent video, indeed the German Army in WWII was the Elite, 1 country against GB, USA and Russia and lasted for 2 years! Impressive!

[psgchisolm]

only multiple fronts with little to no support and all u have to say is impressive lol

[peterp964]

@hatakashi1900 It was not one country, it was Germany,Japan,Italy, Austria,Hungary, plus millions of slave labourers. So there we are, your assumption is badly flawed.

[spinynorman230]

@hatakashi1900 yeah, the casualties were something like 20:1 in favor of Germany.

[alanheath]

@spinynorman230 Not if you put civilian casualties into it.

[spinynorman230]

@alanheath Civilian casualties were mainly the victims of bombing and the russian pillaging. I mean the actual COMBATANTS