Regarding Treaty of Versailles: the basic thinking was that Germany had spawned and would continue to spawn regimes bent on domination of Europe. Therefore they had to be "kept down" by onerous reparations. In addition their industrial heartland (Ruhr area) was to be occupied and monitored. Whether leniency would have resulted in German regimes that were not bent on domination of Europe is highly problematic. Certainly Hitler claimed that the Versailes Treaty gave him a cassus belli.
This operation was a major mistake, why betray Stalin? It made no sense whatsoever.
A military alliance between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would bring the world to it's knees easily, and Americas involvement wouldn't be a choice.
The Soviets took the main blunt force of the German Wermacht. 22 million Soviets perished because of the incursion, and the battles on the Eastern Front have gone down in history as the most bloodiest, vicious, and devastating of all time. Yet the Soviets clung to their crossing on the Volga, a truly incredible feat.
The Western Democracies did little to help the 2nd Republic in Spain in '36, where Madrid was the first bombing of a civilian populace in history. WW2 began in 1936 in Spain.
HItler defeated the Soviet Union in the summer of '41, just like he defeated France in 6 weeks. Difference was that the French recognized they were defeated and the Soviets decided to continue fighting. Had the French dug in their heels and fought to the death Hitler might have never went "east". France was too quick to throw in the towel, while the Soviets were too stubborn to EVER throw in the towel. French being pompous victors in 1918 caused WW2. French softness in 1940 let WW2 proceed..
The British were unhappy of Germany's technological and economical advances at that time. The British could have ignored German's invasion of Poland. But they came in.
uk should never have been in france, they should have fought on their own soil from the very beginning; then when usa came into the war in 1941 we could have easily crushed germeny in the west, which we did anyway.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH YEAH.........it took you 9 months in 1944-45 even with the americans to defeat a weakned german army with 80% of its troops fighting against the russians.Germany was fighting the entire world in the war and it took almost 6 yrs and they nearly won.
we won the battle of britain on our own , germany would never have crossed the english channel. they did not nearly win, they got crushed. hitler was a failure.
The germans only had enough fuel to drop their bombs and return home.The germans were winning the war up to 1943.They wiped out entire russian armys....just watch this video above after all it was made in your country and theres very little propaganda in it so youll be dissapointed.
they would never have crossed the english channel asshole, the raf would have constantly held them off.
operation barbarossa was a failure as was stalingrad and kursk. the nazis were doomed to be ground to a halt by britain and to be ultimately defeated by a strong and determind soviet army.
you're just a neo-nazi troll
what did your country do during this war? nothing.
when 1 in 9 German KIA were in the east, & with 70% of Luftwaffe & Panzer tanks being destroyed by Russians 3 years before USA popped her cherry on D-Day
id say the Yanks role in the War in Europe is GREATLY exaggerated
No never ! Coward yanks waited until Germany invaded ussr and been weakened by heavy RAF bombing to land in France !! if you did enter the war in 1940 against Germany they would crush you first ! fuckin' american fat yanks ! btw you said "WE" you weren't part !
Listen to yourself, of course Americans would have done poorly against the Germans had they entered the war initially, that's obvious. And American military generals obviously knew that, too. So use your brain, military victories are all about knowing WHEN to strike fool, I say it was military GENIUS.
"Attack when they're weak and defend when they're strong";
that's one of the most basic military strategies for victory, don't call Americans cowards just because the generals of the time were following a PERFECT strategy for victory. You'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise.
Treaty of Versailles was main reason for WW2. at my oppinion. Also, Europe gave too much space for Hitler to expand. And then there is Soviets and their Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
As for WW1, competition between nations, bitterness of Germany and France, alliances...
There are numerous reasons, and everyone is as much guilty for war as others. Blaming Germany for whole mess ain't fair at my oppinion.
Treaty of Versailles was overthrown in 1935-36 but Germany started invasion in 1937-39
Also Treaty of Versailles was just a copy of the Treaty that Bismarck forced upon French a few decades before ww1. French paid to the Germans after Bismark defeated them , they expected the same from the Germans.
It is not blaming the Germany, it is blaming the Nazi regime, the most fanatical and irrational regime in centuries.
Well WWII was an extension of WWI and also it was a war of idealogies, mainly Commmunism against National Socialism. These two idealogies could not coexist together. And do not forget the leaders, the leaders of WWII are the stuff of legends, you do not see leaders like that anymore, and probably wont ever again.
@Auts91 WW1 kicked off because Germany violated Belgian neutrality and invaded France, using a plan laid down 9 years earlier. If the V Treaty had been upheld, and the US banks hadn't financed Hitler, WW2 would not have happened. And no - people are no equally guilty. Not everyone voted into power a psychopath on a mission to mass murder and the domination of Europe. "Not fair" my arse - neither was being blitzed or gassed "fair".
@Auts91 Granted there are many reasons for the start of WW II. But, Hitler's Germany is the major force for the war......Yes, there were economic hardships , World Depression, many countries faced the same difficulties but ony the facist regimes of Italy, Germany and Japan turned to World Conquests.........Tired of hearing how the Western Democracies suppressed the Germans! Harsh terms from Versallies...hog-wash!
universekid - I should have added, of course, that in addition to revenge, the doyens of the French Democratic Republican Party, all of them the heirs of Leon Gambetta, also wanted to secure the return of Alsace Lorraine, which Germany had detached from France in the 1871 Treaty of Frankfurt and had made Reichs povinces. The citizens of these provinces showed time and again that the refused to become good Germans, and Frenchmen felt honour bound to relieve them of their oppression.
universekid - A war that looked defensive was crucial. Napoleon III's aggressive stance in 1870 made everyone think France wanted that War, leaving France friendless. In 1914, the revenge-clique in French politics wanted war with Germany but wanted it to look defensive. They had the UK on their side but a faux pas might lose her. Delcasse withdrew French troops 25Km from borders with Germany to prevent any accidents. Russia led the way and Germany stupidly followed. France looked innocent.
The British are mainly responsible of both world wars. First because they couldn't stand the german industrial and commercial rise in the beginning of the century. And because they didn't admit the deal between Germany and the Ottoman Empire about the oil prospection along the Berlin-Bagdad railway while they had already share the Middle-East with the Us and the french. This is how began WWI. WWII being the nothing but the continuation of WWI.
You are drawing conclusions on the basis of circumstantial evidence. There is NO evidence that Germany's economic greatness provoked the British to hostility. Her foreign policy, her pursuit of naval parity, Yes, but not her economic greatness, except perhaps a a corollary to her military power. Britain was NOT responsible for WWII. Responsibility for WWI can bedivided between all the participants, although I would argue France was the primary culprit. WWII was very definitely, Germany's fault.
I'm curious how you arrive at the First World War being the primary responsibility of the French. This is something I've not heard before.
Throughout my schooling and particularly my historical interests, I've always seen the system of competing power blocs as the main cause of the war. I'm making no judgments, either pro or con, but I'm just interested to hear your thoughts.
universekid, It was a coterie of right-wing politicians in the French Democratic Republican Party: Pres of the Republic in 1914, Raymond Poincare, Foreign Minister Viviani, Min of War Delcasse (who had been building towards this since the Fashoda Incident) operating through the French Ambassador in St. Petersburg, Maurice Paleologue. They wanted revenge for 1871. They urged Nicholas II, who relied on French aid, to hang tough over the Austrian ultimatum. They wanted a war that looked defensive.
@JuliendAnce Exactly - which is why Germany reacted to her envy over other nation's naval supremacy and Imperial power by invading her neighbours and slaughtering millions of innoccent people on grounds of race.
@JuliendAnce Nothing to do with GERMANY invading Belgium and France twice within 20 years, invading Poland, decimating the continent, and beginning the cult of idolising a monotesticular freak with a Charlie Chaplin moustache, and a "Final Solution" in mind, then? You're a wanker. They obviously should have hanged your Dad at Nuremberg.
My little friend. In the beginning of XXth century, Germany had gained an industrial, technological, commercial advance, she had not lost until recently. Germany was still world number 1 for exportations in 2008. In the 1900s, she was already far ahead all other european countries. And Britain did not allowed her to get the ottoman oil free access as a bonus. The British solution was war. You just ignore History of oil and industry.
@JuliendAnce You're no friend of mine - and you are a twat, as well as a deluded German supremicist and no doubt a holocaust denier. Whereas I have a degree which specialised in the study of war in Europe 1900 - 1950.
Even the Final solution show how the German were completely formated by industrial process and ways of thinking. After WWII, the US got everything they could of the german technology and engineers. V2s, Tiger tanks, Me 262s, Von Braun and so on. The american nuclear bomb itself was designed by exiled german scientists... But I repeat, this industrial leadership was already in place in the 1900s, before WWI. Moron.
I've watched countless documentaries about WW2 over the last 35 years and the "World at War" has always been my favorite. The narration by Laurence Olivier, the perfect musical scores and their careful research to keep it factual and not quite so "one sided" views make this series so wonderful. Thanks so much for posting all these fine videos!
It's full of NEGRO?JEWS AND OTHER VERMINES OF ANY KIND,Corruption is everywhere on Europe that doesn't exist anymore,all the slaves from the east are here to destroy more our Beautiful Europe once! I fucking HATE niggers,jews that only thing to destroy a PURE RACE.Hitler you are a fucking asshole! SIEG HEIL MEINE EHRE EISST TREUE
Barabarosa operation was a consequence of distrust and a cclash of interests in Europe, between so called Allies. Britain did not want to share their influence in the world with Germany and especially not with USSR. As a result mankind got parition of Europe, only because GB and USA did not wantwd to prevent war at the very begininig. Germany was much weaker as in WWI, but had no oponents except in USSR. GB and USA wanted to win but someone else had to fight for them, and to win for them.
you mean gb had no power but usa again was just as strong as russia in WW2 and becayse usa came in from left and russia from right Germany got defeated yes?
No. Russia could win the war without US Army in France. In fact the cause that war lasted taht long is wrong soviet tactics. They were faces with mass treason too, Nazis knew that that will happen once they step in USSR. But US played very significant role providing materials, and in the 1941 also some airplaines to Soviets. As an Army US forces were comlpetely uncapable to crash every serious resistance. Just read what happened in North Africa and in Italy, even in small cllashes they flew.
Latest research shows that Stalin is responcible for less deaths in 30-35 years then Hitler in 12 years.
During "Cold war" assumptions were made about gulags which were exaggerated due to lack of information.
Though Stalin was criminal in his own right, it seems that he was less brutal then Hitler was. Last 5-6 years most of processional historians who specialize in Stalin's crimes reduced their estimates significantly.
During Gorbachev Soviets has opened their archives which allowed to historians to make scientific extrapolations. The number of gulags is known and average death rates there are known as well.
Soviet KGB was very scrupulous in their records. Somehow it never occurred to them that the system would collapse and all hidden would become public.
Actually nothing is vanished every single gulag is known and accounted for.
Nazi tried to destroy documents because they knew their time was coming. Soviets on the contrary tried to preserve them because they could not imagine that their system would collapse.
By the time Soviets opened archives nobody was alive among gulag organizers.
Anyway all assumptions during the cold war were wrong and exagerated due to lack of information.
Because u are lazy :) Otherwise u would visit gulag museum
Nothing vanished, information is preserved. Statistical data is available from archives. Soviets did not destroy their Stalin's records because they did not have to.
Later governments which did not like Stalin anyway, they kept those archives just in case and eventually released them.
Nazi were destroying documents because they were loosing the war and they were scared. Soviets as victors did not bother.
So now we should discard everything that indicated Stalin did not kill as many people as Hitler, because Stalin won the war and winners are always wrong. Nice reasoning. Also, history is more than numbers. The SU didn't turn killing people into an industrial process with gas chambers and ovens, and didn't seek to destroy any nation completely as Hitler wanted with the Jews and Slavs. There, a difference.
Yes we do. There are countless studies and memoires from survivors. You might have not read them, but that's a completely different story. Close yourself off from information and then say it isn't there... A nice mentality for a historian.
"Many claim more people died in the Gulags then in the consentration camps."
The Gulags have existed for a way longer time, did that occur to you? Probably not...
First off, trying to portray yourself as intelligent while not being able to spell "obsessed", "criticism" and "discussion" correctly is epic fail. Second, just because I have a picture of Zhukov as avatar does not mean I'm a Commie. Maybe I admire his battlefield skills. And even if I were a Commie, it still doesn't mean I'm wrong. You just don't have any arguments, that's why you resort to ad hominems. Oh wait, you don't know what an ad hominem is...
In the whole history of humanity, never have any nation been declared a disease and vermin that was responsible for all evil in the world, and their extermination turned into an industrial process as in Nazi Germany. I don't give a shit about what you think unless you give me some arguments in support of your stance. That's what being a historian is about, you know.
I'm happy for you! If you think you're achieving anything in a rigged system.
You see things thru tainted spectacles;
even if we discount the allied propaganda,
you must remember in the war Germany was fighting for its life and some draconian measures prevailed; based on my learned opinion (30 years of analysis) some measures would have become superfluous AFTER the war and some policies would have softened or changed
National Socialist Germany was Not exactly as it has been portrayed; I will not try to convince anyone; but if you researched as much as I have, you would
see that you have been hood winked in many ways, we'll just leave it at that!
greeks are the ones who saved europe's as.....they delayed the invasion to russia so winter caught the germans.......and greeks stopped two german supplies for africa
I agree that Hitler created those conditions; however, I do not agree with what the Russian troops did. It would have been a good thing if the US, British and Canadian armies (as well as others) freed Poland from Nazi and Russian tyranny. The Polish suffered terribly in this War because of Germany and Russia.
Germany could have been the envy of the war but Hitler took the people down the road of destruction. It was indeed a sad time. Many common people suffered and this included the German population. Churchill was a better leader than FDR. Britain, Canadian and American forces should have pushed East toward Berlin and beyond as fast as possible. Many rapes and murders were commited by the Russians against the German civilians. This should not have happened and I blame FDR.
Hitler did not rape and murder thousands of German girls/women, the Russian soldiers did? Yes, I blame Hitler for the War! The US/British/Canadian and other Allied troops should have pushed through Germany and into Poland and if the Russians wanted a fight so be it.
Hitler created conditions for Russians to avenge. His thugs killed millions of women and children in the east before they were crushed.
If he cared about his Nation he would shoot himself 6 months earlier and let his generals to capitulate earlier. He choose to prolong his life and war till the last of his boys recruits was dead.
Hitler was a lunatic just to think he can win Russia. Encapsulating Moscow and St. Petersbourg is NOT entire Russia. It was just european side of Russia. And idiot Hitler thought he is in charge....mistake...huge mistake...
Strong army. Corrupt leadership. Flawed ideology. They got owned by Russia, lucky as the US was about to start raining A Bombs on them. They had militarized when other countries wanted peace. No wonder they kicked ass for awhile. How the hell does that make them gods? I suggest you go outside and get some sun
In 1939. Nazi Germany had the worst army among the great nations, obsolete weapons and no doctrine...
They kicked France with nothing and before Barbarossa the Soviet unions army was better equiped, stronger and larger than the whole worlds armys put together...The NAZIs were decades ahead with tehnology and they almost won the war with 1/10 of the allies forces...
The US made "their" bomb shortly after they captured the Nazi nuke-research facility...hmm...read history before getting pwned...
Believe what you want to believe. Your historical assertions (much like your grammar) are tenuous at best, at worst flat out wrong. Ultimately the Nazis were completely destroyed, and brought misery upon their own - their men marched into slavery, women raped, children murdered, country dismembered. Hardly god like you fool.
Poor come back Marius. Operation Barbarossa was beset by mistakes, poor logistical planning, strategic miscalculations, petty squabbling amongst the generals, which ended with the german nation being completely vanquished, not to rise again for 50 years. Tell me again how that is god like? Seriously man, praising the fucking nazis is one of the least enlightened things a man could possibly do in 2009. Do you beat your women folk and shit in a bucket?
Its a lie one nation against the world. Nazi had a lot of allies.
When Nazi Germans attacked Soviets they gang together with Italians, Austrians, Lorraine, Finland, Hungary, Romania (includes Moldova), Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Spain, and a few more axis countries.
For 3 years Soviets were fighting against all of them by itself and won.
At the end soviet tanks, machine guns and artillery end up being better then the German one.
Nazis had "allies" but those "allies" caused more problems than help...Especially the Italians...
Hitler sended endless supplies to his allies and all he got was a legion or two from Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary...Given to count that there were 15 million soldiers on the eastern front, that's an insignificant number...
As for Italians, Hitler lost plenty of supplies and soldiers trying to help the worst soldiers on the planet, Italians were the reason why Nazis were in lack of weapons
If Hitler only listen to his General to pull back during the winter in Russia. The German would win the war. Hitler were so stupid to interfear with military planning in every front. And that is one of the reason Germany loose the war.
General Walter Warlimont, Deputy Chief of the Armed Forces Operations Staff wrote in his memoirs that his meetings with Hilter were physical and mental torture.
Today even the German media realize that the fate of the Soviet Empire was balancing on the edge of a razor in the summer and fall of 1941. A large part of the repressed population welcomed the Germans as liberators and the advance of the foreign troops as salvation. This was particularly true in White Russia, the Ukraine and Baltic nations as well as western parts of central Russia. Example of this phenomenon is the motion picture Unternehmen Barbarossa Juni 1941which was broadcast in 1999
The support quickly went away after the Germans showed their true face. 1/4th of Belarusian population died under German occupation, in over 600 villages the inhabitants were burned alive. Even the Bolsheviks weren't like that.
Today Russian authors confirm that the Russians who lived under German occupation were better off than those under Soviet rule. In the end, as Kirsch points out, the political and psychological blindness of the German leadership, combined with massive aid from America and England, were decisive for the defeat of Germany.
No they were not. They were starving just like under Soviet rule, but also bombed, burned alive and raped. If Russians had it so good under German occupation, why did the Germans get defeated even in spite of their enormous initial successes?
There were plenty of examples showing that those just "liberated" ukraineans, balts etc who were forced to join Red Army in 1943-44 were very unhappy. They told to their frontline comrades that they indeed were better off under German occupation than under Soviet rule.
This is just one example people of SU were too scared to talk about. Even new studies are showing that over 5 million soviet civilians died in areas which were never under German occupation.
Nobody ever denied that there were reluctant soldiers in the Red Army. But if the people would love Hitler so much and would hate Stalin, they would not defeat the former.
As for German treatment of Ukrainian population: they closed Kiev and Kharkov off so people would not get food from local farmers. People were dying on the streets while Germans walked among them and talked about everyday stuff. Over 10,000 villages were burned with the inhabitants. What a shame the Germans didn't win the war!
Most of the "vlassovists" neither loved Stalin nor Hitler. The most recent evidence for this comes from the military historians S. Drobiasko and A. Karashtshuk who wrote:
"they too were patriots who passionately undertook the noble attempt to liberate our country from its inner enemy, which in their opinion was much more vicious and dangerous than the external opponent."
Oh and neither did anyone deny that Soviet civilians died during war because of Soviet regime either. It's generally known that Stalin didn't give a damn about people, they starved during the whole Soviet regime so during war it was not different, and Stalin even kept civilians in Stalingrad so that Soviet soldiers would be "more motivated" to fight for a city that was "alive".
It's kinda silly to fight against claims that nobody is making.
We now know that purges in the commanding staffs of the Red Army, combined with the unwillingness of the terrorized soldiers and officers to sacrifice themselves for the hated Communist Party, had brought Stalins regime to the verge of total collapse in the first months of the War. In a short time three and a half million members of the Red Army surrendered or defected "just to get something to eat" reports the historian Botho Kirsch.
To want to eat is a natural need that you can't suppress. It doesn't say anything about their ideological feelings. In the end, the Germans were defeated, so don't tell me the Russians loved them so much. If they would love the occupants and hate Stalin, they wouldn't fight so strong. Stalin was a monster but Hitler was so bad that even those who hated Stalin, still fought for his system just to get rid of Hitler.
Stalin was far worse than Hitler. Hitler didn't shoot his generals or execute 80% of his army command staff because of his paranoia. Or starve 5 million+ of his own people in his deluded '5 Year Plans'. The Russians had a choice - they chose the dictator who spoke Russian.
Hitler planned to decimate and enslave millions of people, teach them that God made them to serve the Germans etc. He also planned to starve millions. Entire Europe was to be fed from Soviet resources while the local population was to starve to death to make space for the Aryans. Kiev and Kharkov were closed off to prevent people from getting food. They were dying on the streets whil Germans walked among them talking about everyday stuff. Never learned that, did you?
That is also one of the factors that made Germans lose the war: they thought they would take food away from the people. And they did it, but there was too little of it, so the Aryans started starving.
Goering was a warm proponent of a large-scale strarvation program for the East. The Nazis were already starving people in Ukraine and Leningrad, and like I said, they planned to feed entire Europe from Soviet resources. Stalin was a monster, but Hitler was much worse. That's why he got defeated.
Also, when did Stalin have extermination camps? When did he chase people down like rats as Hitler did with the Jews? When were people burned alive, something that Hitler has done to pver 10,000 villages in Russia? Hitler would do everything that Stalin did on a way worse level. He was so bad that he was stopped before he could realize it, though he already was doing it: slavery, starvation etc. Also, Hitler was chosen by German people in a democratic way. Go read a history book on that.
At least Stalin didn't come up with stupid pseudoscientific theories to justify his murders. To Hitler, German nation was literally a body (Volkskörper) and the Jews were a disease in this body that had to be removed literally. According to their theories, hatred of Germany was in the Jewish genes. That's why all Jews had to be annihilated, including children the elderly etc. Stalin's aim was to build Communism and his paranoia was a consequence. He feared that people would sabotage it.
To Hitler, his hatred of Jews was the motivation to come to power. Stalin didn't come to power to kill all those people, he wanted to build Communism and being the monster that he was, he thought that these sacrifices were needed to build it. But Hitler came to power precisely to kill people: Jews, Gypsies, Russians etc. He killed over 30 million people thinking they were "subhuman". Which makes him way worse.
And as you know, Stalin soon realized that the purges of 1936-38 had gone too far and mitigated them. Hitler never abandoned his views and kept butchering people up to the very end of the war.
At least those who were accused of conspiring by Stalin were adult men capable of conspiring. With Hitler, it didn't matter whether a Jew was adult or a newborn baby. Having Jewish genes made you into human filth that had to be removed in the most literal sense of the word to clean the house of the German nation. There were no killing factories in the SU. The Gulags were labour camps. There was no group belonging to which one could be 100% sure to be dead meat once in the hands of the Commies.
Because people are prone to stand on the side of their family and will likely start resisting the regime if a family member is killed or imprisoned. From the moral point of view this is disgusting, but it is not unlogical. It can't be compared to Hitler's murdering of anyone with Jewish blood because their genes supposedly made them hate Germany and seek to destroy it.
Because he was stupid and greedy and thought all his generals are stupid and Russians are pathetic subhumans who don't know how to fight. He wanted to have all at once, smeared its troops out over enormous distances and payed the price.
As colonel Sampo Ahto has written "If Hitler was planning to conquer the world with 3000 panzers then what was Stalin planning to do with 30 000 tanks". It's a good question, isn't it. And i think the answer is looming in Kreml.
It' obvious that not only Hitler was planning to attack. Stalin got his own plan too. Stalin attacked to Baltic, Finland, Poland and captured part of Romania. Stalin and Hitler were both imperialists and - war criminals.
The SU knew it would have to join war sooner or later. The tanks were very bad, the good tanks started coming during war proper. Read Glantz's "Stumbling Colossus". In 1941 the RA was in a pathetic condition and would stay as such for years. The German invasion actually accelerated the reforms. Stalin didn't want to attack, get over it.
I critisize the opinion that SU - before T-34 and KV - had bad tanks. When you compare most common russian tanks BT-5,BT-7, T-26 were better than those german Pzkw II and even Pzkw III. Pzkw IV were better that them but not at all as good as T-34 and KV. Germany got only 439 Pzkw IV's. Most common tank was Pzkw III, total 965. So SU had generally better tanks and much more of them than germans.
In an article submitted to a major Soviet journal (but rejected, and later published abroad), Grigorenko pointed out that Soviet forces vastly outnumbered German forces in 1941. More than half of the Soviet forces were in the area near and west of Bialystok, in an area deep in Polish occupied territory. "This deployment could only be justified" wrote Grigorenko, "if these troops were deploying for a surprise offensive. In the event of an enemy attack these troops would soon be encircled."
No. The Soviet Union was perfectly aware of the threatening European climate and knew that a war with Germany would sooner or later come, and deployed its troops along its most important border. Like I said, everyone in the SU was perfectly aware of how pathetic the RA was at the time. The performances in Finland and Poland had been embarrassing. The army had been purged of its greatest minds. There were huge problems with morale, communication, mobilization, weaponry.
So what the Soviet forces outnumbered the Germans? It doesn't prove anything. Everyone knew that the Timoshenko reforms would only be ready in 1942. No army attacks while reforming, just like you don't go outside while putting on your pants and brushing your teeth. All proof you have are irrelevant generic things that don't prove anything at all. "All the metal industry was in the West", "the Soviet forces outnumbered those of the Germans". Sorry, but that's just laughable.
These historicians has found proves that both Hitler and Stalin were planning to attack. However some of them think Stalin's plan was to attack in 1942.
Prof Lev Bezymenski, general J. A. Gorkov, Mihail Meltjuhov,V. A. Nevezhinin, Pyotr Grigorenko( a Soviet Army Major General and highly decorated war veteran who taught at the Frunze Military Academy), Russel Stolfi,Juri L. Djakov,Tatjana S. Bushujeva, I. V. Pavlova,Edvard Radzinski, E.Nordberg, T.Tiihonen, S.Ahto etc...
Look at Hitler, those must have been the greatist days of his life
lafty1970 1 year ago
@lafty1970
Those were the days.. Germany seemed to be winning the war. .
askjiir 1 year ago
Thanks!
grummeper 1 year ago
When unable to win on the industrial and commercial battlefield, you drive the confrontation to a more advantageous terrain, to classical war.
JuliendAnce 1 year ago
Fucking Albert Speer, saved his ass somehow in the Nuremberg Trials. He even saved himself from Hitler, and he is all calm after all that.
Skeptic87 1 year ago
The west see the soviet union was a sleeping giant at the time
so they let the 2 strongest armies to annihilate each other until
both exhausted in men and resources. That when they started showing up
at Normandy 1944 to claim the victory.
You got to hand it to them fucking genius !
no wonder why Russia hated Britain and USA
AuroraCypher 1 year ago
Regarding Treaty of Versailles: the basic thinking was that Germany had spawned and would continue to spawn regimes bent on domination of Europe. Therefore they had to be "kept down" by onerous reparations. In addition their industrial heartland (Ruhr area) was to be occupied and monitored. Whether leniency would have resulted in German regimes that were not bent on domination of Europe is highly problematic. Certainly Hitler claimed that the Versailes Treaty gave him a cassus belli.
lebarosky 1 year ago
wtf! is that albert speer?!?!!?!?
vondunkelheit 1 year ago
@vondunkelheit
Yep.
askjiir 1 year ago
This operation was a major mistake, why betray Stalin? It made no sense whatsoever.
A military alliance between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would bring the world to it's knees easily, and Americas involvement wouldn't be a choice.
Yes and this is coming from Brit.
Dimensionaluk 1 year ago
omg, Albert Speer! :O
seopeter22 1 year ago
yes, the brits caused both wars. they were the greedy colonist.
Rico8458 1 year ago
The Soviets took the main blunt force of the German Wermacht. 22 million Soviets perished because of the incursion, and the battles on the Eastern Front have gone down in history as the most bloodiest, vicious, and devastating of all time. Yet the Soviets clung to their crossing on the Volga, a truly incredible feat.
The Western Democracies did little to help the 2nd Republic in Spain in '36, where Madrid was the first bombing of a civilian populace in history. WW2 began in 1936 in Spain.
raslikmuzik 2 years ago
For Sale- French Army Rifle, never fired and only dropped once...
randy109 2 years ago 3
@randy109 ha ha
NobleIronCross 2 years ago
german people from hell
ronqunardi 2 years ago
HItler defeated the Soviet Union in the summer of '41, just like he defeated France in 6 weeks. Difference was that the French recognized they were defeated and the Soviets decided to continue fighting. Had the French dug in their heels and fought to the death Hitler might have never went "east". France was too quick to throw in the towel, while the Soviets were too stubborn to EVER throw in the towel. French being pompous victors in 1918 caused WW2. French softness in 1940 let WW2 proceed..
randy95023 2 years ago 5
retarded comment, germany lost the battle of moscow.
rocksoliddude1 2 years ago
Long live GERMANY,
lookgooddz 2 years ago 8
I really wished Adolf Hitler annexed Britain and the middle east first for the oil reserves. Plus another blunder was aligning with the Japanese.
hunarf 2 years ago 4
The British were unhappy of Germany's technological and economical advances at that time. The British could have ignored German's invasion of Poland. But they came in.
ngsy29 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
lookgooddz 2 years ago
agreed
ngsy29 2 years ago 2
uk should never have been in france, they should have fought on their own soil from the very beginning; then when usa came into the war in 1941 we could have easily crushed germeny in the west, which we did anyway.
rocksoliddude1 2 years ago
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH YEAH.........it took you 9 months in 1944-45 even with the americans to defeat a weakned german army with 80% of its troops fighting against the russians.Germany was fighting the entire world in the war and it took almost 6 yrs and they nearly won.
jimmy27paul 2 years ago
we won the battle of britain on our own , germany would never have crossed the english channel. they did not nearly win, they got crushed. hitler was a failure.
rocksoliddude1 2 years ago
The germans only had enough fuel to drop their bombs and return home.The germans were winning the war up to 1943.They wiped out entire russian armys....just watch this video above after all it was made in your country and theres very little propaganda in it so youll be dissapointed.
jimmy27paul 2 years ago
they would never have crossed the english channel asshole, the raf would have constantly held them off.
operation barbarossa was a failure as was stalingrad and kursk. the nazis were doomed to be ground to a halt by britain and to be ultimately defeated by a strong and determind soviet army.
you're just a neo-nazi troll
what did your country do during this war? nothing.
rocksoliddude1 2 years ago
If was no english channel we were all fucked! and im not a nazi! And Ireland was only a small country what could we have done against Hitler?
jimmy27paul 2 years ago
Did you watch the entire video about Operation Barborossa?....learn anything?
jimmy27paul 2 years ago
@rocksoliddude1 Don't ask what my country should do then !! but look at what your country is doing NOW ! fucking brit fag !
lookgooddz 1 year ago
@jimmy27paul
If numbers had been even on the western front the poor americans would have been wiped out.
Shadowmaster888 1 year ago
when 1 in 9 German KIA were in the east, & with 70% of Luftwaffe & Panzer tanks being destroyed by Russians 3 years before USA popped her cherry on D-Day
id say the Yanks role in the War in Europe is GREATLY exaggerated
calibre9mm 2 years ago
No never ! Coward yanks waited until Germany invaded ussr and been weakened by heavy RAF bombing to land in France !! if you did enter the war in 1940 against Germany they would crush you first ! fuckin' american fat yanks ! btw you said "WE" you weren't part !
lookgooddz 1 year ago
@lookgooddz
Listen to yourself, of course Americans would have done poorly against the Germans had they entered the war initially, that's obvious. And American military generals obviously knew that, too. So use your brain, military victories are all about knowing WHEN to strike fool, I say it was military GENIUS.
biagiotti2006 1 year ago
@lookgooddz
"Attack when they're weak and defend when they're strong";
that's one of the most basic military strategies for victory, don't call Americans cowards just because the generals of the time were following a PERFECT strategy for victory. You'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise.
biagiotti2006 1 year ago
@biagiotti2006 America never entered a war alone !! that shows how cowards yanks are !
lookgooddz 1 year ago
Treaty of Versailles was main reason for WW2. at my oppinion. Also, Europe gave too much space for Hitler to expand. And then there is Soviets and their Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
As for WW1, competition between nations, bitterness of Germany and France, alliances...
There are numerous reasons, and everyone is as much guilty for war as others. Blaming Germany for whole mess ain't fair at my oppinion.
Auts91 2 years ago 22
Treaty of Versailles was overthrown in 1935-36 but Germany started invasion in 1937-39
Also Treaty of Versailles was just a copy of the Treaty that Bismarck forced upon French a few decades before ww1. French paid to the Germans after Bismark defeated them , they expected the same from the Germans.
It is not blaming the Germany, it is blaming the Nazi regime, the most fanatical and irrational regime in centuries.
breadbusket 2 years ago 2
yeah, but u forget that hitler was elected in 1933 and from that point on he hold complete power. shortly after that immense arming started.
hlidskialfelix 2 years ago
nazis are dumbasses
nitromehane189 2 years ago
Well WWII was an extension of WWI and also it was a war of idealogies, mainly Commmunism against National Socialism. These two idealogies could not coexist together. And do not forget the leaders, the leaders of WWII are the stuff of legends, you do not see leaders like that anymore, and probably wont ever again.
jeffman3003 2 years ago 2
"..you do not see leaders like that anymore.."
Let's hope we never will.
IiiERT 1 year ago
no just go worship nancy pelosi, Obama, biden. Infact why not just make it Larry , moe and Curly.
jeffman3003 1 year ago
Yes you are right, Pol Pot was a good guy.
IiiERT 1 year ago
ye just go follow your mickey mouse "leaders" who read of telepromters and promise to keep you in perpetual wars of empire.
jeffman3003 1 year ago
Ok, seriously now I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
IiiERT 1 year ago
@Auts91 WW1 kicked off because Germany violated Belgian neutrality and invaded France, using a plan laid down 9 years earlier. If the V Treaty had been upheld, and the US banks hadn't financed Hitler, WW2 would not have happened. And no - people are no equally guilty. Not everyone voted into power a psychopath on a mission to mass murder and the domination of Europe. "Not fair" my arse - neither was being blitzed or gassed "fair".
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
@Auts91 40 millions of Poles would disagree wit u as Germany takes the biggest responsibility regardless of others negligance in stopping Hitler .
zahaj 1 year ago
@Auts91 Granted there are many reasons for the start of WW II. But, Hitler's Germany is the major force for the war......Yes, there were economic hardships , World Depression, many countries faced the same difficulties but ony the facist regimes of Italy, Germany and Japan turned to World Conquests.........Tired of hearing how the Western Democracies suppressed the Germans! Harsh terms from Versallies...hog-wash!
steveforsane 1 year ago
universekid - I should have added, of course, that in addition to revenge, the doyens of the French Democratic Republican Party, all of them the heirs of Leon Gambetta, also wanted to secure the return of Alsace Lorraine, which Germany had detached from France in the 1871 Treaty of Frankfurt and had made Reichs povinces. The citizens of these provinces showed time and again that the refused to become good Germans, and Frenchmen felt honour bound to relieve them of their oppression.
mc0558 2 years ago
universekid - A war that looked defensive was crucial. Napoleon III's aggressive stance in 1870 made everyone think France wanted that War, leaving France friendless. In 1914, the revenge-clique in French politics wanted war with Germany but wanted it to look defensive. They had the UK on their side but a faux pas might lose her. Delcasse withdrew French troops 25Km from borders with Germany to prevent any accidents. Russia led the way and Germany stupidly followed. France looked innocent.
mc0558 2 years ago
everybody has to share the blame for this
ngsy29 2 years ago
The British are mainly responsible of both world wars. First because they couldn't stand the german industrial and commercial rise in the beginning of the century. And because they didn't admit the deal between Germany and the Ottoman Empire about the oil prospection along the Berlin-Bagdad railway while they had already share the Middle-East with the Us and the french. This is how began WWI. WWII being the nothing but the continuation of WWI.
JuliendAnce 2 years ago 6
You are drawing conclusions on the basis of circumstantial evidence. There is NO evidence that Germany's economic greatness provoked the British to hostility. Her foreign policy, her pursuit of naval parity, Yes, but not her economic greatness, except perhaps a a corollary to her military power. Britain was NOT responsible for WWII. Responsibility for WWI can bedivided between all the participants, although I would argue France was the primary culprit. WWII was very definitely, Germany's fault.
mc0558 2 years ago
I'm curious how you arrive at the First World War being the primary responsibility of the French. This is something I've not heard before.
Throughout my schooling and particularly my historical interests, I've always seen the system of competing power blocs as the main cause of the war. I'm making no judgments, either pro or con, but I'm just interested to hear your thoughts.
universekid 2 years ago
universekid, It was a coterie of right-wing politicians in the French Democratic Republican Party: Pres of the Republic in 1914, Raymond Poincare, Foreign Minister Viviani, Min of War Delcasse (who had been building towards this since the Fashoda Incident) operating through the French Ambassador in St. Petersburg, Maurice Paleologue. They wanted revenge for 1871. They urged Nicholas II, who relied on French aid, to hang tough over the Austrian ultimatum. They wanted a war that looked defensive.
mc0558 2 years ago
@JuliendAnce You are very lucky you are not within slapping distance! I've never heard so much shite in all my life!
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
@TheBelovedButterfly
Typical proletarian reaction. When unable to understand, uneducated people often become violent.
JuliendAnce 1 year ago
@JuliendAnce which explains the German propensity to throwing tantrums which involve the wholesale slaughter of millions.
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
@JuliendAnce Exactly - which is why Germany reacted to her envy over other nation's naval supremacy and Imperial power by invading her neighbours and slaughtering millions of innoccent people on grounds of race.
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
@JuliendAnce Nothing to do with GERMANY invading Belgium and France twice within 20 years, invading Poland, decimating the continent, and beginning the cult of idolising a monotesticular freak with a Charlie Chaplin moustache, and a "Final Solution" in mind, then? You're a wanker. They obviously should have hanged your Dad at Nuremberg.
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
@TheBelovedButterfly
My little friend. In the beginning of XXth century, Germany had gained an industrial, technological, commercial advance, she had not lost until recently. Germany was still world number 1 for exportations in 2008. In the 1900s, she was already far ahead all other european countries. And Britain did not allowed her to get the ottoman oil free access as a bonus. The British solution was war. You just ignore History of oil and industry.
JuliendAnce 1 year ago
@JuliendAnce You're no friend of mine - and you are a twat, as well as a deluded German supremicist and no doubt a holocaust denier. Whereas I have a degree which specialised in the study of war in Europe 1900 - 1950.
TheBelovedButterfly 1 year ago
@TheBelovedButterfly
Ha ha ha ! Such nonsense ! But you are quite an entertainer, nice routine in the moronic style, congrats !
JuliendAnce 1 year ago
@TheBelovedButterfly
Even the Final solution show how the German were completely formated by industrial process and ways of thinking. After WWII, the US got everything they could of the german technology and engineers. V2s, Tiger tanks, Me 262s, Von Braun and so on. The american nuclear bomb itself was designed by exiled german scientists... But I repeat, this industrial leadership was already in place in the 1900s, before WWI. Moron.
JuliendAnce 1 year ago
@JuliendAnce ur kidding me right? the brits responsible for ww2? O.o u better cut down on that stuff ur smokin.
123perrin 1 year ago
I've watched countless documentaries about WW2 over the last 35 years and the "World at War" has always been my favorite. The narration by Laurence Olivier, the perfect musical scores and their careful research to keep it factual and not quite so "one sided" views make this series so wonderful. Thanks so much for posting all these fine videos!
randy95023 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
It's full of NEGRO?JEWS AND OTHER VERMINES OF ANY KIND,Corruption is everywhere on Europe that doesn't exist anymore,all the slaves from the east are here to destroy more our Beautiful Europe once! I fucking HATE niggers,jews that only thing to destroy a PURE RACE.Hitler you are a fucking asshole! SIEG HEIL MEINE EHRE EISST TREUE
DasReich42 2 years ago
Barabarosa operation was a consequence of distrust and a cclash of interests in Europe, between so called Allies. Britain did not want to share their influence in the world with Germany and especially not with USSR. As a result mankind got parition of Europe, only because GB and USA did not wantwd to prevent war at the very begininig. Germany was much weaker as in WWI, but had no oponents except in USSR. GB and USA wanted to win but someone else had to fight for them, and to win for them.
Tromb011 2 years ago
true
kingeric77 2 years ago
you mean gb had no power but usa again was just as strong as russia in WW2 and becayse usa came in from left and russia from right Germany got defeated yes?
92ghol 2 years ago
No. Russia could win the war without US Army in France. In fact the cause that war lasted taht long is wrong soviet tactics. They were faces with mass treason too, Nazis knew that that will happen once they step in USSR. But US played very significant role providing materials, and in the 1941 also some airplaines to Soviets. As an Army US forces were comlpetely uncapable to crash every serious resistance. Just read what happened in North Africa and in Italy, even in small cllashes they flew.
Tromb011 2 years ago
After seeing what this world is becoming, one should ask himself would it be better if the Nazis won...
One global political entity...
Every capacity goes to the greater good and research...
Man would walked on Mars by the end of the 60es...
In national-socialism every individual must earn his right to live and his freedom, his only purpose is to serve the colective...
No crime, no mafia, no modern corrupt politics...
It would have been STAR TREK age by now...
MariusOFZadar 2 years ago
Yes it might be better for Germans and a few other Germanic tribes like Flemish.
For all other Europeans else it would mean enslavement, exploitation .....
breadbusket 2 years ago
It would have been bad for the eastern Europeans mostly, the 3th Reich acted very diffrently in the west and the people there (except the jews ofc).
These useless killings caused the defeat of the 3th Reich... more or less.
And today there is also massive enslavement and exploitation of people, only in a diffrent way.
We just dont see and know much about it just like we dont know much about the Russian Gulags.
Many claim more people died in the Gulags then in the consentration camps.
Clausewitzz 2 years ago
Latest research shows that Stalin is responcible for less deaths in 30-35 years then Hitler in 12 years.
During "Cold war" assumptions were made about gulags which were exaggerated due to lack of information.
Though Stalin was criminal in his own right, it seems that he was less brutal then Hitler was. Last 5-6 years most of processional historians who specialize in Stalin's crimes reduced their estimates significantly.
breadbusket 2 years ago
Victors make their own history.
Hitler said this himself before he started the war.
And i agree with him about that.
So we will never know many many deaths Stalin is responcible for.
On average Hitler is the worst of all in history yes, but in total we are not sure.
No researcher can really confrim the numbers.
We have thousands of buildings with information about the holocaust but only a handfull about the Gulags.
And how can we be sure today when so much information is gone?
Clausewitzz 2 years ago
During Gorbachev Soviets has opened their archives which allowed to historians to make scientific extrapolations. The number of gulags is known and average death rates there are known as well.
Soviet KGB was very scrupulous in their records. Somehow it never occurred to them that the system would collapse and all hidden would become public.
breadbusket 2 years ago
During Gorbachev the archieves opened (mostly) yes.
But thats a HUGE time in between, and during that time allot of information vanished and the real facts will never be fully known.
There are no massive Gulag camps to visit in order to remember the victims only a few small monuments.
The Nazi's also tried to cover up their acts but as we know they failed becaus of lack of time.
I say again... history is made by the victors and thats the only fact we can know for sure.
Clausewitzz 2 years ago
Actually nothing is vanished every single gulag is known and accounted for.
Nazi tried to destroy documents because they knew their time was coming. Soviets on the contrary tried to preserve them because they could not imagine that their system would collapse.
By the time Soviets opened archives nobody was alive among gulag organizers.
Anyway all assumptions during the cold war were wrong and exagerated due to lack of information.
breadbusket 2 years ago
If "nothing" is vanished then why cant i visit a Gulag camp just as it looked liked when it was used?
Like we can with consentration camps.
So dont say "nothing" vanished.
Yes at least the Soviets preserved allot of information wich we know the nazi's woundt have done.
But they surely destroyed allot of evidence as well becaus they knew its to bad for peacefull world to know.
I can give many examples of how ruthless the Soviets acted but im sure you will denie it so im not gonna try.
Clausewitzz 2 years ago
Because u are lazy :) Otherwise u would visit gulag museum
Nothing vanished, information is preserved. Statistical data is available from archives. Soviets did not destroy their Stalin's records because they did not have to.
Later governments which did not like Stalin anyway, they kept those archives just in case and eventually released them.
Nazi were destroying documents because they were loosing the war and they were scared. Soviets as victors did not bother.
breadbusket 2 years ago
Gulag museum thats a good one...
I said a camp, like it was in reality, how about that?
Again your turning away from the points i made.
Not everything will be known and will never be becaus things are covered up (on all sides).
I only agree with you that the nazis tried cover up "far" more.
Its nonsence that the Soviets didnt covered up anything.
Even the Allies have facts they denie, every side has them and it will allways be like that.
Clausewitzz 2 years ago
If u were not lazy :) You would find that "Gulag museum" is a real camp :)
breadbusket 2 years ago
Anyway was nice to discuss with you.
My only point was that Hitler killed in 12 years more then Stalin in 35 years.
breadbusket 2 years ago
I can look for this addapted gulagmuseum and then im still lazy.
Cause the information there had 40 years time to addapt from what happened, and that doesnt convince many people of what really happened.
And didnt we allready agreed that Hitler killed more people in less time?
We only know more about how Hitler did it then about Stalin.
Clausewitzz 2 years ago
My whole point about this discussian was that the victors makes the history.
Its allways been like that and will allways be...
Im sure youre gonna disagree with that aswell^^
But im gonna leave our endless discussian with that.
Clausewitzz 2 years ago
"Victors make their own history."
So now we should discard everything that indicated Stalin did not kill as many people as Hitler, because Stalin won the war and winners are always wrong. Nice reasoning. Also, history is more than numbers. The SU didn't turn killing people into an industrial process with gas chambers and ovens, and didn't seek to destroy any nation completely as Hitler wanted with the Jews and Slavs. There, a difference.
ChristinaNL89 2 years ago
"we dont know much about the Russian Gulags."
Yes we do. There are countless studies and memoires from survivors. You might have not read them, but that's a completely different story. Close yourself off from information and then say it isn't there... A nice mentality for a historian.
"Many claim more people died in the Gulags then in the consentration camps."
The Gulags have existed for a way longer time, did that occur to you? Probably not...
ChristinaNL89 2 years ago
Lolz
I only have to take a look at your channel and i allready know a discussian will be useless....
Perhaps you have your eyes closed becaus your a extreme socialist?
You seem to be opsessed up to the bone by Communist socialism, so spare me your critism.
I take a look on all sides of a story instead of standing behind one of them.
Clausewitzz 2 years ago
First off, trying to portray yourself as intelligent while not being able to spell "obsessed", "criticism" and "discussion" correctly is epic fail. Second, just because I have a picture of Zhukov as avatar does not mean I'm a Commie. Maybe I admire his battlefield skills. And even if I were a Commie, it still doesn't mean I'm wrong. You just don't have any arguments, that's why you resort to ad hominems. Oh wait, you don't know what an ad hominem is...
ChristinaNL89 2 years ago
Are you my teacher now?^^
I have stated enough here allready to the endless comments about how nice or bad the Soviets acted.
You can be much more clear by just saying that Hitler and Germany were far worse with "everything"... becaus thats all you really wanna tell me.
And i disagree with that.... end of that.
Clausewitzz 2 years ago
In the whole history of humanity, never have any nation been declared a disease and vermin that was responsible for all evil in the world, and their extermination turned into an industrial process as in Nazi Germany. I don't give a shit about what you think unless you give me some arguments in support of your stance. That's what being a historian is about, you know.
ChristinaNL89 2 years ago
Yes there are nations who declare some people vermin or a disease.
Gay people in many nations of the middle east, disbelievers in those same regions, jews in those some regions.
And they dont have gaschambers (yet) but they do have savage ways of killing those kind of people, even more savage then killed by gas.
What is more savage for you, killed fast by gas in a consentration camp, or killed slowly by labour in a Gulag at -40 degrees?
Humans are cruel... history is, accept it.
Clausewitzz 2 years ago
"What is more savage for you, killed fast by gas in a consentration camp, or killed slowly by labour in a Gulag at -40 degrees?"
To be killed in a gas chamber. A system that makes killing factories is way worse than a system that dumps people in Siberia where they die from cold.
"Humans are cruel... history is, accept it."
Nice relativistic approach, I can clearly see you are a serious and intelligent historian. "You know guys, all things are actually all the same!"
ChristinaNL89 2 years ago
We arnt in a historyclass here mate:)
Its great you can see how much i do or do not know from a internetconnection (lolz).
I start to wonder why you even care about my opinion since you disagree anyway.
But you allready knew that if you looked back on a previous discussian here (wich you did).
I dislike people who praise the Soviet system just as bad as those who praise the Nazi system.
Think thats all you need to know.
Clausewitzz 2 years ago
"I dislike people who praise the Soviet system just as bad as those who praise the Nazi system."I think you misunderstood ChristinaNL89.
She simply despises Nazi system more then they despises communist system. There many arguments why to despise Hitler more then to despise Stalin.
breadbusket 2 years ago
Well how you spell isn't important, as long as people can understand you! u jst gt pwned noob beach pussy MF!
92ghol 2 years ago
tell me your not smashing some elses spelling.. if so you failed something awful!
resistancesoldier 2 years ago
Still buy the Allied Propaganda, huh?
We're in an antiquated system of economic slavery right now, under the Zionist sysytem of control.
Enslavement, exploitation, what the hell exists now in the US ?
What the hell are you talking about? Or are you too dumbed down to see it?
konigtigertank 2 years ago
In this antiquated system of economic slavery ...
I work very hard, but I paid well for my hard work. Under Nazi thugs everyone would work hard, but only Germans wold get paid.
breadbusket 2 years ago
I'm happy for you! If you think you're achieving anything in a rigged system.
You see things thru tainted spectacles;
even if we discount the allied propaganda,
you must remember in the war Germany was fighting for its life and some draconian measures prevailed; based on my learned opinion (30 years of analysis) some measures would have become superfluous AFTER the war and some policies would have softened or changed
to reflect different circumstances.
I know you can't swallow this...
karlthegermann 2 years ago
National Socialist Germany was Not exactly as it has been portrayed; I will not try to convince anyone; but if you researched as much as I have, you would
see that you have been hood winked in many ways, we'll just leave it at that!
karlthegermann 2 years ago
"National Socialist Germany was Not exactly as it has been portrayed"
Yes u a right, it was 10 times worse.
breadbusket 2 years ago
greeks are the ones who saved europe's as.....they delayed the invasion to russia so winter caught the germans.......and greeks stopped two german supplies for africa
Arrancar122 2 years ago
I agree that Hitler created those conditions; however, I do not agree with what the Russian troops did. It would have been a good thing if the US, British and Canadian armies (as well as others) freed Poland from Nazi and Russian tyranny. The Polish suffered terribly in this War because of Germany and Russia.
nsswitcher 2 years ago
Germany could have been the envy of the war but Hitler took the people down the road of destruction. It was indeed a sad time. Many common people suffered and this included the German population. Churchill was a better leader than FDR. Britain, Canadian and American forces should have pushed East toward Berlin and beyond as fast as possible. Many rapes and murders were commited by the Russians against the German civilians. This should not have happened and I blame FDR.
nsswitcher 2 years ago
"his should not have happened and I blame FDR"
Why not to blame Hitler who started this war and refused to capitulate till the last life of teenage boys soldiers?
breadbusket 2 years ago
Hitler did not rape and murder thousands of German girls/women, the Russian soldiers did? Yes, I blame Hitler for the War! The US/British/Canadian and other Allied troops should have pushed through Germany and into Poland and if the Russians wanted a fight so be it.
nsswitcher 2 years ago
Hitler created conditions for Russians to avenge. His thugs killed millions of women and children in the east before they were crushed.
If he cared about his Nation he would shoot himself 6 months earlier and let his generals to capitulate earlier. He choose to prolong his life and war till the last of his boys recruits was dead.
breadbusket 2 years ago
Hitler was a lunatic just to think he can win Russia. Encapsulating Moscow and St. Petersbourg is NOT entire Russia. It was just european side of Russia. And idiot Hitler thought he is in charge....mistake...huge mistake...
ivsny 2 years ago
What is the name of the song that plays at 2:10? I'd like to find out what the words mean.
Xoolio31 2 years ago
It's a crying shame that the nazis had such cool uniforms because they just totally sucked.
WreathedinHoochSmoke 2 years ago
Nazis were Gods...evil Gods...infamous Gods...
But still...Gods...
MariusOFZadar 2 years ago
thats y they froze to death in russia? no they were not Gods.
Skafiskafnjak 2 years ago
Gods don't loose.
Nazi were just thugs who gambled it all, enjoyed winning for a while and finally collapsed.
breadbusket 2 years ago
They sure seemed godlike to the rest of the world in those days, they trampled over the entire European continent in two years
onren 2 years ago
Nah, they looked more like infection which spread fast but later was treated.
breadbusket 2 years ago 2
The Nazis were completely discredited. You must be delusional if you think they were Gods. Or just some little pussy.
mrmattallen 2 years ago
You are afraid of them, of the ideology...
They were monsters, but they were superior to any other force...
One nation against the world, twice, and twice they almost won...
Why are you bashing insults?
Have I insulted you?
MariusOFZadar 2 years ago
Strong army. Corrupt leadership. Flawed ideology. They got owned by Russia, lucky as the US was about to start raining A Bombs on them. They had militarized when other countries wanted peace. No wonder they kicked ass for awhile. How the hell does that make them gods? I suggest you go outside and get some sun
mrmattallen 2 years ago
In 1939. Nazi Germany had the worst army among the great nations, obsolete weapons and no doctrine...
They kicked France with nothing and before Barbarossa the Soviet unions army was better equiped, stronger and larger than the whole worlds armys put together...The NAZIs were decades ahead with tehnology and they almost won the war with 1/10 of the allies forces...
The US made "their" bomb shortly after they captured the Nazi nuke-research facility...hmm...read history before getting pwned...
MariusOFZadar 2 years ago
Believe what you want to believe. Your historical assertions (much like your grammar) are tenuous at best, at worst flat out wrong. Ultimately the Nazis were completely destroyed, and brought misery upon their own - their men marched into slavery, women raped, children murdered, country dismembered. Hardly god like you fool.
mrmattallen 2 years ago
You are the ignorant one, your primitivism is shown in your needless insults towards me...
You insulted me because I have a different opinion, thats a clear imperative for stupidity...(my grammar?? Jesus, just be quiet)
MariusOFZadar 2 years ago
Poor come back Marius. Operation Barbarossa was beset by mistakes, poor logistical planning, strategic miscalculations, petty squabbling amongst the generals, which ended with the german nation being completely vanquished, not to rise again for 50 years. Tell me again how that is god like? Seriously man, praising the fucking nazis is one of the least enlightened things a man could possibly do in 2009. Do you beat your women folk and shit in a bucket?
mrmattallen 2 years ago
Its a lie one nation against the world. Nazi had a lot of allies.
When Nazi Germans attacked Soviets they gang together with Italians, Austrians, Lorraine, Finland, Hungary, Romania (includes Moldova), Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Spain, and a few more axis countries.
For 3 years Soviets were fighting against all of them by itself and won.
At the end soviet tanks, machine guns and artillery end up being better then the German one.
breadbusket 2 years ago
Nazis had "allies" but those "allies" caused more problems than help...Especially the Italians...
Hitler sended endless supplies to his allies and all he got was a legion or two from Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary...Given to count that there were 15 million soldiers on the eastern front, that's an insignificant number...
As for Italians, Hitler lost plenty of supplies and soldiers trying to help the worst soldiers on the planet, Italians were the reason why Nazis were in lack of weapons
MariusOFZadar 2 years ago
Without Italy Germany would have had 5-6 more weeks to do Barbarossa, plus much more equipment and men.
In reality they ended about 30km from Moskou, with 4 more weeks they would have taken it with ease.
Now that woundt ended the war but it would have put Germany in a "much" better position for the years following.
The 5-6 weeks delay came when Mussolini declared war on Greece without even informing Hitler about this.
Hitler was furious when he heared it but coundt change it anymore.
Clausewitzz 2 years ago
If Hitler only listen to his General to pull back during the winter in Russia. The German would win the war. Hitler were so stupid to interfear with military planning in every front. And that is one of the reason Germany loose the war.
asured26 2 years ago
The German military was overrated, they had 6 months to take Moscow with 3.5 million Germans and its allies and they still couldn't take Russia.
quest8899 2 years ago
General Walter Warlimont, Deputy Chief of the Armed Forces Operations Staff wrote in his memoirs that his meetings with Hilter were physical and mental torture.
Nevenius 2 years ago
Today even the German media realize that the fate of the Soviet Empire was balancing on the edge of a razor in the summer and fall of 1941. A large part of the repressed population welcomed the Germans as liberators and the advance of the foreign troops as salvation. This was particularly true in White Russia, the Ukraine and Baltic nations as well as western parts of central Russia. Example of this phenomenon is the motion picture Unternehmen Barbarossa Juni 1941which was broadcast in 1999
tranmere789 2 years ago
The support quickly went away after the Germans showed their true face. 1/4th of Belarusian population died under German occupation, in over 600 villages the inhabitants were burned alive. Even the Bolsheviks weren't like that.
slavantiquity 2 years ago
Today Russian authors confirm that the Russians who lived under German occupation were better off than those under Soviet rule. In the end, as Kirsch points out, the political and psychological blindness of the German leadership, combined with massive aid from America and England, were decisive for the defeat of Germany.
tranmere789 2 years ago
No they were not. They were starving just like under Soviet rule, but also bombed, burned alive and raped. If Russians had it so good under German occupation, why did the Germans get defeated even in spite of their enormous initial successes?
slavantiquity 2 years ago
There were plenty of examples showing that those just "liberated" ukraineans, balts etc who were forced to join Red Army in 1943-44 were very unhappy. They told to their frontline comrades that they indeed were better off under German occupation than under Soviet rule.
This is just one example people of SU were too scared to talk about. Even new studies are showing that over 5 million soviet civilians died in areas which were never under German occupation.
Jews were - of course -the exception.
tranmere789 2 years ago
Nobody ever denied that there were reluctant soldiers in the Red Army. But if the people would love Hitler so much and would hate Stalin, they would not defeat the former.
As for German treatment of Ukrainian population: they closed Kiev and Kharkov off so people would not get food from local farmers. People were dying on the streets while Germans walked among them and talked about everyday stuff. Over 10,000 villages were burned with the inhabitants. What a shame the Germans didn't win the war!
slavantiquity 2 years ago
Most of the "vlassovists" neither loved Stalin nor Hitler. The most recent evidence for this comes from the military historians S. Drobiasko and A. Karashtshuk who wrote:
"they too were patriots who passionately undertook the noble attempt to liberate our country from its inner enemy, which in their opinion was much more vicious and dangerous than the external opponent."
tranmere789 2 years ago
Oh and neither did anyone deny that Soviet civilians died during war because of Soviet regime either. It's generally known that Stalin didn't give a damn about people, they starved during the whole Soviet regime so during war it was not different, and Stalin even kept civilians in Stalingrad so that Soviet soldiers would be "more motivated" to fight for a city that was "alive".
It's kinda silly to fight against claims that nobody is making.
slavantiquity 2 years ago
We now know that purges in the commanding staffs of the Red Army, combined with the unwillingness of the terrorized soldiers and officers to sacrifice themselves for the hated Communist Party, had brought Stalins regime to the verge of total collapse in the first months of the War. In a short time three and a half million members of the Red Army surrendered or defected "just to get something to eat" reports the historian Botho Kirsch.
tranmere789 2 years ago
To want to eat is a natural need that you can't suppress. It doesn't say anything about their ideological feelings. In the end, the Germans were defeated, so don't tell me the Russians loved them so much. If they would love the occupants and hate Stalin, they wouldn't fight so strong. Stalin was a monster but Hitler was so bad that even those who hated Stalin, still fought for his system just to get rid of Hitler.
slavantiquity 2 years ago
Stalin was far worse than Hitler. Hitler didn't shoot his generals or execute 80% of his army command staff because of his paranoia. Or starve 5 million+ of his own people in his deluded '5 Year Plans'. The Russians had a choice - they chose the dictator who spoke Russian.
Danny77uk 2 years ago
Hitler planned to decimate and enslave millions of people, teach them that God made them to serve the Germans etc. He also planned to starve millions. Entire Europe was to be fed from Soviet resources while the local population was to starve to death to make space for the Aryans. Kiev and Kharkov were closed off to prevent people from getting food. They were dying on the streets whil Germans walked among them talking about everyday stuff. Never learned that, did you?
slavantiquity 2 years ago
That is also one of the factors that made Germans lose the war: they thought they would take food away from the people. And they did it, but there was too little of it, so the Aryans started starving.
Goering was a warm proponent of a large-scale strarvation program for the East. The Nazis were already starving people in Ukraine and Leningrad, and like I said, they planned to feed entire Europe from Soviet resources. Stalin was a monster, but Hitler was much worse. That's why he got defeated.
slavantiquity 2 years ago
Also, when did Stalin have extermination camps? When did he chase people down like rats as Hitler did with the Jews? When were people burned alive, something that Hitler has done to pver 10,000 villages in Russia? Hitler would do everything that Stalin did on a way worse level. He was so bad that he was stopped before he could realize it, though he already was doing it: slavery, starvation etc. Also, Hitler was chosen by German people in a democratic way. Go read a history book on that.
slavantiquity 2 years ago
Hitler killed 6 millions of Jews because of his paranoia, how about that?
ChristinaNL89 2 years ago
At least Stalin didn't come up with stupid pseudoscientific theories to justify his murders. To Hitler, German nation was literally a body (Volkskörper) and the Jews were a disease in this body that had to be removed literally. According to their theories, hatred of Germany was in the Jewish genes. That's why all Jews had to be annihilated, including children the elderly etc. Stalin's aim was to build Communism and his paranoia was a consequence. He feared that people would sabotage it.
ChristinaNL89 2 years ago 2
It is exceedingly rare to see an intelligent comment on yt. Yours is one of the few.
WreathedinHoochSmoke 2 years ago 2
To Hitler, his hatred of Jews was the motivation to come to power. Stalin didn't come to power to kill all those people, he wanted to build Communism and being the monster that he was, he thought that these sacrifices were needed to build it. But Hitler came to power precisely to kill people: Jews, Gypsies, Russians etc. He killed over 30 million people thinking they were "subhuman". Which makes him way worse.
ChristinaNL89 2 years ago
And as you know, Stalin soon realized that the purges of 1936-38 had gone too far and mitigated them. Hitler never abandoned his views and kept butchering people up to the very end of the war.
ChristinaNL89 2 years ago
At least those who were accused of conspiring by Stalin were adult men capable of conspiring. With Hitler, it didn't matter whether a Jew was adult or a newborn baby. Having Jewish genes made you into human filth that had to be removed in the most literal sense of the word to clean the house of the German nation. There were no killing factories in the SU. The Gulags were labour camps. There was no group belonging to which one could be 100% sure to be dead meat once in the hands of the Commies.
ChristinaNL89 2 years ago
not true. stalin also had the families of the accused arrested,exiled or murdered.
Ilikenuman 2 years ago
Because people are prone to stand on the side of their family and will likely start resisting the regime if a family member is killed or imprisoned. From the moral point of view this is disgusting, but it is not unlogical. It can't be compared to Hitler's murdering of anyone with Jewish blood because their genes supposedly made them hate Germany and seek to destroy it.
ChristinaNL89 2 years ago
i suppose so. Hitler literally killed out of hate, Stalin killed out of fear.
Ilikenuman 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
Xoolio31 2 years ago
Because he was stupid and greedy and thought all his generals are stupid and Russians are pathetic subhumans who don't know how to fight. He wanted to have all at once, smeared its troops out over enormous distances and payed the price.
slavantiquity 2 years ago
the nober of soldiers USA lost in the landig at Normandy so many soldiers were russia losine every day from 1941 to 43
ARBIH87 2 years ago
Sometimes you must be imerialistic to eliminate your enemies; not everyone thinks like you do...be real
konigtigertank 2 years ago
true to the core :)
joeynovak1 2 years ago
the kid in 1:46 looks like opie
joeynovak1 2 years ago
As colonel Sampo Ahto has written "If Hitler was planning to conquer the world with 3000 panzers then what was Stalin planning to do with 30 000 tanks". It's a good question, isn't it. And i think the answer is looming in Kreml.
It' obvious that not only Hitler was planning to attack. Stalin got his own plan too. Stalin attacked to Baltic, Finland, Poland and captured part of Romania. Stalin and Hitler were both imperialists and - war criminals.
tranmere789 2 years ago
The SU knew it would have to join war sooner or later. The tanks were very bad, the good tanks started coming during war proper. Read Glantz's "Stumbling Colossus". In 1941 the RA was in a pathetic condition and would stay as such for years. The German invasion actually accelerated the reforms. Stalin didn't want to attack, get over it.
slavantiquity 2 years ago
I critisize the opinion that SU - before T-34 and KV - had bad tanks. When you compare most common russian tanks BT-5,BT-7, T-26 were better than those german Pzkw II and even Pzkw III. Pzkw IV were better that them but not at all as good as T-34 and KV. Germany got only 439 Pzkw IV's. Most common tank was Pzkw III, total 965. So SU had generally better tanks and much more of them than germans.
tranmere789 2 years ago
Still he Red Army was in a pathetic state in 1941 and everyone knows that.
slavantiquity 2 years ago
Man those germans and russains speak great english (Or atleast they try- not unlike the french).
Teranex 2 years ago
In an article submitted to a major Soviet journal (but rejected, and later published abroad), Grigorenko pointed out that Soviet forces vastly outnumbered German forces in 1941. More than half of the Soviet forces were in the area near and west of Bialystok, in an area deep in Polish occupied territory. "This deployment could only be justified" wrote Grigorenko, "if these troops were deploying for a surprise offensive. In the event of an enemy attack these troops would soon be encircled."
tranmere789 2 years ago
No. The Soviet Union was perfectly aware of the threatening European climate and knew that a war with Germany would sooner or later come, and deployed its troops along its most important border. Like I said, everyone in the SU was perfectly aware of how pathetic the RA was at the time. The performances in Finland and Poland had been embarrassing. The army had been purged of its greatest minds. There were huge problems with morale, communication, mobilization, weaponry.
slavantiquity 2 years ago
So what the Soviet forces outnumbered the Germans? It doesn't prove anything. Everyone knew that the Timoshenko reforms would only be ready in 1942. No army attacks while reforming, just like you don't go outside while putting on your pants and brushing your teeth. All proof you have are irrelevant generic things that don't prove anything at all. "All the metal industry was in the West", "the Soviet forces outnumbered those of the Germans". Sorry, but that's just laughable.
slavantiquity 2 years ago
These historicians has found proves that both Hitler and Stalin were planning to attack. However some of them think Stalin's plan was to attack in 1942.
Prof Lev Bezymenski, general J. A. Gorkov, Mihail Meltjuhov,V. A. Nevezhinin, Pyotr Grigorenko( a Soviet Army Major General and highly decorated war veteran who taught at the Frunze Military Academy), Russel Stolfi,Juri L. Djakov,Tatjana S. Bushujeva, I. V. Pavlova,Edvard Radzinski, E.Nordberg, T.Tiihonen, S.Ahto etc...
tranmere789 2 years ago
Lies. As usual. Hitler never wrote of Russia, he wrote of the East, and as common of him - in a 1000-year perspective.
vonRass 2 years ago
Hitler in Mein Kampf: "But when we speak of new territory in Europe today, we must principally think of Russia and the border states subject to her."
slavantiquity 2 years ago