Very few people know that only 80,000 people/soldiers defended Moscow in August 1941 by December it was over 3 million. Had Guderian been allowed to move on Moscow after his absolute victory in Smolensk as he wanted he could have taken the city by or before October BEFORE the arrival of the Siberians and prevented the build up of the Russian armies forcing Stalin to flee and perhaps killing or capturing Zhukov and winning the war ultimately. The battle for Kiev was fought instead and won but sadly the Ukrainans would have gladly surrendered and fought with the Gemans to be rid of Stalin if Moscow had been taken first.
Moscow is just a city (albeit the largest) and capturing it is just a symbolic victory. Hitler needed a major strategic victory and that involved the capturing of Ukrainian agricultural region (Kharkov was an important city as it sits on a heavily industrialized and coal-mining region of Donbass). The next strategic victory would be securing the oilfields at Caucasus. Yes, it might be good to capitalize on a cheap shot at victory when Moscow had only 80,000 men defending, but it might be better to encircle the city and capture large number of men defending it (which was during December 1941 when there was over 3 million men). One can take reference from the concurrent Second Sino-Japanese war when Nanjing fell rather easily and the government allocated all the industrial assets to the mountainous rear in order to continue fighting the war.
@@angelamagnus6615 Moscow was 3 things: 1st the largest and greatest industrial city in the soviet union at the time, second it was the absolute epicenter of all rail/train traffic in the entire soviet union and trains carried EVERYTHING for Ivan, third it was the center of all of Stalin's political power had it been crushed and taken in August after Smolensk as Guderian wanted it would have been game over for Stalin and the reds and the world would be a much better place today.
The Battle of Moscow was the first turning point in the war. Germany tried what many others failed to do, subdue Mother Russia. Stalingrad was the real big turning point, but Moscow was the harbinger of what was to come for Germany, i.e. defeat. Recall that at the time of Stalingrad and Moscow, Germany was fighting a one-front war, save for the fighting in North Africa to assist the Italians there. Parad Pobedy zavershen. Slava veteranam Velikoy Otechestvennoy voyny. Ura.
German numbers of 2,000,000 and (initial) Russian numbers of 1,400,000, cant be compared... By the time the Germans got to Moscow, they had already taken 2,000,000 Russian prisoners of war, but the Russians still had enough soldiers for a counter offensive over a wide front, which suggests they still outnumbered the Germans
These were the Far Eastern divisions deployed after it became completely clear that Japan would not enter the war. And they were involved in the very final momet, since the relocation took at least two weeks.
Again a top-class video. One point I'd disagree with is the 'low morale' of Germans as they'd tasted victory after victory up until the beginning of Typhoon
Several months of continuous fighting is exhausting. Imagine yourself working 80 hour weeks with never a good night's sleep for the past 4 months. How high will your morale be even if you just accomplished the work of your life? This is the reason why Allies forces in Normandy '44 would continuously rotate their troops out of combat for R&R.
If it was taken, the Germans would fight for it ferociously to hold on to Moscow, it would be like a Stalingrad situation. But I don’t think 1941 Soviet Union is as capable like the Soviet Union that is in 1943 plus if Moscow was as bloody as Stalingrad, Soviet moral would plummet.. But these are just my assumptions
Good coverage overall, and I didn't know Kalishnikov was a survivor of the Bryansk Pocket. Actually, Rokossovsky and his 16th Army were right up there opposite Smolensk when the German offensive began, and he somehow managed to lead many of his men out of the pocket, like he had done so well during the previous Battle of Smolensk. And it was Rokossovsky's army that was dealing with the final German panzer thrusts toward Moscow from the northwest. German survivors of the battle claimed they could look down the valley and see the towers of the Kremlin, albeit many miles away. On my CoatneyHistory webpage, I have a number of free print and play games about Barbarossa and the Battle of Moscow - in scale all the way from Postcard Barbarossa! and Moscow Embattled up to (brigade to army level with very big maps) Death Struggle and Barbarossa's Climax ... the latter having a brain-breaking combat odds expansion system enabling German breakthroughs even seemingly against the odds ... while accepting the risk of heavy losses instead.
Great content man... you keep delivering video after video. The quality is great, your voice clear the naration perfect... You can't really grasp how the war was played out until you see how things went day after day on the front line like this. I'm sad there will be no more videos from the eastern front, but looking forward to your next project. Greetings from Serbia!
After battle of Kiev, Soviet had to put reserves to the south away from supporting Moscow and the German were able to move 1 more infantry army and in more tank army to the center group. Without the military success German has difficulty to get so close to Moscow.
After WW2 Hugo Scmeisser with his bureu were captured and taken to USSR. Kalashnikov was a zampolit assigned to them. After Schmeisser's rifle was finished (very similar to Stg44), it was need to give russian name to it. All more or less known russian weapon constructors had got enough honor to refuse give their names to the stolen invention. So in that way it was given name AK-47 (avtomat Kalashnikova)
3:59 during the battle of Vyazma the German capetured a jewish Soviet Red army Captian named Alexander (Sacha) Peczerski. In 1943 he was shipped on a train to the Polish concentraition camp Sobibor and lead a revolt with a Polish Jew named Leon Feldhendler and 300 out of the 600 prisoners escaped. The 300 that didn't escape died during the escape or didn't even bother to try and where executed after the event for revange. They first killed most or all SS officers in the camp with improvized knifes and stolen axes and then just rushed as fast as they could while getting shot by the Ukrainian mercenaries who guarded the camp.
Wrong, the soldiers foots and hands frozen... Tanks had to activate their engine always and had to move forward and backward, so they didnt freeze... So no fuel and not enough cloth... Whats my source? My grandpa!
@@bandit-main2052 How is it wrong? It is well documented by generals and historians alike that the German army was at the end of it's logistical train at Moscow.
@@bandit-main2052 No contradiction, the winter clothes couldn't get into the front. However, production started very late, and I really doubt there were enough of them
Yeh it would make sense to destroy the industrial capacity. Trouble was that they'd literally moved the entire industrial heart of Russia to way past the eural mountain's towards Siberia.. Moscow was the center of the strategic and communication web. It goes without saying that Moscow should have been the priority.
Great series o/ Just a note: I often see people focus on the numbers involved without taking any time to think of what the numbers actually means. For example: 50% losses in a western, front-line division often meant that the division was half useless as most of the combat troops have been killed and the '50%' that remains were mostly logistical troops. The same could not be said for eastern armies (Russia/Japan/China) as they required far less logistical support. Furthermore in SOV units it often didn't matter as second-echelon conscripts had the same amount of training as the first-echelon units. But for 'qualitative' German divisions the effect was devastating.
Great series, but one glaring error, at Kiev the Nazis had no choice, you can't leave a 500 mile flank, who are you kidding? The Russians had to stop the drive on Berlin for the very same reason, the Nazis were on their flank in Pomerania. Just because the ardent anti-communist Guderian says Moscow should have been the #1 target, whatever that means, the Nazis couldn't take Leningrad let alone Moscow. If Guderian didn't turn south they wouldn't have gotten Kiev. WTF are you talking about? Oops another glaring error. The Germans were exhausted in 0ct 1941, they needed to resupply, the weather had little to do with it.
Fully agree. Most documentary called that decision was Hitler's blunder in Barbarossa, but I totally disagree. All strategists would make the same decision to protect its flank. Hitler just started a total war that Germany cannot win out. That's all.
No mention made of the Battle of Smolensk and how that one battle was pivotal in delaying the advance on Moscow also barely mentioned the decision to go south to the Uman pocket rather than unleash the panzers directly on Moscow. hindsight is 20:20 one rarely hears what DeGaulle said upon examining Stalingrad on his return westward in 1943 "...nonetheless a great people no i do not speak of the Russians but of the Germans. To have made it this far!"
The Soviets had fresh divisions holding the line after he fall of Smolensk, and they were well fortified. A direct drive on Moscow would have done little to the Russian lines as all those men who were poised to attack Yelnya could instead have been diverted to defense all along the Moscow-Smolensk highway. It was a defensive plan so easy even STAVKA couldn't mess it up.
You are good teacher ! It's clear and well explained. No ideology. Did Hitler understood soviet "no surrender" strategy before launching his attack ? Did taking Moscow would have given significant advantage (railways net). You emphases how depleted and overstretched was the German army at this time and the crucial role of logistics in blitzkrieg.
Soviets sometimes in a week lost more troops , then US Army in entire Vietnam war... Soviets won WW2 , not western Allies, western Allies were trolling Germans and supplying soviets, but western allies were not a chalange for the Reich in Europe.
The CCCP fought on only one front from 22nd June 1941 to 7th May 1945 - one front not two one. The USA singlehandidly defeated the Empire of Japan while supplying and fighting in Europe. W.o. American aid the Soviet Union would have lost the war - blank the Ivans
No point talking of how they would or not lose the war, beacuse in every war there are so many possibilities as such it is no possible to reverse reality with improvise later on schemes.The US would not been founded "'IF'' the British decided to to send an extra 10 thousand troops in the colony, and on and on.The Mongol invasion would not have happened ''IF'' their leader was never born, and on and on.The course of history would be different if Julius Caeser would not have been killed at that time, and on and on and on.Reality prevailed and that is what must be taken into account whether we like it or not, end of story.
"We", the allies, won the war. Russians and Americans made most of the contributions but Britain, who stood alone against Germany and Italy, made it possible. America had internal issues with the "America First" movement (people like the alt right today) and Russia was allied with the Germans and screwing the Finns, Poles, Romanians and others.
'Alt right' today? The 'alt left' today are the clowns that approved that horrible treat for Iran and did nothing to North Korea. Shivved the Poles in the back be denying deployment of missiles. Obama the worst president this nation has ever had.
It is hilarious to see how you buying into German high command excuse that "General Mud and General Frost" defeated superior German Army, and not seen that Red Army also had to slug the very same conditions, as a matter of fact "Rasputitcha" actually helped Germans more, since they had a half trucks to supply their army, and pull artillery with, while Red Army did not have that option.
Both sides are better off without their leaders. I wonder what would happen if the generals from both sides are given free hand to fight the battle as they saw fit.
Wow this is amazing, if you didn’t mind I used clips of where you showed the battle structure and defensive lines, to explain parts of mu presentation on this battle. Full credit to you though
Compromises are the worst. Once they decided Moscow was NOT important Hitler should have never agreed to resume the push. There was no decisive battle in this war, that is a myth, it was a correct assumption that the Russian Armies needed to be destroyed and the industrial capabilities captured. That is why the drive to Baku is a good choice in 1942 and that is why again the compromise to also take Stalingrad is devastating. Stalingrad was of no value just like Moscow is of no value in this war and Kursk is of no value later ... Germany is sacrificing irreplaceable troops for unnecessary targets. 1941 November was the moment to halt the offensive dig in rebuild the railroads bring up the supplies, take the war dead seriously switch to full European mobilization and full wartime economic mobilization, form a free Russian Army and a free Ukrainian Army from the captured POWs, ask Britain for terms of an armistice at least and under no circumstance ever declare war on the US.
And there where enough winter clothing for german troops but most units didnt get them because of logistical nightmare and priority to ammo and fuel supplies.
@@zangwangdang Too bad but I know it can be time consuming. You would have done well with the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of Kursk. Director / Producer Sergio Leone was planning to do a film based on the book: "The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad". Unfortunately Leone passed away before it could be done.
This was after all Hitler's war, it's plain to see his limited strategic grasp at this stage of the war. Hitler's penchant for offensive gambles was evident in Moscow, it was the wrong time of year and his forces, though victorious were exhausted and logistics stretched to the limit. In hindsight, would it have been wiser to halt offensive actions and establish a strong mobile reserve with anti-tank pac front capabilities.
Hindsight is easier. We knew Stalingrad and Kursk outcomes. Back then, it might not be wiser to stop offensive action when you had the momentum. Any delay can result in Soviet Union recovering quickly and fighting back with even larger forces (6 million troops in 1942!)
@@angelamagnus6615 There is some truth to what you say, my point is Hitler was a gambler. He gambled too many times and failed to listen to men who had a better grasp of tactics and strategic planning!!!
@@kurtomer1 I also want to note that Hitler did not trust the General staff which consisted of Prussian aristocrats and was mainly responsible for German defeat in ww1. Having said that, an amateur military strategist made things even worst.
German morale was quite high up until the dramatic setbacks suffered during the Soviet counteroffensive. Though I'm sure they wren't happy about freezing their asses off because of the astonishingly poor logistical preparation that the German high command put into this battle.
Afaik siberian divisions are popular myth about this battle, there were only 2 or 3 of those divisions, and those were light infantry divisions not different from other rkka units and didnt play any significant role.
What is wrong with American narrators that they can't figure out how to pronounce Russian words? Russian has two vowels for every one we have. "ya" and "yo" and "yu" are single vowels. Bryansk is one syllable. Vyazma is two syllables. The "y" is not a separate vowel. I'm sorry but you lose credibility when you don't try to get it right.
Mother nature along with the mistake the Germans thought of finishing the Russians by December got them unprepared for the winter had helped the Russians. Clearly if the winter weather was dry and mild, the Germans would've marched through Moscow easily.
"What do you do when germans destroy four of your armies? That's right, you form new ones" Gee, how difficult it is to win when you have unlimited resources ;)
Kalashnikov lived in a village and never seen a train until 19, he wrote in his memoirs. He never invented ANYTHING before this famous rifle and ANYTHING after in his whole life. How can it be? They who were genial inventors left many inventions- to mention Edison, Tesla, Bell...and so on...
Jack Brodnicki Your Confederate flag would naturally feel remorse for the Noble Nazis. The correlation between people I have seen with that flag and neonazis has been 100% so far🤔
+Sammy Bor ... Well not this time ! In my case , this is the flag of bravery, pride, and freedom - nothing else ! So everything what Soviet Army was fighting for. ( General Lee was a freedom fighter. He was against the slavery ! For some reason people around the world don't know it ). And his soldiers fought for their freedom and motherland ! Just like Russian Red Army ! Not for slavery !
I have huge respect for the human sacrifice of the Soviet Union during WW2. Weird feeling to think of you (sorry for the prejudgement :/) as a comrade. I guess long live the Motherland!
@Burt McCauley And not even those, since the Soviet military had already studied the small cartridge concept before and during the war and were aiming to develop infantry weapons to use such a cartridge, long before the STG even appeared. And handgrips had been used for decades, why would the STG handgrip be a particular inspiration for the AK and not for example the handgrip on MP38/40, which the Soviets had amply captured, used and well liked during the war?
Mark Becker. Silly opinion, since the basic ideas behind the Kalash, such as simplicity would never have passed Tscherman standards and are not present in the Stug, which perfectly follows kompliziert.de standard (Tübingen geprüft, oder? ) You can look up Skorzeny's dissapointment on not being allowed to copy perfectly suitable and simplistic weapons made abroad, which also violated kompliziert.de standards.
+Mark Becker Kalashnikov didn't copied Stg.The father of AK is again Hugo Schmeisser.The so called AK 47 was modernized variant of Stg44 made by Schmeisser when at the end of war he was ''invited'' to work in USSR ( Ijevsk) He replace the roller bolt in Stg with rotating bolt in AK. The soviet propaganda invented the myth that AK was made by soviet citizen.
In fact, M-16 is more like STG44. There are more differences between AK-47 and STG44. radikal.ru/lfp/s020.radikal.ru/i716/1609/21/e8dfbf53a21e.jpg/htm s00.yaplakal.com/pics/pics_preview/6/9/6/11009696.jpg
![Barbarossa Visualized: The Battle of Moscow [Nov 1941] [Part 8]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
