I don’t think a break out of Stalingrad was EVER possible (Response to Anton Joly #2) 

it appears you have not watched TIK's final arguments. those 10% of survivors could not have stoped the folow up breaktroughs and would have become -x00%, there was barely a frontline holding against the outer ring, imagine that ring reinforced with 7 armys of soviets that have tasted copious amount of blood, and defensive lines infected by a couple thousand of mesengers from literal hell.

I'm not sure if a breakout from Stalingrad could have been possible at any point, and I tend to agree with TIK that a breakout would have been difficult to agree on, plan and execute, potentially impossible even. I would argue that any argument for a breakout, even during Winter Storm would have required hindsight... And even so, in hindsight, this series is asking the wrong question. The only way to mount a breakout in hindsight in my opinion is not to argue what is best for the 6th army, but in hindsight which decision gives the best possible chance of winning the war. This is because the primary decision-makers of this scenario don't care about 6th army, they care about winning the war, so we need to make a decision with hindsight from this mindset. 1) To argue Winter Storm could have been a breakout window without the benefit of hindsight seems incorrect to me, because the best option is for Manstein to relieve 6th army, and if you wait for the offensive to fail before breaking out, then you don't end up having enough time to reach the friendly lines. To my understanding, the offensive stalled on the 17th, and breakout was requested by Manstein on the 18th (Italian 8th & Group Hollit have already been routed at this point - little saturn)... And Winter Storm retreats on the 26th? So you're looking at an 8-day window (this is also hindsight) to organize the troops and break out against an enemy that just stopped a much better-equipped force... It doesn't make sense to me even in hindsight. Even the argument about the airlift, "they already knew it wasn't working"... Did they know that it was never going to work? Up to this point, to my knowledge, many factors had impacted the airlift: Starting aircraft count, weather, pilot shortage. What degree of confidence would they have had at the time that these issues would persist (or that they would lose the airfields). Hindsight in this case isn't necessarily a predictor of the future, especially on a very limited sample size of less than a month. 2) The question we need to be asking is "which option gives Germany the better chance of winning the war". As a strategist, if there's a 1% chance or a 0.1% chance, or a 0.01% chance of the army in Stalingrad being relieved, either via breakout or via airlift, I'm taking it because at this point, withdrawing from Stalingrad drastically decreases already dim (non-existent) odds of winning the war. The entire argument of whether or not to break out in hindsight can't be made based on what gives the 6th army the best chance of survival, because the German leadership cared about winning, they didn't care about lives. "But hindsight means we know that they lost", this brings me to point 3 which is people don't look at hindsight correctly. 3) Hindsight is often used to say "well, they should have done X because Y didn't work". This logic is flawed because you don't know the probability of success of any given operation. You can make guesses as to what the odds are, but you don't know... Was the 6th army's fate a bad hand played well, a good hand played poorly? Maybe it was a bad hand that was also poorly played. Think about it in the context of a game, you have a choice between rolling a d6 or a d8, high roll wins... You roll the d8 and roll a 1... Does it make any sense for me to then say without knowing your choice, in hindsight, you should have rolled the d6 because it could roll a 6... No! But why? In hindsight, we know you failed. War isn't so simple as a dice roll, we don't know what the probability of success is on any given operation. When you make a change in hindsight, in order to understand whether or not this change makes sense, you have to evaluate the probability of success of the proposed change vs the original operation without the assumption that the original operation would play out exactly as it did historically. There's a ton of evidence that supports that if A then B mostly doesn't apply when planning real-world situations like this. Sports are a great example because it's about repeating the same actions in the same conditions, hindsight doesn't do much for you unless backed by a statistical base of information because every action or plan has a probability of success... There's no if A then B therefore I should do C. It would be naive to think that the exact same orders, under the exact same conditions would yield the exact same result in the event of a do-over.

I think it boils down to what would be left of the Army. Lacking arms and equipment they'd be stranded in the open fields in the middle of winter and a whole new force would need to rush in to from a new line. Simply put 6th Army was already dead before it was encircled. However, if the airlift and relief operation both worked, the new line wouldn't beas demanding, and more of the army and equipment would survive. Do you take a 15% chance to save some of the army, or a 20% chance to save the entire war, thus Germany itself?

@@Pangora2 The probabilities don't have to be so favorable, a 1% chance of saving the war is better than a 50% chance of saving some of the 6th army. The issue with Germany in WW2 was that it wasn't possible for them to end the war through negotiations. Like, even if we assume hindsight is 20:20 and both options are losing... Does saving 6th army destabilize the front, accelerating a drive on Berlin? This question is critical, because once again if the answer is yes, you cannot do it... Because in hindsight, Germany received very favorable treatment at the hands of the Western allies (unjustly so), so this is also something we have to consider. In hindsight, the better question might be whether or not the Germans should have attempted Winter Storm at all, or whether Winter Storm caused the accelerated downfall of the Eastern front, would those divisions not have been able to contain Little Saturn? Part of the problem with the whole discussion revolving around a breakout is that it revolves around the morality of saving 6th army, but we need to pay more attention to the strategic side of things (WW2 was anything but a war of upholding high moral standards). Which decisions have a chance at winning the war? Once the answer is none of them, we have to ask which decisions slow a drive on Germany as much as possible.

@@EywaSC agreed. Id take the shot of the airlift over giving up the oil and losing the war, were my goal to win. Saving a few thousand starving men looks good for that weeks headline, but ultimately still lost the war. It's like an old video game where some minor thing you did in the first few minutes determines the ending. The more I study the war, theore certain I am that the victory in France was a poison pill that got Germany destroyed.

The whole Space Marine voice thing was utterly hillarious.

Same here, it was a surprise bomb by TIK, but a welcome one.

Funnily enough, there were models made of Chaos Space Marines riding horses (poor horses!)

If there is no contingency plan in the Codex for this situation, it can't be done. QED

@@strategicgamingwithaacorns2874 Yeah, more of that is needed . :D THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE GUARD DID.

I also wish there were more of this sort of thing!

Thanks TIKhistory I enjoyed the video. But there is this burning question that I just can't but out: "Why did the Soviets decide to close the pocket?" Yes, I know that they anticipated a German counterattack from outside so decided to close the pocket because they thought there was only about 80,000 soldiers in the pocket. However, many documentaries and series that talk about this period talk about "how easily the Soviets could have left the Germans to starve to death in Stalingrad" but decided to end the pocket. Which is why I ask the question, "Why did the Soviets decide to close the pocket?" Think about it: if the Soviets believed that there were only 80,000 Germans in the pocket and thought they could not do anything significant because they believed that they had a much larger force, then why not use just a fraction of that supposedly superior number of soldiers to form a defensive line and use the rest to attack the Germans from outside the pocket. In my opinion, if this strategy had taken place - whether or not General Paulus or the OKH decided to break out or counter-attack the pocket - this would have ultimately resulted in the annihilation of the German and Romanian divisions at the outset, thereby giving the Russians a ten-week head start on wheeling down to the Sea of Azov to trap the other German Armies balked in the Caucasus.

@@TheImperatorKnight You keep showing everyone why you are so respected in the community. Keep it up brother 👊🏻

@@vegitoblue5000 I think this ultimately comes down to the fact that they needed the pocket closed to free up those forces. Yes they ended up having to dedicate more troops to the encirclement to close it but I think because of the pressure that was applied, it made the issue of supplies far greater for the German army in the pocket. Yes they could have maybe set fewer troops to the encirclement and let them starve to death. BUT if you leave a large enough army and don't pressure them enough and use up their supplies quicker, that's longer you're going to have to ultimately wait. That also gives the Germans more to in the pocket to poke holes in the lighter Russian line and move forward with a breakout.

Yputube needs to bring the video response function back. Used to have this all the time. Long form civil debates over a month or so. Gave the audiance a chance to read the reference material and form their own oppinion before the next response. But civil discourse doesnt generate clicks. Anger and outrage does a lot more for their bottom line.

The Germans used to send them to the river to collect water with the promise of chocolate and sweets, the Russians shot them as traitors to the soviet union.. 😢

Most died from being starved by German command. They would have needed rest in hospitals & training up just to make it to the gulags

Maybe a joint video would be interesting to react directly to each other

40k is a part of the TIK shared universe

@@vladdrakul7851 Your comments about our Primarch are noted and you will know why we are called the Crimson Fists when we insert the Fist of Dorn up your arse.

Agree, he could end up in worse position. In open, to say.

It wasn't as if there was no fuel in the Stalingrad pocket; the tanks trapped within continued defensive operations into December, which they could not have done if there were not some fuel stockpiles available. A breakout somewhere in the 26th-28th range (assuming no Seydlitz mistake fouling up planning) could have had access to enough fuel at least for the breakout attack, and likely would have been able to get some tanks and artillery though by prioritizing some units and vehicles. This is evidenced by the fact that it appears that Paulus was planning an early breakout until Seydlitz's error screwed up his plans, which he would not have done had he not believed he had the fuel to carry out such a plan.

We followed a politic of neutrality (allowing both sides to stay on our ports including in our colonies, selling & buying from both sides, etc.). At the late stages of the war we allowed the americans to set up an air base in the Azores islands. When Hitler died we declared a 3 day (if I'm correct) mourning period. Greetings from Lisbon

@@gdal3 Thanks for the new info. I want to learn about the Portuguese policy towards the Holocaust and the German reaction to it, as well as the policies of the Iberian peninsula remaining out of war. Beyond that Salazar made his mark over Economics and his ideology, sometimes referred to as fascist, had a religious conservative base, which objects fascist-socialist principles.

@@אסףדורון we accepted Jewish (and other) refugees coming from Europe. There are many books written about it. There are museums dedicated to it (particularly one in Vilar Formoso right next to the railway station where many first arrived in Portugal). Most of them then went to America, Brazil and other places, very few stayed (after the war ended that is). We treated them well given their temporary status. Locals almost always gave them housing and food for the first days until they sorted their affairs out. The German government didn't mind it as their policy was to simply get the "undesirables" out of their territory + occupied territory and, after 1940, to put them to work to make up for the loss of German manpower now in the military. That's why most refugees came pre-1941.

@@gdal3Thanks very much for taking your time to explain. You got any book recommendations on the topic (Portugal Estado Nuevo) for english speaking audience?

@@אסףדורון I guess that's where "clerical fascism" comes into play, but I'm not even sure if that's a real ideology or a label used to describe religious national conservative parties.

The Spymaster believes that not being able to break out was part of Paulus' key British Agent Training .

@@johnseppethe2nd2 I thought Paulus was just saving troops for his planned invasion of Tasmania, you know, to get there before the Israelis did.

None of this would have mattered. When the Wehrmacht launched Barbarossa, it was it was going to fail. They could have taken Staligrad, but they would not have the logistics to hold it.

When a man has been starved, it's not like you overfeed him for the similar number of days and he's back in service. The longer the starvation the more brutal the environment the longer recovery until it reaches the point where you simply have a bunch of broken men.

I also thought about this. But someone told me Germany didn’t wanna risk the Russians just rushing the borders from the east while they off to the Caucausus

I've wondered this for years. I think a JU52 could transport just 4 injured soldiers on stretchers out of an official capacity of 17, I'm sure that figure could be raised to 20 per plane given the 'Stalingrad diet' they were all on. Specialist soldiers (eg tank crews) should be saved, decorated soldiers also, walking wounded only. After December 23rd doctors & officers could have been flown out. This is being very cold hearted & the Germans probably did the best they could have flying out approx 35,000.

It's been a while since I've read this book. The memoirs of various soldiers do talk about those waiting to be taken out of Stalingrad. "Survivors of Stalingrad, eyewitness accounts from the 6th army 1942-43" by Reinhold Busch. What isn't often mentioned is those flying out of Stalingrad were also subject to Soviet AA and Soviet fighters. JU52's and HE-111's were used to airlift officers and wounded out of the airfields.

Every returning plane was (over)loaded with wounded soldiers like my grand uncle going back to Germany for treatment. GU lost his left forearm, and ended the war commanding an artillery battery going into British captivity.

Dude, take it easy on the dope. I think you’re doing a little too much.

I agree. The Russians would have been thinking, how can we put more units in between Manstien and Paulus and how can we increase the pressure on Paulus in general, and in the light of our entire 1000 kilometer threatre front? I would suggest the Russians saw their opportunities and limitations and were very interested in it working out in their favor.

I'm a big fan of Triggernometry, and they did mention my channel at one point. But I don't think I'd be suited to live talks if I'm honest. My strength comes from being able to do research and craft an argument in a video (like this one), rather than rely on on-the-spot answers without citations. Back in the early days of the channel, everything I said was dismissed as just "being made up", until I put the citations in, which shut everyone up. That's why I came up with the in-video citations idea (first person ever to do that) because I was doing the work/research, it's just my critics didn't believe me. So if I go on live debates and am unable to provide citations, everything I say can be dismissed, especially so if I then make a minor mistake which can be used to "prove" that everything I've ever said is wrong.

TIK loves "gammon cam"

@@TheImperatorKnight Honestly mate I think you’d do great but I can definitely see why you’d be hesitant. I think on the right podcast you’d be allowed to say what you say and not have to go much deeper than a surface level. There’s the line you say frequently where you say how many sources you used and such and I think that would be enough for that level of conversation. I think you’d also be able to let off a little steam on the personal side of things as well. It would be a chance to tell your story and how it felt to have all these people come at you like they did. Anyway, I’m at risk of getting a bit rambly so I’ll leave it with this, I hope you at least keep the answer as something other than an unequivocal no so if the day comes where you do feel like it you go for it. Keep up the good work!

@@TheImperatorKnight I’d be all for a TIK podcast episode. I think you’ll do great. At one of Perun’s videos, when I recommended your channel, another person replied and said that only your military and tactics videos should be watched and that all your videos that discuss politics or economics should be ignored and dismissed. I disagreed with him. There actually are more than a few topics where I disagree with you (for example, I think your stance on the Treaty of Versailles may not be as balanced/moderate as mine, as I feel that while the actual terms of the Treaty weren’t that harsh, the psychological effect definitely contributed to/aided the rise of the NSDAP), but that does not mean that your work should just be dismissed and ignored out of hand. I personally believe that Jordan Peterson is wrong about more than a few topics, but that doesn’t mean that I’m going to dismiss most of his work (I also disagreed with the action of a person who said that they only read the first few chapters of Economics In One Lesson by Hazlitt before throwing it away) I’m still hoping that one day someone would upload their own 5-hour video responding to “Hitler’s Socialism” that civilly and professionally addresses the points you make as well as your sources.

This, in my opinion, is how a debate should be conducted. None of this "let's do it live and get into a screaming match!" What we need is a genuine back and forth where both sides present their strongest arguments, then have a chance to think about a proper response to the points. Few (if any) emotions involved, and an honest civil debate. What more can you ask for!

Where was Gondor, when the Titanic sank?

In fact, in the end of the drama Hitler gave Manstein the free hand totally about the breakthrough attempt. But Manstein was reluctant to give such order because he wasn't sure Paulus would agree. It was too late. As for "more soldiers come home". The problem was many besieged Germans were sick with typhus. There is a known fact that when they became POWs several Russian doctors fell ill and died trying to cure them. It's astonishing how bad was German war medicine concerning highly contagious diseases and maintaining hygiene