Hitler's invasion of Russia failed for the same reasons Napoleon's invasion of Russia failed. Stiff resistance, the harsh Russian winter and incredibly long supply lines!
In Napoleon's case, resistance was weaker because trucks and planes weren't invented yet and trains were limited to British mines. For the Russians, it was smarter to burn the crops and retreat, forcing Napoleon's army to either starve and freeze or retreat to where food would be available. Fighting him in a massive battle like the other powers wasn't needed.
The winter of 41-42’ ended up not being as severe for the Germans as you might think. Incredible adaptability, ingenuity, acclimatization and outright cleverness on the part of the Germans allowed them towards the beginning of January 1942 to negate much of the effects of the winter weather. The winter in many ways was just as harsh (and in some cases even worse) on the Red Army. The book, “Retreat From Moscow” by David Stahel goes into extreme detail on this specific topic. I highly encourage anyone with interest in the Eastern Front to give it a read.
All about logistics is such an enormous challenge, an example, it is said that germans did not have enough winter clothes, the reality is that the winter clothes were sitting inside the wagons but the railways in Russia are narrower than the germans ones, in bad shape, destroyed, all locomotives were left disabled, and supplies never arrived to the front in enough quantities by trucks on muddy roads. Instead on the western front trains were running smooth all along the campaign.
@@kingstanisbaratheon8526 That's actually true. Winter certainly stopped Napoleon's army. But what happened in WWII was entirely different. If winter truly killed the Nazis, then they should have lost to the Russians in Winter of 1942. Instead, the war went on for three more years. That's three winters combined. That's also, if you look at the calendar, three SUMMERS combined.
I've been to Russia twice. The first time, it was winter, and the guy driving me from the airport into the city pointed at a Leroy Merlin and said: the Germans got up to about this point during the war. No matter how much we learn about these things, being there and seeing how close that was from Moscow proper, it's amazing and terrifying at the same time
Well, actually Leroy Merlin is about 500-1000 metres closer to Moscow than to where germans got. They were next to Mega/Ikea/Obi, there is a monument there at the point to where they got
The autumn seemed to have killed Barbarossa more than the winter. While the winter was extremely harsh on both sides, the autumn muddy terrain made a blitzkrieg campaign near impossible and gave the Soviets much more time to organise a defence
The Russians were not affected by that winter as the Germans were. They were properly clothed, they were accustomed to that weather, [especially their Siberian units] and their machines were not becoming useless due to the cold.
Fascinating bit of history: When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Germany also declared war against the US, even though their treaty with Japan only required joining in if any of the treaty parties were attacked. When Germany attacked Russia, Japan didn't join in, which let Stalin mobilize troops from the east against the German armies.
The Axis concept is a bit of a myth as Germany and Japan are different ethnic groups a long distance from each other. They weren't actually that helpful to each other during WW2. If there had been greater coordination between them and they simultaneously attacked Russia, not terrorizing civilians (thus generating rapport and help from the many within Russia that hated Stalin) but focusing on decapitation of the Russian top brass and taking control of key cities, and USA stayed isolationist, Eurasia would be a different place today.
Ethnicity had nothing to do with it. Hitler welcomed many different nations as allies and sought help from other nations that largely turned him down. Germany even had SS units made up of non- germans.
@@tsumugikotobuki0131 well , nobody ever can attack or invade Moscow from the east. Siberia acts as a natural frontier or buffer for the kingdom of Russia. Especially, when the enemy was reaching Moscow, it was quite natural to defend Moscow with all troops. Retreating to the East was the last resort which Stalin did not have to do. The subservience of the nomadic people's of central Asian steppes to the Russian Empire is also another great plus point for the ruler of Russia. Unlike the Chinese who historically built a great wall to preserve their ethnicity, Russians have maintained a cultural unity with Central Asian people. That was a plus point of Soviet model communism which helped to distinguish itself from Fascism or Natzism. I hope you have noted the difference between the mindsets of Russians and East Asians (Chinese/ Japanese)
Δεν είναι μόνο το κρύο που νίκησαν οι σοβιετικοί στρατιώτες πολεμισαν πολύ σκληρά το ναζισμό φασισμό σκοτώθηκαν 22 εκατομμύρια σοβιετικοί στρατιώτες και 30 εκατομμύρια τραυματίες
At 10:04 it tells me all the reason . Hitler like a fool told his army to STOP ! … big foolish mistake . NEVWR NEVER stop … stopping and lateness . Lateness is what killed Gettysburg for Lee … late getting to hill and on and on from there . He had it in the bag and stopped for awhile … his generals told him to not do it ! Oh well ?
@@EF-by1kp Truly. The German's hate for the jews was their undoing. The blood of the Jewish people had reached the Heavens. The concentration camps were a disaster for Germany.
I had the privilege to hear a Soviet solider who fought in Barbarossa speak about 20 years ago. One of the more striking anecdotes that always struck with me was at one point supplies were so stretched hot vodka was being handed out to keep soldiers warm.
USA/CANADA lend-lease to USSR 400,000 jeeps & trucks,14,000 airplanes8,000 tractors,13,000 tanks,1.5 million blankets,15 million pairs of army boots,107,000 tons of cotton, 2.7 million tons of petrol products ,4.5 million tons of food
@@beschken yup the spy is maybe one of the person who actually change the course of the war. Since if he did not tell the soviet about the japanese movement then the soviet will still put their veteran army there.
The Soviets also had alot of modern factories in the east to begin with. Chelyabinsk had the most modern factories in the world. Designed by American engineers to the latest specs.
Another fun fact: Before the revolution Tsar Nicholas made it so the width of the railway track were different then all of the rest of the world in order to make it more difficult for the invaders to use them, fast forward multiple decades, A big portion of German supply that was transported via Railways was slowed down by the difference in the railway system
The Blitzkrieg in France was no more then 60 km wide. In Russia the front was 3000km. The ideea of getting to Vladivostok via Blitzkrieg was total fantasy…
I don't think the Germans expected to get to Vladivostok, and it wasn't their goal. They wanted to take Moscow and Leningrad and Stalingrad, and then they expected the Russians to sue for peace. Thus they would have their own huge empire. But the Russians were not about to give up after having lost the large territory they did. This is what the Nazis did not expect. Surely anyone sensible would negotiate peace and accept the loss of territory. But Stalin and his gang were not reasonable people.
Hitlers biggest failure was his underestimation of how the Soviets could CONTINUOUSLY put Men in the Field. One German General noted "We destroy one of their Divisions and they replace it WITH TWO MORE!" The Soviets could also manufacture all the equipment they needed and in Great Numbers!! He should have remembered the adage "The INVADER never fights as hard as the INVADED!"!
nah. winter beat them. killed over a million russians.would have been many more if generals were in charge. take a look at ww1 to see how russia does. they lost to japan for gods sake
@@kheindl100 I WW1 the Czar (totally incompetent) had control over the Russian Military. In WW2 German General remarked "If we destroy one division, the Russians replace it with two more!" Once Russia got on it's feet, Germany was done for....Hitler bit off more than he could chew.
@@balancedactguy czar totally incompetent in ww1 but hitler wasnt in ww2, ww1 was one sided.russia lost 3/4 million in a few days in ww1.thy didnt win anything. thy quit.germany destroyed them easily. in ww2 it was winter weather and hitlers stupidity. 300k germans died but over a mil russians.if the usa didnt enter the war getmany wouldve focused on russia w more thn jus a single army. russia would hv been doomed. u owe ur "victory" to snow
@@kheindl100 The SIZE if the Soviet union was an important factor...Supply and provision lines were too long. the winter helped the Russians a great deal get back on their feet and make Tanks, Artillery....etc by the 10s of thousands, but when the weather got better, warm.... the Russians still eventually kicked ass...the Germans could NOT possibly deal with the numbers of Men, Tanks, Artillery the Russians threw at them, As time went on the Russians got battle hardened and better experienced. Winter helped, but was one, but not a single overall determining factor,
@@balancedactguy u expect a single army to deal w multiple armies even after the winter left them as a skeleton of what they were? u think that despite these factors losing 3x, 4x, 5x the men tabks n planes is a great victory? let alone an "asskicking"? thats delusional. if getmany had waited to attack or simply added half the resources the russians used they would have won easily. btw who were the German allies? romania italy v russia having u,s, britain. what other theaters were the great russian army fighting in? finland? u make me laugh.germany was fighting in russia the baltic meddeteranian africa western europe. man against child
I'm glad that this video didn't just say winter is the sole/primary reason why the Germans failed to capture Moscow, as is popularly believed by the Western public and amateur historians. There's no denying that the coming of winter had a big impact, but way too many people ignore the tenacity of the Soviets and their rapid reorganization after the early disasters of Barbarossa. The biggest factor in Barbarossa's ultimate failure was the redeployment of the Siberian divisions and the impressive transfer of industry to the Urals. A lot of people also don't know that the Germans actually outnumbered the Soviets on the front up until the end of the operation. By the time of the battle for Stalingrad, the USSR had built a well-supplied and competent fighting force, contrary to how Hollywood portrays the situation in movies like "Enemy at the Gates"; and by the time of Operation Bagration, the Red Army was a large and formidable force, arguably the best in the world. The Manchurian Offensive in 1945 was one of the most impressive operations in history and showed just how far the Red Army had come in only 4 years. I know the USSR became the primary enemy of the West almost immediately after WW2 ended, but it's a damn shame that so many in the West are so dismissive and ignorant when it comes to the Eastern Front. The Soviet people paid a huge price to defeat the evils of fascism and they were fighting for humanity as a whole, ideological differences shouldn't prevent us from acknowledging that. The Allies put aside their differences and worked together to defeat one of history's greatest evils and I think that's a beautiful thing.
@@sand8777 yeah , I agree with you. Also after the defeat of Germans it was stalin who insisted isolation of the east Germany with the west which also resulted in the Berlin wall . The west had a hand in this as well , due to the implementation of communism they sabotaged the truce with the Soviets, inturn leading to the rivalry
Winter was a huge factor. But almost unlimited manpower was the biggest factor. And the us supplied soviets with steel that they otherwise wouldn’t have had. Russia has always sucked at war but had major manpower. Today manpower isn’t near as important and Ukraine is a great example of what russias army has always ever been.
absolutely right. one should watch the Soviet Storm documentary to really understand the war in the east. with all due respect, the western front was no contest till Normandy and by that time Germany had already lost. the real battle took place in USSR. credit to the soldiers and generals who were able to turnaround a hopeless situation
So many reasons, but I would focus on logistics. During planning for the invasion, the General Staff went logistics people. They said roughly that at about 500 miles into the Soviet Union they feared they could not supply ammo, food, weapons, etc. because of factors like railroad incompatibilities among other things. Halder never told Hitler about these huge problems they would face. And sure enough, the predictions of the logistics planners were extremely accurate.
I guess the lesson here is that cutthroat spartanistic cultures like fascism doesn't work and just leads to people lying to save their skin or getting promoted. Lying is something you definitely don't want especially from your own subordinates when fighting a war.
@@unclelarry8842 There's also issue of ideology at work there. In his book Hittler promised Germans a "living space on the East" so he could postppone his plans for it but not outright reject such cause they were part of the government he created. Part that was well-known for Soviets who were already starting to prepare for inevitable fight and the longer he postponed it the better the ywould be prepared.
There are probably many reasons why Barbarossa failed: 1. A severe shortage of oil. 2. Over-extended supply lines. Distances in the USSR are huge compare with the war in the West. 3. Delays in interrupting the momentum of the attack. Delays give the defender a chance to build formidable defences. 4. Selection of too many objectives. There is no concentration of effort. 5. Hitler allowed, or was deceived by his generals, that he had to win a tactical war like in France. The vast distances in the USSR and millions of men the USSR could field indicated that this was to be an attritional or strategic war. The winner would be the side who had control over resources. 6. Germany had no plans for long distance bombers which could bomb the factories relocated to the Urals. Stalin was therefore able to manufacture war materials unhindered by the Nazis. Production of T-34s and Soviet warplanes went into overdrive. 7. Panzer tracks were narrow compared to Soviet T34 tracks, and so these floundered in the mud. 8. Hitler made the huge mistake of waging a war on 2 major fronts. This was to put massive and unbearable pressure on Germany. The Soviet Union was too big a beast to tame, even though Hitler needed her oil and food resources badly. In summary, I hope this helps.
It seems to me that hitler just ran out of resources and he had too many enemies. He had British and the usa against him. Was also backstabbed by the italians. He wasn't going to win
There was no two front war. There was only one front - the eastern front. The western front opened in mid 1944, by which time Germany was practically defeated.
@@sedargames8161 Sedar, that is an interesting perspective, although I might insert the word "main" before the word "front." That was because of RAF and Royal Navy operations against Hitler, which were causing additional problems for the Third Reich. Without the war against the Soviet Union, Hitler would most certainly have conquered Britain. He could have traded with the USSR for badly needed oil. The USSR was geographically too big a monster to deal with. Had Hitler been a student Of Napoleon, he would have seen this.
@@LaHayeSaint Conquering Britain would have been useless though. The main tenet of Nazi ideology was expansion at the expense of Russia to acquire agriculturally productive land. Only by settling Germans in the east and ruralizing them would the demographic issue that all developee countries suffer from be fixed. Furthermore, in order to be resource independent, Germany ahd to go east (oil is of course the most important factor to consider, but so is the value of Ukrainian foodstuffs and mines and all the other wealth found in the Soviet Union that woukd have made Germany autarchic in everything but coffee). And most importantly, who could say for how long thr Soviets would have tolerated the German hegemony in Europe? Sooner or later there would have been a conflict, and 1941 seemed like a good year to go for it from the German perspective.
Thanks for watching! What is the most important reason for the failure of Operation Barbarossa? Let us know what you think! Edit: Lots of comments are asking why Japan didn't attack the Soviets from the other side. You can find out the answer here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-so4v_2zq35k.html
Mud was the No.1 cause. No.2 logistics. As the German's supply lines got longer the Soviet's got shorter. No.3 The Soviet agent in Japan who told Stalin that Japan was going to attack South and not toward Russia which allowed him to release Zhukov's army from the East.
Reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", and it is mentioned that many Russian "soldiers" were just men from the factories and local areas who flooded the battlefield to fight off the Germans. This was completely unexpected.
I studied military history both as a student at the Naval War College and as a professor. The Germans in World War II were in a sense the victims of their own early success. They audaciously remilitarized the Ruhr and recaptured the Rheinland, as the French did nothing. Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia and again the west did nothing. In Poland, although Germany saw initial success through its blitzkrieg tactics, they were nearly forced into a war of attrition, which would have brought the French and British into play, were it not for the sudden intervention of the Soviet Union from the east, sealing the Poles' fate, freeing up German divisions to make their way west, and forcing the putative French invasion of Germany (yes, it was a real thing, look it up) to retreat across the border. They took Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands without much difficulty. The Belgians offered decent resistance and then quit, leaving the entire British Army exposed to an annihilation they barely escaped at Dunkirk. France folded, in spite of French numerical and materiel superiority. Vast encircling movements and quick tank and armored infantry engagements, backed up by the powerful Luftwaffe, aided in the defeat of the French. What were considered "easy" victories blinded the Germans to their structural weaknesses. Inexplicably, Germany failed to switch to a total war national economic strategy. Factories and businesses continued to produce vast amounts of consumer goods, and in spite of the increasingly desperate military situation, there was little supply interruption or serious rationing in Germany until at least 1944. Germany was well aware of the lack of senior officer experience in the Red Army due to Stalin's purges. Germany was well aware of the Soviets' increased military production from 1939 to 1941, and indeed had diplomats acting as spies, warning senior German high command of their increasing levels of industrial military production and military mobilization. German high command felt they couldn't wait until the Red Army leadership was able to consolidate itself and tens of thousands of new Yak-3 fighters and T-34 tanks, as well as over a hundred new army divisions could be formed. 1941 was probably the optimal time for an attack on the Soviets. Operations in Greece and Yugoslavia delayed the German attack for at least six weeks, which probably bought enough time for the Red Army to delay the Germans from taking Moscow in November or December of 1941. I'm not absolutely sure taking Moscow would have ended the war with the Soviets right away, though, since Stalin had wisely concentrated enough political, military, and industrial resources to the east and beyond the Urals to ensure the medium term viability of the Soviet state in spite of a potential loss of Moscow and the Ukraine. It is more likely that Stalin would have agreed to a truce or peace agreement with Germany had Moscow fallen. Turkey could have then been recruited as a German ally, as in World War I, allowing an invasion of the Middle East and Persia, which could have allowed German and Japanese forces to potentially link up in India. From a geopolitical standpoint, a German-Japanese common front, encompassing the whole Indian Ocean basin except for Australia, would have been an immense psychological shift. China was historically allied with Germany. General Chaing's Chinese Army got their army helmets, uniforms, and rifles from Germany, and might have been tempted to ally with the Germans as well in return for territorial concessions from Germany's ally Japan. Germany/Japan/China/Italy/Turkey might have been an Axis that, along with a truce with Russia, could have taken on the American/Anglo alliance at par. Germany clearly thought they could destroy Russia as they had Poland and France, and their arrogance was their undoing.
The invasion would have always happened on the day, it is a common myth that yugoslavia slowed them down, in reality it was always planned for june as that was when the weather would be clear and there wouldn't be as much mud
You need to read Adam Tooze. The German economy was already mobilized for war prior to September 1939. There was very little they could do. They had more women working in the workforce than any other state. All strategic materials were controlled (rubber, steel, aluminium, POL). Very few luxury or consumer goods were manufactured, mostly for the elite. Volkswagens beetle was basically a scam to defraud citizens and pay for factories that could produce tanks. Despite being docked pay weekly, few ever received their car. Workers had no rights, and hours went up. Manufacturing items for war. There was no surplus production.
My belief is that they absolutely underestimated the size of the job. My dad was a staff sergeant in Patton's 3rd Army 4th Armored Division. From Le Harve France to bastogne seems like a terrible distance. But actually it was not. He reminded me that the United States has four time zones. Russia has somewhere around 16. The Germans never thought of that.
In rode my motorbike from the North of England to the South of France via France-Belgium-Germany-Switzerland.....via the French Alps.... Easy peasy.... 2 pairs of underpants and you are there...
Interesting fact : The battle of Moscow is the only WW2 battle where Germans had number superiority (soldiers, tanks and so on) and still lost the battle.
Are you sure. The Siberian reserves were least 1.5 million troops. Plus all the troops and civilians that had withdrawn back into Moscow. Don't forget about the red guards.The German around Moscow were no more than 1.25 million troops. The delay cost them the battle.
@@rarescevei8268 the Soviet union had 3 million reserves in Siberia. Plus Civil reserves 3x that of Germany. The Siberian reserves about 1.5 million men, saved Moscow. Reserves were the reason they won Stalingrad and Kursk, and went all the way to Berlin.
@@karenheringer9397 reserves werent the only reason. it was combination with more production than germany and strategy. 3 million men is useless without food,guns, vehicle, airplanes. its wasteful without good strategy to keep them alive.
Well, how many soldiers you have in the field is not important, but how many of them are actually equipped and combat raedy is! When battle of Moscow started, Germans had a slight advantage in number of soldiers and tanks but due to logistical overextension, redeployment of Luftwaffe forces to Africa and improper winter clothing of the Wehrmacht, the combat readiness-numbers of the middle sector on the eastern front fell very quickly within a few weeks, while the Soviets managed to bring in fresh troops from Siberia and by December had a numerical advantage in soldiers, tanks and aircraft (only in the middle sector in front of Moscow). Despite the desastrious german planning and a lot of frozen german soldiers and a brutal Soviet counter-offensive at Moscow the Germans managed to hold the line...
This is a great video. So many explanations of the USSR front oversimplify the issue as 'Hiter's ego got in the way and he wanted to take a swipe at Stalingrad' whereas the reality was far more complicated. This does a great job of explaining that moving the factories out to the Urals and bringing the Soviet forces from the Eastern front actually allowed Stalin to counterattack in Dec 1941 in front of Moscow. And that in 1942, the idea of capturing the oil fields down south made a lot of sense as this was already becoming a war of attrition and materiel. Historically, Russia has lost battles but the country is too vast to ever lose a war, or be subjugated (except by other Russians!!). It was crazy to ever think that Russia could be beaten in a war of annihilation short of WMDs which didn't exist then - but then the failed painter was a certified loon.
Of course, Stalin proposed armistice in 1942 and all normal leaders will be agreed with this in situation of war with so much nations, but extraordinary suicide chancellor refused everything ....
No. This myth of Hitler being a madman and demanding these things comes from the memoirs of his generals who were desperately trying to deflect blame from themselves. Hitler's socialist ideas may have been crazy, but his actions were the sanest of the German leadership.
@@odysseus2656 - I wouldn’t go that far. Invading Russia was a bad idea in the first place. The tactical decisions that followed may or may not have been smart, but the strategic idea was stupid. Murdering 6 million Jews and 5 million Russians, and bombing Britain was going to cost Germany dearly in the end. If Hitler was so sane, then Berlin wouldn’t have been reduced to rubble by 1945.
@@odysseus2656 With actually war against SSSR and with active opponent British's Empire, no normal leader will be reacted , without any analysis, after Pearl Harbour and done job in favour of FD Roosevelt. And with just this act, Germany chancellor alongside Musolini, put Rommel's DAK in collapse. Without war against USA , Rommel not be fought against Sherman tanks , and North Africa landing not be happened. This wasn't error of any general. This was fateful disastrous decision by Hitler( and Musolini).
@@mirkojorgovic Well Mussolini made disastrous decisions. My point is the harping on Hitler wanting his troops to stand and fight, after say Stalingrad, while his generals wanted to withdraw, feint and attack somewhere else, misses the point that Germany had no fuel for its mechanized equipment. Heck, we all know the German army went to Stalingrad in peasant carts because of the lack of fuel. Tactically, standing and fighting was the ONLY option then. It was not madness or even a mistake.
Great channel! Thanks for this fascinating and educational video. I'd heard the winter aspect of Operation Barbarossa before, but this video breaks down all the important factors before and during. Especially the toughness and numerousness of the Soviets joining the fight, the opportunity to move eastern, seasoned troops west to defend Moscow, and the (crazier) thing I'd never learned - the relocation of that much war production away from the German front. The scale and speed of that effort is mind-boggling.
On paper it looked like the Russians were easy pickings. First, Stalin had recently done a purge on his generals leaving an army with weak leaders. Second, the Russians had performed badly against Finland. Third, just twenty years prior the people revolted against the monarchy because of how ineptly they handled the war and it was believed they would revolt again if Russia was given a thorough whacking again. And fourth, the German army felt they were invincible.. they'd conquered Poland, beaten France, forced the British to swim back to Britain, and then proceeded to steamroll over Yugoslavia and Greece.
@DANIEL PRADO history disagrees with you. Have a look at the Wermacht's total losses on the Eastern vs Western front, they tell the true story about the USSR being "easy pickings".
@@yetanotherjohn Of course they were. The Panther wss a very much influenced by the T34's sloped armor. Also it's very problematic when nearly all of your tanks and anti tank guns just jave their shells bounce off the armor of enemy tanks
Mam flaw was treating soviet people as another "vermins" to be exterminated. If they don't massacre them, then they would break USSR, as at beggining of Barbarossa.
My dad remembered this quotation from Joseph Stalin, "Quantity has a quality all its own." No matter how many soldiers and tanks the Germans took out, there was always another wave of soldiers and tanks coming at them! And of course, the Germans running low on oil was a huge factor, plus dealing with long supply lines, the brutal winters and Soviet mud, and the Soviets were tenacious fighters!
Joseph Stalin was an uneducated thug. His paranoid purges of Russian officers prior to WW2 led to millions of Russians being killed easily by the invading Nazi forces.
Also Russian military was normally pretty good; russia was strong militarily in the 1800s and were very effective in wars for example. On top of that t-34 was probably the best all around tank in the war. I don't fully understand the underestimation of the russian forces; yes they did badly in ww1 against the germans but they actually did well against the austrian-hungarians. They also did end up beating the japanese; and japanese ended up conquering large chunks of asia.
A lot of the Soviet soldiers were barbarians. They used to saw the legs of captured German soldiers, and even cut off penises and stuff it into the mouth of the soldier.
The Germans were honestly just incredibly lucky. Operation Barbarossa wasn't some mythical battle plan, it was pretty straight forward and had about 3 main objectives. The Germans just managed to catch the Soviets with their pants completely down and off, hence they destroyed 3 armies, and the Soviets managed to raise 3 more.
If you look at the war map it was NOT luck, the Germans were encircling the Russians left and right, which gave them incredible strategic advantage, in one occasion they captured 600 THOUSAND prisoners of war by encircling Kiev. Not to mention the amount of divisions of infantry, panzers and air groups put into the combined arms strategy, the blitzkrieg. Their military doctrine was superior to the soviet, for example the t34 didn't have radios, only the leader of the division did, meanwhile the panzers all had radio so they could coordinate more effectively. The germans lost because they were unable to keep the warmachine going, not enough oil basically.
kasual german hater be like , btw germans barely had oil and winter equipment if it werent for their war in greece helping italy , they would get moscow within winter , yet they fought and took soo much land in the soviet union , im still amazed to how close they got at moscow
Halder knew what he was doing. Everything was carefully planned. Germans just couldn't know the soviets had unlimited reserve armies. I wouldn't say lucky. I would say they set off for a Cruzada they ultimately could not win.
@@pedrofelipefreitas2666 The Germans attacked the Soviets at the worst possible time for the Soviets. At the time of the German attack, the Soviets were in the process of a complete reorganization of the army, in which there was chaos in the organization and without the interference of the Germans, units half disbanded and half formed, a change in the command structure, where half of the disbanded units were commanded by the old command, and the other newly formed half by the new command... a complete chaos, that's why the Germans had a huge success in the attack. In some sectors, the Germans encountered a very well-organized defense because there were already reorganized and connected units, but the Soviets were also defeated in those places because it was a completely isolated defense...
I think the most important factor to lose the war against Russia was the underestimation of the Germans regarding the dimensions of Russia - as land, as production facilities, as human resources, as intelligence.
@@armingleiner5292 lol, you've been bootlicking for a few hours now?, didn't your country claim that they fought in ww2?, guess they didn't,if only the USSR let you go before the operation, we'd see a much better world right now
My great uncles fought for Germany in Russia and one of them froze to death in Russia. They didn't want to fight but where forced to join the army by the nazis. Thanks for this video, it helps me understand what happened then.
Is there statistical data on how many Germans at that time approved of the war? We see clips of the hordes of people cheering Nazis but surely not all of them wanted war.
Part of the reason for the failure of Barbarossa was the delay in launching the operation. By going into Yugoslavia this delayed the operation by 5 weeks, which might have allowed the operation to be completed before the Russian Rasputitsa came in. Second: The the German Army was hoping for a Blitzkrieg campaign similar to that which happened in France in 1940. The operation was expected to be a brief affair, hence the Wehrmacht was not equipped to fight in, or prepared for a Russian winter. They had to light fires under tanks to thaw out the fuel and soldiers did not have adequate winter clothing or training for that environment. Third, the German Army was mostly a horse drawn army and not as highly mechanised as one has been led to believe. Hence, the further forward the Germans advanced into Russian territory the more their lines of resupply became overextended and thus were unable to adequately resupply their forces on the front. For the Russians retreating from the German advance it had the opposite effect of allowing them to fall back onto their means of supply. Also, German soldiers tended to become depressed travelling through the endless Russian Steppe with no coastline or definable end to the operation in sight. Fourth, Had the Germans quelled their ideas of racial superiority and entered Russia as liberators they may have found many allies amongst the Russian people who were not too enamoured with Stalin and the terror he had rained down on his own people prior to Barbarossa. Due to the German barbarity to the civil population it meant that as the Germans advanced they created significant enemies behind them who formed bands of as partisans, which tied down significant portions of the Wehrmacht.
No the summer was the best time to invade. If they invaded during the rainy season of spring they would have bogged down. Speed was the most important thing to them.
Most of the points you stated were indeed true the logistics and transportation was an absolute nightmare for the Wermacht however the winter didn't actually let the germans lose as seen from 1941 when the russians made the counter attack the germans held them off on the coldest days, when the ground became softer the russians were then able to break through the moscow region. The most important reason germany lost, also the reason they were forced to invade in 1941 was oil, the british blockade stopped the imports of oil, the middle eastern oil was underdeveloped and non wad discovered in north africa, the reason they halted at the time they did was becaude they simply couldn't supply all 3 army groups. Another aspect that the Germans didn't see whole planning and which they saw during the operation was the overwhelming resistance and losses from the soviets. It's often viewed as a total loss for russia in the summer of 1941 with mass encirclments and troops just surrenduring, but that is far from the reality. The russians held on and despite taking on heavy losses they also gave the axis and germany quite a blow they lost around 2,000,000 troops of the initial nearly 4,00,000 from the start. Especially many veteran and expirienced soldiers. They also lost far more panzers then they could fix or replace losing hundreds upon hundreds in mass offensives. All this while the russians were outnumbered. Which leads to the next point which is a myth that the germans were facing hoards of soviets attacking at all times. That is not true at all indeed the germans enjoyed a far higher numerical superiority in 1941 as well as 1942, it was only until late 1942 early 1943 when the russians began to outnumber the germans on the entire front. In all Operation Barbarossa was planned more on confidence than actual logistics and strategy, the odds the germans would win was always going to be low the only way they could have won was by so many things it would be nearly impossible in our timeline because if ideological beliefs by germany at the time. In order to win they would have to do the following 1: Somehow Keep America Out of The War 2: Change The Enigma And Communications 3: Attack Military And Industrial Regions Of Britain Rather Than Wasting Aircraft Bombarding Civilians 4: Have A Real Plan For Russia Rather Than Underestimating And Going By Confidence 5: Cooperate With The People Of Soviet Occupied Territories To Somewhat Ease The Supply Situation 6: Go For The Southern Regions Of Russia Such As Ukraine Huge Food Supply And the Caucuses For Oil 7: Don't Waste Time Going For Northern Russia And Moscow As It Wasted vast Reserves of Oil Troops And Panzer Divisions.
@@TheGeopoliticsMan germany had 1 milion+ casualties in operacion barbarossa idk when the number went up to 2 milion troops lost.. if germany had 2 milion soliders killed in barbarossa they would not had the strength to even defend the land they captured and the war would be over in 1942-3
@@TheGeopoliticsMan The battle for Moscow took place before the US came into the war , and that was the turning point of operation Barbarossa . As fat as enigma , it didn't matter in the Eastern front ,Russia had their own spying org. The Red orchestra .
@@awesomebrawel4050 You would be right I meant to say the axis forces of Romania, Hungary, Italy, Garmany lost 1.9 million of the initial 3.8 million. How ever the reinforcments came soon, it was just the russians could reinforce more later on. The Germans themselves lost anywere from 900,000 to 1,100,000.
As the 9th May - our most important celebration in Russia arises (Victory Day) - let's pay respects to all the heroes that sacrificed their lives in such unhumane conditions. Not only Russians, but Ukranians, Belarussians, Kazakhs and other ethnicities that were in USSR and take part in this horrific wars. In recent years there are great efforts to undermine their value by stating that they won "only because of cold winter", "butcher tactics by Soviet leadership", etc. But either way even if it's true it still won't be possible without their unmatched bravery especially considering how more brutal German forces were both with military forces and civilians on the Eastern front in comparison to the Western front. It breaks my heart that we are fighting with our once brother nation and I hope violence will stop. F* the war and hope peace will restore. Just like our grandfathers who were WWII veterans wished - after all each of their first toasts were - "to peaceful skies above our heads"❤
these were well organized by Germans. However, Hitler did not consider the patriotic feelings and tremendous unity of Soviet people, every citizen took part in winning this war.
Hitler is heavily overestimated through History. He was not genius like Napoleon. Hitler was far too aggressive and too naïve when it came to War. He was too narcissistic to retreat his forces when needed. After easily capturing France he was foolish enough to think USSR would be just as easy, even when history itself told about Russia's insane persistence.
@@oyuk4618 Not much actually. Hitler wasnt to blame for Stalingrad, blame was on OKW Halder who constantly reassured him that its almost won and didnt give accurate numbers. Late history through multiple diariers, historians have actually started to understand that "blame Hitler card" has been used way too often to just give proud generals easy scapegoat. Without blaming themselves.
Being 20 miles close to Moscaw doesn’t mean so close to win the war. Ask Napoleon! )) btw Moscaw might turn to be a 6 times worse than Stalingrad for germans.
Totally agree, somehow they always make it sound as if they had reached Moscow they would of taken it, they reached Leningrad and Stalingrad and took neither, my bet is that they would of not taken Moscow either.
@@Hannibal54321 The difference is that Moscow doesn't have a huge river to or sea to the east of it that worked in supplying the city making it way easier to encircle than both those two.
@@marvelousmoostacheman5560 Yes but I can just imagine what sort of resistance the Soviet army and people of Moscow would of have had put before they would let their city be encircled, let alone be taken, I still believe that reaching Moscow which they did not even manage to do does not mean in any way taken, Its a long long stretch, that's my opinion
@@marvelousmoostacheman5560 Well I stick to my believe that reaching Moscow does not mean encircling and capturing in any way, its all a supposition, again they did not even manage to reach Moscow, implying it would fall for sure to me is just a fallacy, plus who knows how long it would take for the city to actually fall if they had even managed to encircle it, Soviets could of brought a couple million troops from the east to break the siege before it falls, just like in Stalingrad but bigger.. this is all just imagination as again, they just did not reach Moscow, the Soviets stopped them, So one can say this could happen or that, but not even close.
There more I study WW2 more I think that it was IMPOSSIBLE Nazi Germany to win. 1. The Soviets knew that it was a war of extermination. They would have fought to the last man. I don't think that the capture of Moscow would change the outcome of the war. The Soviets would retreat to East and continuing fighting. There are videos of Stalin's daughter talking about plans of moving the Soviet capital to the East. The Bolshoi Theater was already wired with explosives. If the Soviets lost Moscow they would have burned the city (just like the Russians did in 1812). The only thing that the Soviets would have saved from Moscow was Lenin's corpse. 2. Hitler invaded the Soviet Union because he could not end the war with Great Britain. Nazi Germany did not had the naval resources to invade the island and conquer London (the only way to achieve victory against Great Britain). And the stalemate was prejudicial to Nazi Germany and not to the Great Britain, because the latter had several colonies with material resources. 3. I believe that even the US had not entered in WW2 the Soviets would be able to achieve victory against Nazi Germany. Even without lend and lease. Allied shipments to the Soviet Union[50] Year Amount (tons) % 1941 360,778 2.1 1942 2,453,097 14 1943 4,794,545 27.4 1944 6,217,622 35.5 1945 3,673,819 21 Total 17,499,861 100 The amount was only significant in 1943 and 1944 when the war was ALREADY lost for Nazi Germany. The Soviet were able to repel the Blitzkried against Moscow in 1941 by themselves. The Nazi's Germany army was defeated in the Eastern Front not in the Western Front. Axis causalities in the Western Front: 263,000-655,000 Axis causalities in the Eastern Front: 8.7-10 million
I don’t agree with a few statements of yours. 1. The Nazis had completely bombed and destroyed soviet tanks, aircraft and air fields which left them with nothing but soldiers for a while 2. The Soviet “no step back” policy was pretty stupid and just had them lose millions 3. The war wasn’t lost ever since losing Stalingrad. What really in my opinion changed the outcome was the defeat in the North African campaign, which gave the allies a base to launch soldiers into Sicily (an Italian island) and work their way up. One other thing, the Nazis still had good resistance after Stalingrad. If you think about it, the German army was much more efficient and better trained than the soviets who couldnt even fix minor problems in tanks. It took Germany about 6-7 months to go from Warsaw to Moscow, which is very impressive! While it took the Soviets nearly 3 years to push Germany all the way to Berlin.
wow interesting facts here. But they're always talking about D-Day and the American liberators when the Soviets were far more significant to the outcome of war am I wrong?
The sheer geographical size of the Soviet Union was perhaps the most important factor in staving off defeat by the Nazis. If the Soviet Union had been the size of, say, France, things might have ended very differently.
The fight in Russian souls was and always will be the most important factor! Mongols spent 3OO years on Russian soil and still went the way of the Dodo 🤷♂️
factoring in also the way the nazis won those early battles at the start of barbarossa, to which the soviet army later on adapted to really well. it only goes on for so long that the nazis kept on encircling large enemy concentrations. hitler, after assuming the position as supreme commander, kept on insisting that his generals would push and try to pincer-move the soviet formations, expecting the same amount of success as it had happened earlier, only to waste a whole lot of fuel and resources on essentially nothing. the cold weather is in many cases just a sidenote, when comparing it to the soviet deep battle doctrine. I mean, I could write even more, since there's a lot to it as to how and why barbarossa failed. hitler's extensive use of drugs too you know, the man was a mobile pharmacy-unit
@@amoskariuki5967 didn’t I mention that in my comment (and it was more like 3 centuries).. And where as all the rest of the nations (as shown by history) would’ve submitted to the will of the foreign rulers over such prolonged period, the Russians never stopped fighting them and in the end deleted the Golden Horde from the census 😏
The lack of oil had a huge impact on the effectiveness of the german troops. Defenetly one of the biggest causes for the failure. If the germans were looking south to the cacasus before to Moscow, mayble it could have succeded. Furthermore, if the Japanese were not attacked perl harbour and focused on east russia, mayble these two facist countries could take russia.
One of main reasons are: USSR was a large country. Stalin made a smart decision of taking powerful factories from Ural mountains to deeper parts of Soviet Russia. This allowed the USSR to produce massive numbers of weaponry, equipment and ammo safely. Second reason is that USSR was times larger than Nazi Germany. And more population comes with larger country. USSR rebuilt the Red Army by sending millions of soldiers without job from deep parts of Soviet Union. This gave massive manpower advantage over Hitler. Third reason is weather. Wehrmacht wasn’t ready for winters. Hitler planed Blitzkrieg strategy (attacking the capital in less than 3 weeks) so he wanted to defeat Red Army in 3 weeks, while the winter didn’t come yet. And those rebuilding of Red Army which enlarged the manpower from 2 million to 5 million soldiers. Fourth reason is the Stalingrad battle. Red Army used another smart strategy by letting Wehrmacht enter the Stalingrad which was about 50 kms away from Stalingrad centre. Then Soviets decided to close the entire Stalingrad city to crush Wehrmacht unit inside.
Not certainly in that way. Many factories were in the European part of the USSR and were hastily evacuated to the rear. Imagine the situation: the machines come almost to an open field, a temporary canopy is built around them and they begin to produce products. After the general mobilization of men, there were few left, women and even children worked. Often they slept right at the workplace, got up and worked on. In the USSR, there were corresponding medals for "home front workers".
The reasons for German failure in USSR are many and complex. Leaving all those aside and looking at the core reason, it was German lack of oil to prosecute such a vast enterprise. They had enough oil to start a war but not to finish it. The German Army took a decision to de-motorize it's divisions and use horses because it simply could not fuel them. Germany could have fielded more men, tanks and artillery, but it had no oil to supply them.
I look at these videos... and sometimes wonder to myself... How proud would one of these soldiers be to see themselves, or one of their brothers, push back the enemy in this footage. This history is just mind blowing to me man
Jesus Christ! I can't stand this insanely stupid comparison. Comparing Napoleon to Hitler is objectively one of, if not the single dumbest thing anyone can say about history. You can't compare a war fought in the early 19th century, to a modern war fought in the mid 20th century. In Napoleons time, the fastest armies moved into as fast as they could March on foot. Communication between armies could take days, if not weeks. They used cannons & muskets as primary weapons. In WW2, they had aircraft, railroads, motor vehicles, modern artillery, tanks & instantaneous radio communication, which allowed for a level of tactical coordination never dream of. I don't even need to go into the revolution in smalls arms & the increased killing power it gave to individual soldiers. In WW2 a single soldier with a submachine gun was more deadly then 50 men with muskets in Napoleons time.
Another logistics issue was the Germans were using mass amounts of synthetic fuel, which froze at a lower temp than regular oil based fuel, so they simply couldn't move at times.
I don't know if Barbarossa really came that close to success. Sure, they could have taken Moscow if things unfolded a bit differently, but that alone would not have necessarily led to victory. Napoleon took Moscow and the Russians kept fighting, and eventually won. Given Hitler's war objectives, which involved the complete destruction of the Russian nation and the murder/expulsion of the entire population, the Russians were going to continue to fight to the end, because it was over their very existence. In that sort of war, the larger and more populous nation will most likely win in the end.
Hitler had a habit of pausing at crucial moments. Hitler paused in order to divert part of Army Group Center to Leningrad. He paused and diverted part of the Stalingrad army towards the oil fields. He paused when he had the British cornered at Dunkirk. He paused when he was about to finish off the RAF. When you pause that way your enemy is not pausing.
Everyone knows about the Nazi policy of extermination of the Jews of Europe, less is mentioned that second on the list were the Slavs, aka Russians, Ukrainians etc Whole parts of Belarus, Ukraine and western Russia were depopulated of women and children as well Further down the list, Roma, those deemed disabled and on and on So many comments here of people thinking that the US chose to back the the wrong side, what are they saying, eastern Europe should have been depopulated and resettled by Germans in their place?
Stalingrad was far more important then moscow. If germany takes the caucaus(idk how to spell) oil fields then the soviets overnight wouldve become basically an infantry only army
"It was in front of Moscow, in December 1941, that the tide turned, because it was there that the Blitzkrieg failed and that Nazi Germany was consequently forced to fight, without sufficient resources, the kind of long, drawn-out war that Hitler and his generals knew they could not possibly win."
@@UshankaShow the Germany army couldn't move all three army groups for offensive operations anymore after 1941. 1942 they can only move 1 with the other 2 only capable of small offensives. 1943 they can't move any army groups offensively hence they had to use part of centre and south at kursk.
Absolutely. That was the day Germany lost the war, although they could not possibly realize it until two and a half years later. Ironically, it happened on December 7, 1941 - the day Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
Germany was at a tremendous disadvantage that is rarely given a thought or mention: the size of its population. The population of the Axis powers totalled just under 300 million, while Allies had over 900 million. Germany itself had just 80 million while the USSR alone comprised about 170 million. Blitzkrieg was solely responsible for the early successes of the Nazis. A war of attrition could not possibly turn out in their favor. The fact the bastards dragged the thing out long enough to implement the Final Solution sickens me to no end.
They didn't get a choice when it came to peace, if Russia doesn't make peace, then the Allies don't make peace, and i'll bet every penny i have that Stalin would never make peace
@@drained_yayo Assuming you're not jiving, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution "This policy of deliberate and systematic genocide starting across German-occupied Europe was formulated in procedural and geopolitical terms by Nazi leadership in January 1942 at the Wannsee Conference held near Berlin, and culminated in the Holocaust, which saw the murder of 90% of Polish Jews, and two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe."
The main reason for the defeat of Germany in the war with the USSR is that Germany attacked a country that already in 1941 could produce tanks, aircrafts, cannones and a lot more by the tens of thousands. The Red Army had tens of thousands of tanks and aircrafts already in 1941, and although almost all of them were lost in one way or another by the end of 1941, the factor of their presence by June 22, 1941 was one of the reasons why the Wehrmacht was stuck near Leningrad, Smolensk and Kiev until the end of summer, and the Plan Barborossa proved unworkable.
It's a bit nuanced. During the Poland campaign and Winter War, the Red Army underperformed and one of the main reasons was their lack of combined arms effectiveness. The soviets had far too many niche vehicles which needlessly complicated production and didn't prove effective in combat. The Germans invaded right as the soviets were simplifying their tank production down to just 2-3 models, and if you know anything about Hitler's views on the slavic people and their "judeo bolshevik bastion", paired with the lebensraum concept, oil fields needed to fuel the war economy and Hitler's fallacious idea of the shrinking agricultural economy, invading the USSR was always something he was going to do.
One point not mentioned. I believe that the need to rescue Mussolini's campaign in Greece and ultimately Crete delayed the start of Barbarossa by some six weeks. Six weeks more of spring/summer weather might well have made a difference.
Not so much difference. In 1943 and 1944 the weather didn't hinge massive offenses on Ostfront so much. Germans were active too. The case was the manpower and the tanks - German got a huge attrition of the frontline troops by the winter 1941. At Kursk 1943 Germans had a good weather but no success. Bad weather not so good for each side - in WW2 realities for the defensing side had to move troops for the counter-strikes and move troops out of pockets as fast as could (look at 'Typhoon' in fall 1941).
Father forgot that our Red Army fight very good and kill 750.000 nazis from 22.jun to december. There is no better fihters than our slavic people. You can play whit your Blitz on west, but not on the east.
Damn its wild to have a relative who was on these historical battles really that shape our world today. Mine was on Okinawa but Barbarossa was beginning of primary front of the war. Fascinates many people.
@@woodrowpreacely7521 the Pacific was just as brutal as eastern front. More than 50.000 US soldiers lost their lives for a tiny island called Iwo Jima for example. 😨
Soviets produced on the first 12 months of the war 20000 tanks. The entire German army on the Eastern front had only 2000 tanks. How could they possibly win?
That's grossly exaggerated. 1) The Ostheer had 4000 tanks at the frontline in mid-41, around 3000 by mid-42, 4000 again by mid-43. Not "2000". 2) The Soviets produced 16000 tank during the first 12 months of the war, not 20000. 3) The Germans destroyed 20500 soviet tanks in 1941 and 15100 in 1942.
@@RouGeZH If we're gonna go crazy and accept nazi propaganda mindlessly why not just let loose? I say the Germans destroyed a trillion soviet tanks in 20 seconds. How about that?
@@Sfirodrepanoskarxarias Lol what are you talking about? His numbers make more sense than OP's, based on what is known on the subject. How does "20500 tanks" sound anything at all like "a trillion tanks"??
One factor I always thought of was similar to the Schlieffen Plan of the first war. They had their strategy and it went so well at first that they decided to deviate from it. That mucked things up to the point that their original strategy was no longer attainable. It was working well at the start that they should have followed through and then figured out what else they might do.
@good Memes- I'll grant you all that and I wasn't saying that that was the only or even the main reason it failed. Capturing an enemy's capital city is not always more than a symbolic boost but, in the case of Moscow, it was. It was a major industrial, communications, and transportation center besides being the seat of government. If the Germans had captured it, and they came very close, it could have made enough of a difference to at least prolong the war by eliminating one front. If they had stayed focused, they might have taken it and things could have been very different. Obviously, Barbarossa was not as well planned as Schlieffen. Schlieffen was the product of decades of planning, as opposed to a few years for Barbarossa. One of the biggest flaws of Barbarossa was one of the most classic: underestimating your enemy.
@@jwil4286 - Was it the Dutch or the Belgians? Or both? Either way the Germans thought they would either join them or step aside and let them pass. It's kind of funny but the last thing they counted on was for them to defend their home when invaded by a foreign army. It was no contest but it did slow the Germans' advance and helped the French better organize their defense.
@@jerometaperman7102 the Dutch, who remained neutral. The Germans originally wanted to go THROUGH Belgium (as in an invasion), and they needed an ally such as the Dutch to help them. The Dutch could have a) given more men to help (some German men were needed to hold the line against Russia), and/or b) used their navy to slow down the British deployment in defense of Belgium.
I think these "if only" scenarios are a post war concoction by Halder, Manteuffel and Manstein. As far as I can make out, the Germans simply couldn't do the job with the logistics, especially transport, available to them
You have to also note the shortage of oil which is why the germans had to invade in 1941, as well as the astounding losses. The Germans actually outnumbered the russians until late november 1942 eatly 1943. The overwhelming ressistance to the german invasion along with many other factors and bad planning made operation Barbarossa deemed to fail.
@@TheGeopoliticsMan the overall munitions situation for the nazis was, already in 1939, in a less-than-optimal state. it's been argued whether the first campaign as the nazis rolled into Poland was too early as well, if they would've been in a better state had they delayed. it's all of course irrelevant now, I just think there's something to those takes.
The assumption that capturing Moscow would be the end of it. As in the US Civil War, when the opposition forces threatened the capital itself the civilian government left the city. Hence Washington DC, and probably Moscow, had become just another place on a map and not strategically more important than most other places.
As much as I've learned about WWII and the Eastern Front in particular, sometimes in watching these documentaries it is striking just how much suffering went on...from the civilians, the Russian army, and the common German soldier...over the delusions of one lunatic that wanted to rule the world.
Barbarossa failure can be attributed to some of these points 1- lack of a clear objective. Hitler kept changing his mind on where his army should advance, leading to confusion, wastage of time and resources as divisions kept getting new orders. 2- hugely underestimating Russian army strength. The Russians had more than 4x what the Germans thought they had. And their resistance, far stiffer than the German high command anticipated. 3- over estimating German military capabilities and logistics. 4- alienating the population of conquered territories. 5- not taking into account the lack of logistics in the east. lack of roads and railway lines meant the german army was never ever and could never ever be adequately supplied.
From the very beginning Hitler wanted to go south, he never changed his objective, it was halder that wanted to go to Moscow and constantly changed his plans, and there were railways in the east, plenty of them but it was different size from the german ones so they couldn't use them
@@ВукВуксановић actually the majority of the high command were on favor of ignoring Moscow completely. Halder was one of the few generals that agreed with Hitler's idea.
@@kereckelizabeth3625 not really halder was major opposing force of hitler, even giving orders behind his back and rearranging forces more towards Moscow so they can easily switch. Most generals are writing in their memoirs that Hitler was mad for going south and that they would've won if they just got in Moscow, and especially halder who constantly compared Barbarossa with invasion of france
Martin van Creveld in his book over logistics in warfare tells it very simply. The Germans needed a 100 trains with supplies per week in their surge to Moskow. They only got 10.
Stalin himself said that he would stay on Moscow. Imagine the morale loss if Soviet leader kills himself and their capital is destroyed. I belive that capturing Moscow would be more important than caoturing Stalingrad.
Hitler: I forgot my homework. Napoleon: You can write it back from me if you want, but correct it a bit because I have some mistakes. Hitler: Ok *takes this task and doesn't change anything*
There’s quite a bit out there about Barbarossa but I always wondered what was the Nazi plan to maintain control over their gains in Russia. One would think asymmetric warfare would’ve ruined any plans they may have had and it’s not as though the Nazi’s were trying to win the hearts and minds of the populace. Going against conventional wisdom right from the word go, Barbarossa never had a chance.
The answer was also asked by one of Hitler's generals to his Soviet counterpart after the Germans getting crushed at Stalingrad. "They (the Soviet people) were fighting for their motherland". It's well documented that there were a lot of compromised officers which Stalin got rid of. The fall of France was because French officer corp also had a lot of fascist sympathizers, who wanted to crush the Left in France. So while many younger officers were not as experienced, they were determined to fight for their country, the Soviet Union and the inspired leadership of Stalin. This analysis is not so great. It's been documented that the Russians knew that if they put their whole army on the front line, as France did, they'd get encircled, so ---and this is documented in the US documentary, Why We Fight, the Battle for Russia, made in 1943--they used the strategy of Defense in Depth. Plus, you left out the fact that partisans and soldiers cut off in the blitzkrieg wage guerilla war, which hampered German resupply.
Hitler's key requirement was oil. To get it he had to strike quickly through Ukraine towards the oilfields in/around Georgia. He knew that but the generals felt they knew better, and attacked Leningrad and Moscow as well. Germany's army was very dependent upon horses, unlike the US and Britain. Hundreds of thousands of them, because Germany did not have the oil to run a fully mechanized army. The US did, so D-Day had trucks and tanks but no horses. In fact, through the war, the US produced about 75% of the world's petroleum.
This fact is often neglected. We imagine the German army as being fully mechanized with those Panzers charging through the Russian steppes, but we should never underestimate the importance of logistics. For one soldier on the front, there are three behind making sure he is fed, clothed, surgically operated when needed and with the proper ammo.
MOST IMPORTANT REASON: THE SIZE OF RUSSIA and the length of the front line of over 2000 miles. No way Germany and its allies had the men and material to support the front line troops. Yes, Barbarossa HAD to work very fast.
That and they had the largest military in Europe. So large in fact that the Germans still underestimated its size. Bad intelligence doesn't help, and that seemed a serial problem for the Germans. See big German intelligence failures: size of Soviet forces at the start, the counteroffensive around Moscow in 1941, the counteroffensive around Stalingrad, the counteroffensive around Kursk, the center of gravity of Operation Bagration in 1944.
It wasn't a Soviet triumph, it started of disastrously, and there was a lot of Allied (UK/US) help needed to supply the Soviet Union. It took years for the Soviet Red Army to finally get to Berlin, with extreme casualties.... a triumph is different.
@@clavichord Idiot the Soviets saved their mother land from Extinction not like the French and other European countries which surrendered without a fight
They fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is, “Never get involved in a land war in Asia” - but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line!" Simple as that.
I think the total underestimation of the Soviets is why the invasion failed. Add in the logistical challenges of fielding an army that required huge supply chains hundreds of miles long. They couldn't even supply their army with proper winter uniform, what made them think they would actually win this war? Put yourself in the position of the average German soldier....you're wearing a summer uniform in Russian winter...how much fighting spirit are you really going to have? The Russians were fighting on their home turf and they were fighting for survival. That's a whole different level of desperation. They were willing to do whatever it took to defeat the Nazis.
Hitler probably though that with as mucb fervor and passion as his people have for him in Germany, that energy is going to carry them all the way in to Moscow. But energy dissipates, especially in the cold. xD
For many years I have held a theory that in reletively modern times armies cannot successfully invade and hold countries that are of a very large geographic area. I think the first instance of this was Napoleon's invasion of Russia. Bonaparte even captured Moscow but the Russian Army remained intact and Napoleon was unable to chase the Russians around the entire Eurasian land mass. My big example in even more modern times is Japan's invasion of China (even before the official start of World War Two). The Japanese military was a magnificent force with good morale and, superior equipment. The poor Chinese we're hapless with poor equipment, lousy corrupt leadership and political divisions. They lost nearly every battle with the Japanese and yet the Japanese were unable to conquer the Chinese who managed to hold on to half their country. We all know the rest of the story.
Barbarossa failed for the same two reasons Operation Sea Lion failed - the German military totally underestimated the true strength of their enemy and because of Hitler's constant interference in military planning.
Re the Battle of Britain, they also ignored the 'Chain Holme' Rada system, that told us they were not only coming, but how many, where they were heading, and the composition of their fleet.
Don't forget the harsh russian winter and the American lend lease act in 1941 which supplied the red army with everything they needed such as oil food medicine iron and weapons
Hitler's choice to divert troops south to get some oil was the right one. It was the generals who insisted that taking Moscow would somehow make the Soviets surrender for unspecified reasons. Focusing everything in the South and not letting the generals get the compromise to do both would have been even better. Though probably still not been enough.
Why it failed: Italy. Italy had invaded Greece and the Greeks were trouncing the Italians so Hitler diverted resources to that theater delaying his invasion of Russia by several months. This placed the German timetable back and made them rush causing mistakes and ultimately put their offensive in winter. And you don’t fight in Russia in the winter. Had Barbarossa been launched on time, the Russians likely would have been defeated
Yeah man let's start a war without oil, without a navy, without food, trying to exterminate half of Europe, failing to capture resources and then blaming someone else.
@@andreamarino6010 Maybe you’re right cause i read that bad weather that year in Russia delayed the germans to invade earlier in spring. But i cant exclude the possibility that the greek resistance played a role. Do you have any sources to read maybe?
@@andreamarino6010 The subject of the conversation is “Why did Operation Barbarossa fail as a military operation?” Not “Who is responsible for WWII and what were the socioeconomic and geopolitical circumstances that led to the rise and fall of the Third Reich.” Please try to stay on topic
This was a good and brief overview, but there are so many more dramatic details as to why it failed. WW2 magazine has a number of excellent articles on the subject. The scary thing is how close Barbarossa came to success. During the battle for Moscow Stalin was preparing to move his headquarters east to the mountains. That is how near to defeat the Soviets thought they were.
You could say that is true from mide 1942 onwards. However as it is also unknown Hitler saved the german army group center near moscow in winter 1941. Hitler also realized the importance of going south and aiming for Ukraine and the Caucuses in the first place, but it was actually his generals who objected and decided to go for the north and center to moscow insted of taking the natural recources. So in a sense it was Hitler's Generals who failed him at the start and then lead him to taking control and making it easier for the allies to beat germany in the late war 1944-1945.
So your point about Russian winter is that if the Germans would have attacked in Summer they would have won? Let's dare any European or American to fight the Russians in Summer
I believe the reason for most major defeats always has been underestimating the enemy. In this case Soviets trusted Generals namely Gen. January & Gen. February also played a huge role, as they did in Grand Army's defeat a century ago.
So your point about Russian winter is that if the Germans would have attacked in Summer they would have won? Let's dare any European or American to fight the Russians in Summer
A big reason is that there was a huge material difference as shown in the video, in fact by the time they had pushed to Moscow another 16.5 million men and women most untrained civilians had moved to reinforce the entire front along with 50 well supplied t34 divisions and a brand new air force squadron which shows the prowess of the soviet economy
USSR got 14 billon war aid in lend-lease 400,000 jeeps & trucks,14,000 airplanes 8,000 tractors,13,000 tanks, 1.5 million blankets,15 million pairs of army boots 107,000 tons of cotton,2.7 million tons of petrol products, 4.5 million tons of food
@@SardaukarNo1 while this is a massive help, that was still about 5% of Soviet military might. USSR would have persisted even without this help, though it would be harder.
So your point about Russian winter is that if the Germans would have attacked in Summer they would have won? Don't get brainwashed propaganda from the Anglo-Saxons.. Let's dare any European or American to fight the Russians in Summer
Field Marshal Montgomery said there are two key rules to follow in warfare. 1. Never invade Russia. 2. Never invade China. I think Montgomery was thinking about land mass and resources both human and material.
@@artlover1477 Both Russia and China are perfectly capable of being successfully invaded, it's just that the invading powers in question lacked the means to do so.
@@EternalModerate OK, you can comment on this if you want with no response from me again. You mentioned Genghis Khan. I believe from what, the 13th century AD or there abouts? That isn't even close to modern times with technology, populations and weaponry. You're delusional if a modern nation could invade, win and occupy Russia and China. Ok, have at it and have a great day.
Don't EVER invade Russia near WINTER. LOL He was said to told his Generals "I never went to Military School." If he had done, he would had learnt from Napoleon.
One overlooked cause: Delay to June could have been avoided, had there not been a German troop diversion to Balkans (since the Italians couldn't subdue them for a long time). If Barbarossa had started in April (or even May) both Moscow and Leningrad could be have overrun before October.
That is why the Russians feel indebted to the Serbs, by overthrowing the government and agreement between Yugoslavia and Germany, Hitler was forced to invade Yugoslavia and thus delay operation Barbarossa by 3 months
Stalingrad, Russian Winter, Long supply lines, the very strong resolve of the Russian People as the war progressed and treating the Russians as subhuman. This is what caused the failure of Barbarossa.
The "strong russian people" already surrendered on mass, thats a reason for germany overconfidence. What stoped that wasnt some quality of the people. Russia high comand were to execute you if you dont fight. So little valuebin people
It failed for many reasons. Germany never had the strength to destroy the USSR. The start of the operation was delayed until well into the summer season, meaning that the Wermacht was going to face the same challenges Napoleon did. Germany also had a major handicap; Hitler. The more Hitler took over, the more of a disaster the Russian part of the war became for him.
Correct 🚀 My granddad was prisoner until 1950 in Russia, and many reasons explain the failure, mainly the logistics still based on horses (only the fighting units had 'panzers'). It is not the Hitler factor (military idiot, idiot in general 😂), it was the combination of huge distances, the limited industrial ability of Germany to produce weapons compared to the 'Allied', Russia's fighting spirit + the Anglo-American supply lines via Murmansk). In the end it was doomed from the first day ☝️👍
@Jeff Whitman Patton defeating Rommels army? It was mostly the British and commonwealth 1st and 8th armies that won that. The USA had only one corps of troops in the entire 1943 Tunisian campaign
