Reaction to The Soviet Charge - Enemy at the Gates (2001) | is it historically accurate? 

If you would like to see more HistoryLegends videos, consider supporting me on Patreon: ► www.patreon.com/thehistorylegends

There's only two historically accurate parts in the movie, 1. Soviets and Germans fought a battle in Stalingrad. 2. There was a sniper named Wassily.

Soviet troops went into the city armed. I think the writers got confused with the Russian Army in 1914.

Its crazy that this movie is So popular that it created a myth!

Vasily Zaitsev's widow Zinaida on the movie Enemy At The Gates: "Vasily is changed completely in the movie. They showed blatant lies. Vasily would have never go as low as doing the things he does in the movie".

Funny how the troops making the assault seem to have almost no weapons or ammo, but the blocking division set up to stop them from running has tons of both.

By the time of Stalingrad, the Soviets used smaller sections and abandoned the mass charges of 1941. I don' t think Enemy At The Gates does the Soviets much justice.

Call of duty and Hollywood in general always the Russians are to blame and all the villains are they. it's especially funny to watch their films about Russians, we really laugh at how they portray us, for us it's a comedy. But most of them believe in what they see, and it's sad.

From Poland: I found this movie strange and only partially convincing as a result of these stupidities. One rifle per two? C'mon. No army in the world fought like that. This shot-up running attack, and the Germans being so obviously prepared? How would they know the attack is coming? Etc., etc. .... Another movie with incredible scenes and overall well played, but this "tactics" stuff so overblown and distorted that it's hard to watch without incredulity.

Patton said never walk new recruits past dead or dying, wounded soldiers.

Boat scene is plausible to the landing, but the rest of the scene is Hollywood on drugs.

If you didn't know, dear reader, one reason of many that the city of Stalingrad was defended so vociferously is that it had a weapons manufacturing factory that continued to produce ppsh smgs during the entire battle. They would at times be taken directly to the frontlines from the finishing shop. So while it's cinematic to have an every other soldier rifle distribution, the Soviets did not want for arms.

People tend to believe that the Soviets were a bunch of mismanaged farmers and whilst this isn’t far from the truth the Soviets were far more structured than people give them credit for. Because war isn’t just about shooting as many enemies but is also a war of logistics, if you can organize and then reorganize an army as well as successfully set up a stable support network then you can beat the enemy (most of the time) a great example would be he African campaign where incompetent or dogmatic commanders would ignore the needs of logistics as well as adapting to new situations, vs the more flexible and capable Germans. But as soon as a solid supply line was established and aid from America in the form of tanks and supplies the British started to gain the upper hand, and whilst the British are credited with the main battle tank conceit it’s actually the Soviets who pioneered the universal tank concept with the T34 series

It is important to note that a lot of the myths portrayed in this scene come from German accounts of the war. Mostly by generals trying to justify their loss in the war. Unfortunately not a lot of military history came out of the USSR until the late 80's so many of these myths have found their way into fact.

6:10 about the bullets uses by stukas, theese are 7.92 mm mg so the machinegun bullets showed in the movie are realistic, the german veteran should have been hit by a .50cal (12.7mm) this caliber had see a lot use in the allied planes, british planes have 20mm so i don’t think somebody can survive a 20mm shell in the lung, anyway great job for you video :D

Thank you for yet another excellent video. I am glad you discussed this topic, as Soviet Army stalingrad veterans were outraged when this movie was shown to them back in the mid-2000s. My grandfather fought in the battle, and what he described was the opposite of what they showed in this movie; they didn't have a shortage of weapons, it's a shortage of men that they had faced at the time.

Thank you for a good analysis. This film simply disgraced the Soviet army. My great-grandfather and his brother volunteered for the front. My great-grandfather died in 1943 in the Battle of Stalingrad and his brother died in 1944. This movie is just shit. It is better to read the book "There was no land for us beyond the Volga: Notes of a sniper", which was written by Vasily Zaitsev himself. After watching this movie, I feel like I've wasted a couple of hours of my life.

If anything a more accurate depiction of Stalingrad would be like the last battle in Saving Private Ryan; Soviets holding position in a congested urban environment with not just street to street fighting but room to room. General Chuikov who was in charge of Stalingrad's defense had his units fight close quarters combat with the Germans to make their air cover less effective. If they tried fighting in the open and at a distance they would just be pounded into the dirt by the Luftwaffe.

Small side note, the machine guns coming off of a Stuka were actually firing the same round as the German machine guns on the ground. Granted they did actually have more energy as they were firing from a moving target, but they were the same rounds.

Wow, never expected anyone but Russians themselves to clarify the rumors and propaganda regarding Soviets, NKVD and Battle of Stalingrad. Even explained the order 227 “Not a Single Step Back.” Spot on! It feels like I’m listening to English translation of Russian documentary and records. You did spectacular research! Respect.

I always recall a conversation that i have with a former soviet navy captain how's dad fought in stalingrad and his uncle saw some action in Leningrad, he told me that the only unarmed red soldiers there was either due to being trasnfered to a penal battalion, a practice that was abandoned really quickly and soldiers who lost they equipment while crossing the volga, to him Hollywood just took some stories told by german soldiers and some misconceptions of the soviet organization to make a film with no intention to ask te already available soviet veterans, which is a shame, cuz many of the histories from the Battle of Stalingrad are just amazing, the most amazing part was that both of our uncles fought in the battle of Krasny Bor, but in different sides of the battle, sometimes reality if far more incredible than fiction

This guy is a legend at analyzing millitary historical stuff

I have two Mosins myself. A Tula made in 1942, and a Izhevsk from 1943. Both are really rough compared to pre and post war Mosins, but that's extra history. There was a large stain along part of the Tula rifle from just in front of the magazine to about the sling eyelet. The stories i heard when I bought it claim it to be blood. I may have to see about testing it some day.

The Ju-87 Stuka was strafing with 7.92mm. rifle calibre bullets, so the movie is 100% accurate regarding effects here. The Soviet IL-2 Stormovik strafed with 12.7mm. & 14.5mm. AP bullets, which do a massive amount of injury to whatever they hit.

If the Red Army had fought like what is depicted in the 1st part of this movie, the Germans would have taken the city in like 2 days! Seriously? The Red Army is doing its best impression of George Pickett's charge, but up the streets of Stalingrad? Did the filmmakers not understand anything about how real war works? Thanks for the video. Your expressions made me grin, because I can see your utter lack of belief and/or disgust of how history is ruined by this movie. CORRECTION: I was wrong about COD WAW, it really was COD 1 I should have said. Other stupid choices. Krushchev was a party person in Stalingrad yet the movie makes him one of the commanders. He wasn't. I was surprised that Chuikov wasn't in the movie as commander of 62nd Army. We did see FM Paulus, but you would only know it from the credits, and his headquarters were not out in the open as shown. This was a fight to the death, and after Operation Uranus, the 6th army was doomed. Von Manstein's 11th Army could not break through...................so many inaccuracies in this movie and not a lot of the "real" history. If you took away the historical origins of this movie, it is kind of an interesting sniper movie, but that doesn't excuse the nonsense at the start of the movie. The Russians were getting Lend-Lease and they were starting to really crank out war goods, so there was not a shortage of guns like is shown. The Germans were on the Volga, but only in spots by the 20th of September 1942. So many inaccuracies here..............sigh. They also tried to cross the Volga at night, due to Luftwaffe attacks.........on and on. And, going by the date stated at the start, Zhukov and other Soviet commanders would start to form the plan for Operation Uranus at the end of September 1942. See TIK's latest episode on Stalingrad (26) for an in depth discussion on this. Even if the 6th army took Stalingrad, there is no way they would have turned back Uranus.

There was a Russian who's farther was a veteran on my street and before he died he gave me a medal that looked just like that medal you showed while talking of the 13th

The whole story of Gen Aleksandr Rodimtsev's 13th Guards at the railway station and Mamyan Kurgan is epic in itself.When he first reported to Chuikov in Stalingrad, his words were, "I am a Communist! The city will not fall."

5:40 My grandpa was hit (1940 Netherlands) by a stuka in a train in his lower and the wound was the size of its own hand

At 6:08 minor correction: the main machine gun in a Stuka dive bomber is actually an MG17 variant, so that is surprisingly accurate since they were chambered at 7.92

"When Germans shoot at Americans, storm trooper aiming..." In fairness though this was a battle in '42 when the German Heer was at its finest. That wasn't the case by '44 when the US and Nazi Germany really went at it. In fact, the US Army faced 2nd/3rd rate garrison forces that had been skimmed of their finest troops to feed the meat grinder in the east. These guys, except for maybe the 352nd and the usual paras and panzer truppen, spent way more time build fortifications than properly training, so oddly enough US troops in the west were somewhat superior to their German foes in basic troop quality. At least that was the case with the standard heer grenadier divisions in Normandy.

You should definetly review the Stalingrad movie german perspective from the 90s

I had no idea about the myth of order 227. So all these movies and video games never got it right ? I genuinely thought that order 227 was actually an order to shoot retreating soldiers from the battlefield I learnt something today

They act like in some films that the Germans had terrible aim, when in fact they were heavily trained for 5 years

I recommend to read 'Vassili Grossman - Stalingrad' to have a understanding of the period before and during the the war. You just can't understand history and current happening by watching some movies and Propaganda by media. I was myself in Bosnia in '97 and later at the University the professors teached untrue things based on journalists who went on patrol with us. The thing is.. it was always a just an organised tour from the Press officer and we were instructed before. It was theatre.

Nice to see some historical fact checking ;) I like this movie, but as brutal and bloody the eastern front was, especially for the Soviet side, realistic accounts of the battle do not depict chaos, terror or lack of resources in the Red Army like the movie does.. especially in 42, when they had stopped the invasion the year before at Moscow and Rzhev, and rebooted their war effort, helped by the landlease program, and had time to correctly train their massive reserves, plan their counter-offensives rationally, and under the command of talented generals such as Zhukov, Rokossovky or Koniev. A fearful, terrorized and under-supplied army just thrown into a meatgrinder would'nt have stopped then defeated the German army as they did!!

I found really funny how in the movie they were not willing to spend ammo by giving it to the soldiers, but they were more than ready to spend it in big amounts by shooting the soldiers.

Interesting fact, the whole mass rush tactic did exist for the Soviet Union, HOWEVER, It was only used for what were called Shrafbats or as you may famously know as Penal Battalions.

I just realized how heavily inspired this is by cod 1 stalingrad mission

There's a book by Ziatsev himself called "За Волгой для нас земли не было [There is no land across Volga for us]" about these events.

It would be cool if you reacted to war games and see if they are historical correct.

I think this myth of order 227 actually comes from the Korean war. In the Korean War U.S. soldiers witnessed retreating Chinese soldiers get gunned down by Chinese commissars with submachine guns and there would be times when waves of soldiers would attack where some men only had 5 rounds of ammunition in one hand and a knife in the other. The events depicted in Enemy at the Gates mirrors more of these Korean war stories than what the actual history of the battle of Stalingrad and order 227 tells us.

The 1 gun per 2 men concept only existed under WWI as Imperial Russia had a very little industrial capacity

Dude thanks for correcting those misconceptions

That mission is actually in THE FIRST CoD. But yeah, barrier squads barely ever killed their own troops. Most of them were from penal battalions.

"When the one with the rifle dies, the one with the bullets has to fumble around trying to pick up the gun off of his dead comrade's corpse, who might have landed on it or have a deathgrip on it, then loads the bullets into it while under fire, then he can shoot!"

6.27. That revolver tho....I want a 6 shot revolver that fires 14 shots

I've always thought this scene from Enemy at the Gates was intended to show the audience the kind of desperate situation that the Soviet Union faced in 1941. I've read descriptions of the battle of Vyazma that talked of Soviet soldiers attacking with only the front rank armed. By Stalingrad, the situation was much better, but the feeling of desperation, that the country was on the verge of defeat and collapse, was very much present. For the average American or Western audience, they may not know how desperate those 1941 battles were, so I feel like the intention of this scene (from the train onward) is to portray the urgency and desperation, by showing this Stalingrad attack as though it was part of one of the great encirclement battles of Barbarossa. That kind of attack DID happen in WW2, just not at Stalingrad.

The generalisation of "aircraft bullets" being bigger than rifle bullet is a bit of a broad, sweeping statement tho

Please rate the battle of Carentan of Band of Brothers. It was my favorite battle scene.

Thank you. I always suspected that the movie version is not quite accurate. Although I am not an investigative journalist, I base my opinion on human nature. So, it would not make sense for the NKVD to kill their own soldiers a-la banzai method, specially when their own soldiers can later kill them (they carry weapons, they'd have to be constantly taking weapons away from them, that would be nuts, specially during war). This kind of psychological thinking about movies of all types is recurrent in my thinking, such as, for example, why not carry two or more weapons that are fully loaded, so as to not have to reload so often.....or constantly be on the lookout for food and related other gear (cannibalizing stuff) etc... Thank you. This does not mean I believe all of your commentaries but at least its refreshing to see someone make some apparently normalizing psychological profile of what was occurring. I am not an expert.

It would be great to get a first hand account of a soviet veteran who made this Volga crossing and lived to tell the tale

I can't believe this movie is 20 years old now! I saw this in the theaters with my classmates.

The planes, Ju-87's, attacking the boats had 2 forward-firing 8mm (7.92mm to be exact) machine guns. This was the same cartridge used in the K98, the standard German rifle of WW2. Yes, there were Ju-87's with 37mm guns but they were not added until 1943, after this battle. Were Russian soldiers shot by their own officers & commissars? Yes, but not as depicted in the movie. Officers & commissars were often shot by their commanders for failing to meet their battle objectives. The USSR did not have a shortage of men. But they did have a shortage of train men in 1942.

When I was ten years old watched this movie well, I believed it... Now I see that this is just a rough propaganda...

'Stalingrad' from Antony Beevor is also a great book on this battle.

This movie single-handedly shaped how at least two generations are thinking about the Soviet army in WW2. I can hear this unarmed soldier concept from literally everywhere.

This is great. You should do part 2.

Great vid keep up the good work!

I love military history and watching your videos thank you

I really liked your take and the information you gave on what really happened in the battle. Tbh this movie pissed me off because of all the inaccuracies.

5:35 "Bullets from airplanes are way bigger than your typical bullet for you rifle". It is true, when you talk about american planes with .50 cal M2 Browning machine guns, but the Ju-87 that showed here had a 7,9 mm MG-17 7,9 mm machine gun. Exact the same caliber as a Mauser 98k rifle.

HistoryLegends: "what would empty handed soldiers do on the front line?" 1914-1917 Russia: good question, let's find out :D

Actually majority of Axis aircraft such as the Stuka used a General purpose machine gun shooting the 8mm rifle round. German planes typically didn’t have cannons or big caliber rounds like the American aircraft. Of course they’re exceptions.

When i was a kid i though that the soviets were just like barbarians... thanks god i read information about this except just playing CoD 1

Love your Content MY FRIEND

great work!

I think some parts of America was still feeling the after affect of the Red Scare. And that's why the Russians are being portrayed they way they are in this movie.

The funniest part was the beginning of the movie where it says "all that stood between Hitler's victory and defeat was the....6 million men of the red army, the Royal navy and the manufacturing power of the United States". Well, it didn't say that, but it should have.

18:00 Order 227 only sanctions unauthorized withdrawals, that is, it forbids a commander to issue a withdrawal order without first asking and gaining permission from higher echelons of command. It was enforced, and commanders who did order a withdrawal without permission were shot no questions asked. Even Chuikov was once suspected that he moved his headquarters across Volga without permission (which he did not, his headquarters were basically at the very frontline, many of his staff officers killed in artillery strikes, himself being at least once buried alive). NKVD blocking detachments did exist and they did have orders to shoot retreating units, but they were only deployed in the back of penal battalions, units made of "criminals" (understanding that this is quite a broad term in the USSR), people that would otherwise be shot so they were expendable, and the missions which these battalions were sent to could be considered pretty much suicidal (such as the charge from "Enemy at the Gates"). However, units that were deployed in Stalingrad were in a sense elite units, so although I don't know for sure, I consider very unlikely that there were any penal battalions in Stalingrad.

You made a fantastique work. Encore une fois, je suis impressionné par-là qualité de ta recherche. Merci 🙏

One more thing, I believe the crossing was undertaken in the 14th, not 20th, and it was in nighttime

Your so right bout the music in Enemy at the Gates being very epic. Actually one of my all time favorite movie soundtracks!! The "Tania Theme". I just love it!!

French director, Wester German production with a screenplay based on a book written by an American to make a "European version" of Saving Private Ryan. Fun fact; In Germany this movie is considered an "anti war movie" and was nominated as being a particularly "precious" example of film art, they gave the same award to Rambo III.

Good video. There is just a little editing mistake at 16:01, you left in the video a scene that you repeated

At 6:36 men... I didn't know the soviets had the technology of an auto regenerating ammo revolver that could shoot more than 6 bullets. Also the "No step backwards order" if i'm correct was not only ordered during the battle (post first attack) but also it was targeted to officers not NCOs or low ranking soldiers. A better depiction of this attack is portrayed in the game Call Of Duty Finest hour, where they attack more organized, at night and on boats

why am I only now finding your channel. Fantastic stuff.

Awesome! I remember a certain history teacher of mine saying how every troop was issued with 3 bullets, but had to share one rifle between multiple people…crazy! Also can you react to the movie defiance? I am really interested in your take on it!

NKVD, as the military police, in fact always fight in the front. When the frontline commander is lack of troops, they will push up the NKVD since they are at least equipped and soldiers. The NKVD shooting their own comrades part is so stupid, since the Red Army was lack of manpower in Stalingrad, especially as those who already crossed. Why do they shoot these retreating soldiers and help the Germans? Even the Red Square battle in the movie is true. The fleeing soldiers will only retreat as far as the river bank, since there is no way they can cross the river by their own. Then why do not let them retreat and regroup them? The previous crossing sense just showed the emergency to get as many soldiers as possible to cross the river, and the battle sense just destroyed all of it. It is pretty ironic and the movie has no logic at all.

This movie is what every single person refers to every single time when they talk about Russian army past or present. It’s crazy how many people just blindly believe it when there’s so much access to information right in the same device they’re looking at now. People still our stuff is always the best because it costs so much more than Russia’s stuff. Ours costs so much more because we the tax payer are being fleeced to line the pockets of the few. While citizen and soldier suffer alike.

I always loved the music in this film! Subscribed!

Great review!

We expect more from u. This is very good fury reviw was topnotch

Приветствую автора данного канала. К сожалению я не знаю английского языка. Так что пришлось воспользоваться переводчиком ютуба. Надеюсь он не слишком сильно исказил ваши слова. Было интересно услышать вас как иностранца и как историка. Фильм Враг у ворот. Это фильм с большими искажениями, и это не удивительно снимали то американцы которые явно далеки от истории советского союза. Что не говори но идеологический подтекст на мой взгляд никуда не денешь. И эти натяжки искажения возможно были допущены намеренно что бы показать советский союз не с хорошей стороны. Но к сожалению антисоветская риторика на событий того времени и того государство СССР, теперь не только веет с запада, но с конца 80-х теперь она укоренена и в России и в остальных постсоветских странах. Каждый раз у нас в стране снимают нелепые фильмы о войне которые якобы сделаны "по секретны документам" однако на проверку эти фильмы оказываются жуткой дрянью. Только из редко делают фильмы без антисоветского подтекста. СССР уже нет более 30 лет, но многим из власть имущих не даёт покоя успехи и достижения СССР. Что не говори а капитализм со страх смотрит на возможное возвращение Советского союза. И потому и льются на историю СССР тонны недосказанности , преувеличении и откровенной лжи.

7:20 Not to forget, the Red Army also used Flotilla's to deny the enemy a clear view and range to attack their positions, with the firing guns and being able to sail away quickly. And the Red Army had many of such flotilla's.

How young you look in this video man! You are my favorite youtuber... always hoping that u came up with a biger amount of content. !Abrazo de trinchera!

As an American, I must say I really don't understand how so many can seem to hate Russia for no reason, but not seek to understand them even a little. I love Russia, your culture, your fascinating history and have so much respect for the bravery of your troops, both modern and historic. I believe many Russians understand Americans even though Americans can't the other way.

I really liked this film, but it has done so much damage to perceptions in the West of what happened In Stalingrad, and in the Soviet Army in general. On a side note, I would have bought your book if there was a ebook, I just don't have the space for physical books anymore. Perhaps you would consider an ebook version?

2:34 soviets wouldn’t really wear helmets, they would more often wear ushankas or pilotkas, my great grandfather who fought on the soviet army said the same thing, it was seen as cowardly to wear it

Many compliments for your historical description of the events of the Stalingrad 's battle, correpting the sensationalism of the film At the end of your video you show a book on that event: I couldn't read the title, because you held it away from the camera, for a few seconds Could you please mention the title, because I m interested on it Best regards from Italy

Very nice to see how some people from west broke this stupid legends which I see in movies like that one, or games like CoH2.

This movie absolutely enraged me when it came out. I basically see it as thinly veiled Nazi propaganda. But over the last twenty years Russian filmmakers have repeated all of its disgusting tropes, and even worse. From Mikhalkov's Burnt by the Sun 2 to Bondarchuk's Stalingrad to whatever ****head made 'Onward to Paris'.

you are an amazing young man! honored to watch your work!

Perfect job, my friend,very knowledgeable.

Can you please review film 9th company its about soviet-afghan war quite interesting .

Hollywood movie about Russians... what could go wrong?

During the large battles of the American Revolution groups similar to NKVD were stationed behind the Continental Army front lines to stop retreats. And yes, they would shoot retreating soldiers if necessary to stop them. I don't know if the British did the same thing, but it seems likely.

My grandmother told me that the shopping was not very good during the battle, and that you couldn't wear nice shoes because no one was sweeping the sidewalks, and the price of cucumbers was very unreasonable, but at least the lines were shorter. Oh, and I guess it was noisey too, but otherwise not as bad as people make it out to be.

this movie is pretty much cold war propaganda and Macartism, nothing close to historic recreation

Fine analyses. All this film is depicted is anti-communism propaganda. The "no one step back" order for exemple is misinterpreted by the Western side after the war probably for propaganda reasons. They also alleged soviet POWs were imprisoned to goulag after their liberation, which is a total fake. An other fake is the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-agression pact depicted as a alliance which was not the case.

spot on i like how your one of the only people not bias towards anyone