..My grandfather was a Red Army officer. Regiment commander at the age of 30, lieutenant-colonel. Second Ukrainian Front. ..He had survived Battle of Moscow, Stalingrad and died with his regiment in 1944 storming the city of Sebastopol...
What I admire about Kotkin is his rigorously empirical approach to history. And his looking at evidence, and drawing conclusions, in a very logical fashion. At the end, he talks about not having sufficient evidence to draw conclusions on certain issues. But also having ample evidence on certain issues. This makes his lectures and writing so interesting.
@@1940limited Trump this Biden that. Take your nonsense somewhere else, this is not Fox News's comment section. The world is a more complicated place. If you read Stephen Kotkin's book about Stalin and if you weren't such an illiterate you wouldn't be making this type of low IQ trolling comments.
@@bayron45 Another hate-filled, ignorant comment from a Biden lover! You guys are all alike. If you weren't such an ignorant fool you'd keep your insults and stupid replies to yourself. BTW, I'm familiar with Kotkins, have read his works and seen some of his lectures. Nor do I watch Fox News! So go to hell. You're the ignorant one.
@@Sean-xy4hk you are a communist? If admitting to absolute foolishness and ignorance on a public forum is your thing, go ahead and spread the word, otherwise go take a few economic classes and books (preferably of the Austrian school). I bet that you have no idea what you are supporting (and what you are opposing too)!
What was not mentioned about the Soviet tanks is that the war planners studied the limited life expectancy of a Soviet tank and concluded that it would have been a waste of good materials to put quality parts made of quality materials into a tank that was going to have a severely limited life span so they used crappy parts made out of crappy materials on purpose. Not all T-34s were made alike.
I've done some study of tanks since tanks take territory. One of the stories about the T34 is that their crews, the driver, the commander had to look out of the tank with inferior optics. It is a big deal to not be able to sight your gun or drive with situational awareness when you can't see. The Germans had also put radios in their tanks whereas the Russians had few. So often Russian tanks were half blind and were not coordinated with their infantry or other tanks. Russians did have very good and numerous artillery pieces. Earlier today I watched the CATO lecture. It is more timely & useful far as balance of power questions & Russian Policy imperatives. I want to thank Stephen Kotkin for his work & those who work to present him in these youtube lectures.
the thing that the USSR had plenty of was man [& woman] power and it was their extravigant expenditure of this 'resource'which eventually helped them to their victories.
@@dickyt1318 This was good propaganda. As the war progressed the Soviets became much more conservative of their manpower. Note that their ground attack aircraft were very well armored. They did not take the same tact at all as the Japanese. The Caldron tactics of the Germans that worked so well for them, was imitated by the Soviets. Those tactics worked well for the Soviets.
Steven Kotkin's Stalin's trilogy Part I & II are on audiobook now and it's amazing how detailed the books are. He is a brilliant historian. Can't wait for the next book of the trilogy!
Magnetic Mountain is book authored by Stephen Kotkin. It's about everyday life of citizens living in Magnitogorsk Russia during the 1930s. It is the best book I have read about what life was like under stalinism before The Great Patriotic War.
@@Sputnikoff Well, I mean, how do all the writers who deal with Hitler and Stalin and what happens to everyone else when two disgusting people butt heads using human lives as their weapons. I can only take so much of this stuff before it starts screwing with my head so I don't know how they have the stomach to go back to the well repeatedly. E.g. Simon Sebag-Montefiore said that while he was writing 'The Court of the Red Tsar' he had horrible nightmares about people being tortured and beaten.
@@squamish4244 I suppose that it depends on the individual. Some people are capable of experiencing hell and returning to some semblance of normalcy. It’s definitely not the norm though.
The idea of Stalin having a nervous breakdown and blowing the joint for his cabin in the woods is just too amusing to me. If even he can snap, then maybe I'm okay.
@@gg2fan I don't think Stalin gave a shit about anybody unless it involved his own career and in the system he had created, his life as well. So by default he carried the fate of the Slavs on his shoulders because if too many of them died he would lose the war and probably end up murdered or executed.
Everyone faces challenges and everyone falters at least once in their life. So it's not a question of maybe, it's an assurance that you are human and most definitely okay even when you encounter setbacks. That being said, Stalin didn't breakdown upon Nazi invasion. Whatever your opinion of Stalin, and he was no Saint, to suggest that he wasn't a brilliant military leader is just false. Especially if you compare him to Churchill and Roosevelt. During the Civil War, when Russia was invaded by foreign advisories, Lenin always dispatched Stalin to take control of the battlefield when they faced impossible odds or when they were losing ground. It was Stalin's experience during the Civil War that made him the tactician he was during WW2. Russia and it's people, led by Stalin, were the reason the Nazis were defeated. All the Allies played a role in their defeat, but it was Russia that tipped the scales. The world owes Russia and it's people a great debt. Without their bravery and sacrifice, I don't even want to imagine the world we would be facing now.
Triumph of the Will... It was Stalin who held the USSR together, when the whole German plan depended on "the whole rotten edifice" crumbling down swiftly. Who could have replaced him? So imho Stalin was the central, indispensable figure in the Soviet victory. Churchill's personal refusal to negotiate with Natzis and his personal ability to draw the USA into the war made him perhaps similarly indispensible. The USSR did fall in the 90's... But that wasn't the threat that Russia faced in 1941. Stalin avoided annihilation and extermination. Russia and most of the other former republics are better off today than they were in 1941. They would have been lebensraum without old Joe.
Very well said. Stalin is the greatest leader in history. The odd thing is he was a hero and “Uncle Joe” for the US and two times man of the year in Times magazine before 1945 and then suddenly the US realized he was in fact a bloody dictator. Quite schizophrenic, don’t you agree?
@@bozo5632 Well, America’s beliefs/ concerns/ demands are less and less relevant. And the truth is out there for anyone with more than 2 brain cells to see.
@@borbo23 It depends how you define 'dictator,' but if Stalin wasn't a dictator then who was? Stalin aside, the USSR was dictatorial. It was also bloody, and not only during the revolution. I would describe the uncontested (and uncontestable) ruler of a bloody dictatorship as a bloody dictator. Hitler was also popular, and chosen through some process, and also a bloody dictator. If Stalin wasn't one, then neither was Hitler. If they don't count, then has there ever been a dictator? The czars and feudal barons before Stalin were bloody dictators too. So the revolution can be justified, and thus the (sometimes bloody) results of the revolution can perhaps be justified, or at least (perhaps) excused. And it's much better now as a result, so maybe you can justify all of it that way. So maybe you can justify Stalin's bloody dictation (joke), but it is what it is. You can argue that it's a damned good thing that Stalin was Stalin. The results of the revolution might have been worse without him. Certainly ww2 might have been worse without him, especially for the Soviets. (Not to mention millions of Soviet Jews.) How Stalin is remembered will be an accident of history, and forever in flux. It will not be an objective, impartial final judgment. Depends on who's writing the history and how they want it to look.
Fantastic lecture. Having read so many of the authors mentioned by Kotkin, I think I learned more in this 54 minute lecture than in years of reading the top works on the Great Patriotic War.
Read Viktor Suvorov, ex-GRU intelligence officer, for a true history of WW2. He has been sentenced to death in absentia. His most comprehensive work is " The Chief Culprit".
I haven't ever heard this take on Stalin and the Soviet Union during war time before and I have to admit, this makes more sense than the conventional narrative I usually get from documentaries and lectures
Its because theres a heavy cold-war anti-soviet bias that has been heavily integrated into the study of the subject, oftentimes leaving out much of the nuance and objectivity because it doesn't serve to demonize the USSR.
@@fellowtraveler2251 Communist ideology, and USSR as an embodiment thereof, was widely regarded as an existential threat well before the cold war. Imagine how the only "great power" that didn't suffer at all from the Great Depression looked like to the powers that be (or the masses) in 1930s.
When referring to Stalin and WWII, Prof. Kotkin is truly one of a kind. Next to him is Prof. David Gantz. However, most will agree that Gantz is a terrible author. He just doesn't have it. If brief, DG's work is dry. Reading the labour of Kotkin is a pleasure and it's easy to ride to the end, with pure enjoyment. Kotkin is a skilled author, able to hold interests. I would suggest that most history buffs purchase all of his writings. His thick books on Stalin should have been broken up becuz of the difficulty in carrying and other reasons. Sto Lat do Kotkina (May Kotkin live a 100 yrs.).
Thats an obvious bullshit. Crack for western hearer that anticipate something stuff to hear. I'm not a Stalin fan boy totally but I never heard about such stupid 'humor' from any real historians. It must be taken from some fictional novell
3:04 As a cameraman, I felt that... "so folks are gonna stay in place?" "yeah, sit behind the cam and relax, just make sure the speaker is in focus and press record." "okiedokes..."
What a teacher! Near the end of his talk, after enumerating numerous facts about Stalin and his massive roles, Professor Kotkin cups his hand over his mouth and tells us: “He was Stalin!”
Stephen is a brilliant historian. His two volumes (so far) on Stalin are immense. They reward close reading. So much writing on the Soviet Union is infected with propaganda and bias, but you truly feel Stephen's implacable search for the truth.
Yeah. It's too bad that when you check his sources, the entire second book seems to be dishonest. Which is a bummer, because the first one was pretty good.
I really loved how he pointed out the skewed misconceptions of the war in favour of *both* Nazi Germany and the Soviets. So often you here either the one narrative or the other. Truly a breeze of fresh air.
@The RightStuff sorry! You're absolutely right. what I mean is that kotkin, even as ideologically motivated as he is, and even as much misleading language as he uses, was over all correct on facts throughout the first book, and if you check his sources against what he says, they generally check out (going back to primary sources). The second book, forever, feels like he lets his research assistants run wild or something. I personally checked 8 claims and by the secondary source, all 8 did not match up to what kotkin claims they do in the book. 3 of those led directly to hearsay that was debunked (one iif which was debunked over a decade before he wrote it), impossible to verify stories that are written as if they are facts. For all of the historical integrity of the first book, it seems to be missing completely in the second. Another historian in this field wrote an entire book debunking kotkin here. Grover furr. The book is called "blood lies"
@The RightStuff No problem! It's just really a shame that this stuff doesn't get more widely circulated. Kotkin's popular, but the debunking of the second book? It's been pushed down and down and down. As for bias... Kotkin? He's a conservative. Ideological bias isn't really a deal-breaker, though. As we saw with his first book. It dispelled many misconceptions and myths about the Soviet Union and Stalin and focused on history for the most part. Knowing a bias is a good thing for understanding language use, but we should never use it the way people in media teach us to use it, to dismiss something that might challenge our preconceptions. We have an entire field (historiography) that wouldn't exist if we did that, you know?
@Kit yeah. So... for source discrepancies, it's a far far far more labor intensive way of getting at the deception. If you check any random grouping of, let's say a dozen of three footnotes against the sources they cite, then check that source against what it cites, etc, down to the "primary source" (and this is something even first year college students are taught to use, primary sources), you will find at least 10, if not 11 or 12 of them have misrepresented something somewhere, sometimes going so far as to outright make things up (the story about the ukrainian/ grave, for example - made up). The misleading language example: use of the word "dictator" to describe Stalin. Just one off the top of my head. It's been a while since I watched this. If you'd like, I'll give it another watch and give a bigger list, but I hope this is good to get you started. There is a good book called "stalin: waiting for the truth" that exposes a LOT LOT LOT more. (There are free pdf versions online and the author has put most primary source evidence on his website for people to verify)
So, what you're telling me is that the eastern front is the greatest HBO series never made and that we only have the Soviet film 'Come and See' to view that gives us a glimpse of the madness of that period?
I love Joe Pessie....Didn't know he had a doctorate in history, best selling author.....It might be the Keystones Talk'n but I learned something today.
@@TheWersum idiot, yes, you!!!! Germans were winning at first. Then the idiots thought that they already won the war & started to enslave & kill civilians. So, the people got pissed & kicked zee German arse. First two years of the war, more than 50% of the local population was pro Hitler. Than everyone learned the truth about zee German superiority. . ......
@@TheWersum ????? Kotkin didn't mention Dunkirk, logical and smart or non of the crap you talked about. Nobody mentioned a piece of nazi propaganda here. What are you even talking about? How does that relate to anything in the comment? Fucking lunatic
Glantz fully acknowledges Stalin's personal nerve, power, brutality, ruthlessness was a major reason for Soviet victory.....why he thinks he's negating Glantz points I dont know. He realizes Stalin's decision prior to Moscow and the stopping of the Germans there was one of the main turning points. It was basically Stalins ability not to give a shit about human life that allowed them to win.
What historians fail to see - it was not just Stalin. Stalin just took the attitude of Russian people of those times. Emperors of Russia failed to see it cause they lived in their aristocratic bubbles. Open a video called "The Romanovs. The History of the Russian Dynasty - Episode 6" and just listen from 35:00 to 35:20. Modern Russian and world mindset is different. Thats why researchers point at Stalin as an explanation.
Did the founding fathers give a shit about the Indians. Did the plantation owners give a shit about the slaves that made them profit. Did the French give a shit about their colonies in Africa and Indochina. Did Churchill give a shit about Chinese, Arab and Indian life.
I gotta say this is one of the most objective and well balanced reports I've ever heard on ww2 eastern front and coming from former Soviet Union country I've heard so many of them starting from my school years.
Nikola Avramov literally? I’m genuinely curious, do you have the source to back up this claim? I’d like to hear his arguments for advocating nuclear war.
@@newmillennial4248 50:00 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dqiqUtdFi2I.html He's literally advocating for starting of World War 3 'cause "that'll show 'em". The man's insane and should be banned from public platforms because he's literally lobbying for the planet's surface to be scorched in a nuclear exchange. 'cause that would happen if his wish would come true.
McCarthyite lunatic, for one talking about the Soviets the way he is I do not think I would be referring to him that way. McCarthyite would be doing the opposite, and would not be speaking highly of the Soviets.
Kotkin's biographies on Stalin are great but the third volume is going to suffer if he makes the same oversimplifications of military history that he does in this video. For one, David Glantz does not overly extol the Red Army. Much of his work is dedicated to exposing "lost operations:" failed Soviet military operations that were forgotten after the war. Equally does his work cover much of the Red Army's shortcomings. Two, Zhukov and Timoshenko were not "idiots who misunderstood 'Blitzkrieg'(not the actual name the German doctrine.)" They wanted to bring more troops to the borders to absorb the initial German blow and then counter-attack with their own mechanized units. Granted, this was beyond the Red Army's capabilities in 1941, but to say two of the Red Army's top senior officers did not understand modern warfare is a gross oversimplification.
They were not idiots but they were still suffering from their ego's. Both Zhukov and Timoshenko were actually mildly incompetent, which led to big losses on the front. The Soviet system though did have one thing right, even the officers who replaced the purged were strategically competent, so while they took big losses it did not cost them the whole thing. If the Soviet military had been overall strategically incompetent they would have lost the war, given the losses they took.
Stephen has an amazing depth of knowledge when it comes to the Soviet Union and Stalin. Stephen falls short when that knowledge is imposed on culture or future events. A leader's behavior and actions reflect the political culture but do not directly translate to national cultures. The Soviet Union at the time had a communist political culture but was multinational, ruling over multiple ethnicities. Stalin was a Georgian ruling over many peoples, Russians, Azeris, Balts, Turkmen, and more. To say Stalin was representative of Russian culture is misleading, rather a product of early communist and Georgian culture. If giving your successors an international alliance (the Warsaw Pact) that lasts over 40 years is losing the peace of WWII then what qualifies as victory is unclear. Attributing the Warsaw Pact dissolution to Stalin, even though that occurred decades after his death is absurd. It was up to the rulers after Stalin to maintain and expand the international agreements and frameworks that were created in the aftermath of WWII. It was ultimately dismantled by Gorbachev's reforms, past Soviet errors, and the pressures placed on it by the US & NATO.
Agreed. I believe that is where his liberal ideology impedes on his job as a historian - which is to not offer half-baked one dimensional answers to complex issues.
@@crniskadu9881 just what I thought. The deep rooted culture in Russia inhabitants , almost an ideology in itself, of defending Rusija matuška at all costs, is the main reason why SSSR won the WWII, despite the odds, and despite Stalin. Without that ideology there would be no victory, and no Stalin, for that matter.
"You are not going to hear about".... then continues to tell you about what you are not going to hear; over and over and over. With only the things you are not going to hear (but end up hearing about anyways) made for a good mini-lecture anyways. ;) Good lecture... information that more need to know and understand. On another note.... I always wait for him to work in something about "the two youts". ;)
This seemingly unlikely historian is absolutely mesmerising! He INHABITS his subject totally, and delivers both the tiniest details and the widest possible overview, without even a moment’s confusion or loss of focus. What is more, he brings his subject completely to life; we are all there with him in the thick of some of the most significant - but often misunderstood - events of a monumentally complicated century. I admire hugely such historians as Niall Ferguson and Victor Davis Hanson, but on C20 Russia and Stalin, this man with a Russian name and a New York accent is peerless - and his powers of narrative are totally unmatched. Thank you Stephen Kotkin, for many, many hours of enlightenment and entertainment.
Such an excellent lecture. In short: The Eastern Front was a war of attrition, during which the best trained nazi soldiers were lost early thus their performance trailed off, and the soviet army gradually improved (especially with less intervention from Stalin.) Meanwhile Stalin's regime paradoxically did not fall during the chaos, because apparently his reign of fear and murders of his rivals apparently worked.
Hint. If you see a paradox, just check you assumptions. They can be not true. Maybe there were neither chaos nor fear. People could simply like their new Soviet country and their communist government.
This is not a paradox. People commonly overlook the shortcomings of their own government to fight an external enemy, especially when those enemies are Nazis who see them as inherently subhuman.
the problem of a super centralized war economy versus an improvisation on an epic scale is somewhat simple to solve the party boss were rigidly obeying the instructions handled down to them the local factories managers were practicing flying trapeze of improvisation the reconciliation of both systems was due to basic survival instinct and true dedication
I'm half-way through his second brick of a book;) on this most appalling dictator. But I must confess that I'm eagerly awaiting the third and final masterpiece!
Not only Germany(including Austria, Suddetenland, Memel region, most of contemporary Western Poland) attacked Soviet Russia in 1941, but also Romania, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Italy, and also puppet governments of occupied Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, (Vishy)France, Spain, the Baltics, all sent volunteers and SS divisions to aid the Axis offensive. 5 million soldiers initially took part in only the first stage of Barbarossa. So the Russians didn't even have overwhelming numbers on their side.
@@thierryf2789 Check this out: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics = all the Soviet Republics Germany + Italy + Romania + Hungary + Finland + Croatia + Slovakia + volunteers from the other countries he listed =/= Germany taken alone
This is good lecture. Thank you for introducing "factories and evacuation" point, usually it is missed. I found only one questionable statement. Stalin did not sign all documents himself, all members of State Defense Committee (5-7 people) had facsimile of his signature and could sign and sign the documents with Stalin signature. It creates more healthy and robust management system, than f.e. German's
This is the first time that I have heard a scholar address the first six months and why the Victorious Wehrmacht won its way to defeat. I don't believe for a minute that Stalin, or anybody else in command had a plan or strategy that would result in German defeat before Moscow. I think that Stalin demanded resistance to the Germans, which, as mr. Kotkin points out, exhausted the German army by sacrifice of millions of Russians. Personally, I think that some form of patriotism was part of the Soviet survival. However, the soviets survived because the Germans violated a basic strategic rule of war: Don't attack an enemy who possesses a huge population, industry and millions of military age men (and women) The Germans were ignorant of their enemy, and they paid a huge price.
Oh Stalin had a plan, his own vision on what to do in order to win. Another question is - how correct his plan and methods were and what was the real impact of his vision. And what could be more correct plan and methods to wage this war. And what were other factors that impact German war machine that were not connected with Stalin's orders - like weather, vast territories of Russia, Russian cultural mindset, allies and other international forces, resources and others. Stalin was more Hitler in waging war than Hitler himself declared he is. Will power. Meaning your willpower to do whatever needs to be done in order to be victorious even if you lost first battles, even if your military command structure is no match to your enemy, even if the enemy is only 100 miles from your capital and all previous battles were lost, even if half of your industrial base with its huge population is captured, even if your Army you built for years is destroyed with all its war machinery and equipment so u have to create a new and better one asap. Willpower to mobilize everyone in the country for the war effort. Anyway a topic needs a huge and impartial research and here I dont see Kotkin or anybody as a person without some ideological agenda to do a decent job.
They didn't have a plan? That evacuation of industry that this clown ( sorry but even this word to easy on him) is caricaturing around 00:31, was an unimaginable enterprise. And he is faking his numbers, more than 2500 big enterprises only, were transferred and started working in a few months. Yes, some even started working without a roof but all of them had infrastructure ( electricity, water, foundations...) ready waiting there. And just to add about that 'numbers' myth, the Reich had 90 million ( with Volksdeutsche) , the Soviet Union had 196 million but they very quickly lost control over the territories populated by 70 million people and these had to work for Germany, willingly or not if they wanted to survive. And you're correct, Hitler and the Nazis didn't have an idea what they were fighting with and that was their first and biggest mistake. They were thinking that the SU would collapse after the first blow, then the second, third... and that was it, it was already over.
@@simplicius11 Amazing you call Kotkin a clown when he knows more on the subject than you ever will. Unlike many others he doesn't write it if documents are not there to prove it.
@@westnash Oh, I really enjoy when a dumb uneducated American is trying to teach me some history. I'll show you the clown when he meets a real historian and trying to start his stand up show with him. You don't have historians dear, you have a stand up comedians as a substitute. I'd suggest you, watch the whole lesson if you want to understand and learn something. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qcllXFYYjak.html
Victor Suvorov, former GRU officer, ( and others including R.C Raack, PhD, Albert Weeks, Phd, Mark Solonin, Phd - a Russian historian-, Joachim Hoffman, PhD, and many others) point out the obvious fact that Hitler's attack was pre-emptive and that Stalin was planning a conquest of Europe to the Atlantic coast of France. Stalin's spies and agitation agents were legion in France, and the strength of the Comintern was legendary. Stalin was relying on popular hatred of Germany to clear the way for a Communist victory in France. Stalin had dismantled the Stalin Line, and had fashioned an attack army, and an attack air force with the intention of destroying the Luftwaffe on the ground. Hundreds of thousands of paratroopers were ready to go. He had no interest in defensive war- actually despised it as non-revolutionary- and that is the reason he placed his troops and armor as close to the border as he did. After the treaty with Germany the Stalinist plans were to wait until it was a single front war, which it became when Soviet spies ( such as Harry Dexter White ) in FDR's cabinet manipulated the American leaders into keeping the Navy in the baited trap known as Pearl Harbor. Once it was clear America was committed to Pacific war the offensive Soviet campaign was cleared to go.
And here is an apocryphal story about the Soviet years. As N S Khrushchev waxed eloquent at the 20th Party Congress, a senior CPSU functionary shouted out from the auditorium: "What, comrade, were you doing to stop what you now lambaste as 'Stalin's excesses?' " Khrushchev paused in his stride, looked around, and said, 'Will the comrade who has just passed this comment please stand up and identify himself?' A pin drop silence followed: no one stood up. Mused Khrushchev :"You would have by now realized what I was doing or rather not doing during the Stalin years."
Khrushchev was responsible for the murder through starvation of 6 million Ukrainians, who descended into cannibalism to survive. He "waxed eloquent" did he?
If the origination of industry was so bad , then how the hell did they produce tanks and aircraft in such numbers, It was the over engineered German weapons and not the Russian simple way of doing things that worked .
This book looks really interesting to understand Stalin's Purge In Stalin's Shadow: Career of Sergo Ordzhonikidze (New Russian History) (The New Russian History)
Sergo would meddle in everything in every policy. Sergo was elevated to the position of People Commissar for Industry. But he did not left his pre revolutionary nature. He meddled in everything and lacks discipline things were changed the friendships did not mattered rapid industrialization was needed He would save his corrupt proteges and acted like youthful revolutionary. Finally he supported Bukharin. He committed suicide when NKVD search his home. In short Stalin wanted skilled people bcoz he was paranoid about western superiority. And he was right Germany invaded and Red Army collapsed. He dissappeared from mental pressure and would murmour that i lost what Lenin provided, Lenin provided us huge country i lost it.
Also, I understand that Stalin didn't ascend to absolute power until about 28....it took about 7 years of outmaneuvering Zinoviev, Trotsky Bukharin etc until he had true absolute power, where as Hitler's rise took a year, the 33 election then the 1934 purge of the SA basically cemented him...
The Whaley book about the intelligience before barbarossa Stephen Kotkin is referring to at 10:51 of the lecture is "Codeword Barbarossa" by Barton Whaley.
@@TheWersum I watched the entire video, but I didn't hear him say the French and Brits did everything right. In fact, he didn't even refer to Western strategy at all. I really don't get what you're trying to say. Is the question of whether the Soviets committed stupid blunders contingent on whether the Western Allies did likewise?
@Larson Oppenheimer 48:58 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dqiqUtdFi2I.html Right here he makes that case. Even though it would literally instantly lead to a nuclear war - he doesn't care, 'cause he's insane. Study or observe McCarthyism and you will notice a particular brand of bloodlust that he is drawing inspiration from and practicing himself.
It was mentioned in the beginning of the interview that Soviet Union's population was more the 200 m when Germany, Austria was 90m. But in fact, against Soviet Union fought Italians, Romanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians and many other fascist nations at the time. In addition there thousands of Vermacht and SS volunteers or not from occupied countries. In addition,Soviet Union had substantial reserves kept to fight a possible war against Japan (axis member). Regarding Stalin's integrity at war he send his son to fight and he was caught prisoner. Nazis offered an exchange to Stalin (to exchange his son with a high German officer, can't remember whether was general, I think yes) and he replied - I can't exchange a soldier with a general. His son died few weeks later.
Τι τρομερός ηγέτης αυτός ο Στάλιν έτσι; Θυσίασε μέχρι και τον γιο του για την καρέκλα! Διακρίνω μια «μικρή» τάση εκθείασης του Σοβιετικού εκτρώματος στο σχόλιό σου! Μάλλον σου διέφυγε το γεγονός ότι οι Εθνικοσοσιαλιστές και οι Σοβιετικοί ήταν σύμμαχοι μέχρι την επιχείρηση Μπαρμπαρόσα και την επίθεση του Χίτλερ. Επίσης μάλλον σου διαφεύγει το γεγονός ότι ο Στάλιν είχε τοποθετήσει μέχρι και οπλοπολυβόλα στα μετωπισθεν για να καθαρίσει όλους τους συμπατριώτες του που θα οπισθοχωρούσαν! ΤΙ ΗΓΕΤΗΣ! Τυφλά να’χουν οι εχθροί σου!
Also the German army during Barbarossa actually outnumbered the Russian army at the front and both armies were more or less evenly sized during the first 3 years of the war, which is something few people know
