The Fallen of World War II Reaction 

My grandmother's father was a new communist from Latvia, and he sadly died in the siege.

@@HelmutLangg Very sorry to hear that

wow, impressive

Wars are terrible and are just started by some few insane "persons", due to ideology or wants for profit. No young man should be drafted by force and manipulated into doing horrible things. People just want to live in peace and care for their families. Props from Berlin, Germany.

My great-grandfather fought at the Don River in Russia just before the Battle of Stalingrad. It's a miracle he made it out alive after being sorrounded by the Red Army. He came home to Hungary on foot, and died in 2013 at the age of 99.

Думаете, такая перспектива остановит тех, кто в очередной раз решит, что Россия это колосс на глиняных ногах и страна бензоколонка? Каждые сто лет, Запад бодро идёт завоёвывать Россию, а получив по башке, обижается и начинает рассказывать, что мол русские варвары победили нечестно". (с)

@Richard Myers Alas, yes!

[Cringe factor 1000]

That is a possibility. When the great powers annihilate each other using nukes, then only a tiny amount of humanity survives, and humanity has to restart from sticks and stones.

@@charles5895 Totally agree with you! It's is like Enrico Fermi's own answers to his own famous paradox(the Fermi paradox: If the universe is so big why do we not have any signs of other advanced civilizations?) Fermi was a leading scientist in the Manhattan project. And team leader over the project who made the first nuclear reactor. He asked himself and a few other people in a skyscraper in New York "If the universe is so big why are we alone? We can't be the first intelligent civilization in 13 bilion years. Staticly it is so absolut extremely unlikely, but we see absolutely nothing" His answer was: "Every civilization doesn't survive long enough to leave a mark, because they all eliminates them self shortly after discovering the nuclear bomb"

@UCrvAsKD-IHVYA0eJAPXkFgg Actually, no. We are taught that World War II began in 1939, while our invasion took place in 1941. It's just that for our history, the period of World War II from 1941 to 1945 is called the Great Patriotic War.

@@hubertkostkowski6903 The emphasis in this pact was on non-aggression, and then in the distribution of interests in Eastern Europe. This pact does not say anything directly about the attack. In any case, both in the English-language and in the Russian-language Wikipedia, pictures of this pact are presented in two languages ​​and you can independently translate and find out what exactly is said there. Our education does not hide the fact of this pact. As well as the fact that during the war, the Soviet government often exiled its own liberated prisoners of war to camps on suspicion of espionage. All this does not detract from how many lives were given for the world.

@@hubertkostkowski6903 I'm not talking about Wikipedia, but about the text of the pact itself. If you go to any Wikipedia, you will see scans of documents signed by the leaders of the countries. It is unlikely that you will find there in German a phrase about the invasion I do not deny at all that Stalin played his undercover games and that what is veiled in the pact itself is indicated as "distribution of interests" in fact means an invasion. In our country, a lot of things are being promoted. The fact of the existence of the pact is not concealed, but the attention is not focused on it either. I just hope people will remember what mistakes were made in the past and what price everyone paid for it.

@@hubertkostkowski6903 I actually said that World War II started in 1939. It's okay for people to divide into stages to make it easier to learn something. Each country in this war has its own starting point and often this starting point is the intervention.

​@@Great-Documentaries It seems like you envy Russians the number of their dead. Let´s say Russia would stay out or war (I don´t know how though, Nazi Germans felt as much racial hatred to Slavic people as they felt to Jews), would you be prepared to bear the amount of causalities it took to stop Nazi Germany. Let´s say you would only lose one Allied soldier to one German. It is still almost 3 million dead soldiers. Would you resist it? I remind you it took almost two years for Western Aliies to feel prepared to open other front in Italy and 3 years to start land operation in Normandy

thats not only russians... it's very sad to hear when they only talk about Russians. All countries in the union suffered losses. For example, at the beginning of the war, the population of my country was 1 million 400 thousand people. Of these, 365 thousand soldiers were sent to the front, 115 thousand were killed. And other countries also suffered heavy losses. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and many other countries. Of course, the Russians suffered heavy losses, but the price for the victory was great for everyone ...

@@АйдарРыскулов-ъ9у That's true. I hadn't considered that the Soviets were more than just Russians. Either way, it's extremely sad that most of the loss of life was on the Eastern Front, and Western education fails to cover that part but focuses primarily on the Western Allies' contribution to the War (which was meaningless compared to the Soviet contribution).

​@@derrickowen8162 Everything is fine, I believe that everything is done correctly in your education. After all, each country has its own history. You have made your sacrifices, you have your own story, you will talk about it. There is nothing wrong with that, my father told me that there was no mention of the United States in Soviet education either. Only about the fact that the United States was at war with Japan and was allies with Soviet Union. They didn't even know anything about Lend-Lease.

@@АйдарРыскулов-ъ9у Great points. Probably best for countries to focus on themselves as a basic history education. People can expand their own knowledge with higher education and personal studies anyway. Yeah, I didn't know about Lend-Lease until recently myself.

@@АйдарРыскулов-ъ9у Это не так. И в "советском образовании" и в литературе и особенно в документальных фильмах, о союзниках говорилось много. И Советский Союз воевал не только за свою страну, и не только с фашисткой Германией. Очень жаль, что вы этого не понимаете

I really don't like how he refers to German soldier as "Nazis" all German soldier wasn't for the Nazis most of them just goes to war because they need to protect their home and family they didnt had any choice. Love Germany from Russia 🇩🇪❤🇷🇺

@@aksin2253 I agree with you on that, but i think he meant it more in a way like "Soldiers of the Nazis or of the Naziregime" and that is sad but true. i think its similar to people saying "Russians" for Sovjet forces, allthough not all Sovjet troops were Russian Origin. But thank u for reminding me on this detail!

@@aksin2253 you can disagree with being lumped in with the Nazis but Germany did nothing to stop the nazis. The southern states get a similar treatment with slavery in the US. The majority of the south didn’t own slaves but they did nothing to stop slavery and so are called complicit with slavery even if they were opposed individually. Likewise Germans of WW2 era are lumped into Nazi because they are called complicit. I don’t believe all Germans were Nazi anymore than I believe all southerners owned slaves. But history is written by the victor and the victor has to hav3 a defeated enemy...

@@emanymton713 how ignorant. Read some history. Do you also blame the north Koreans for their oppressive regime?

@@olehaugan9555 not the people as a whole,of course not, but *any* soldiers fighting under an oppressive regime shares some of the blame in keeping those regimes in power.

My great grandmother was evacuated over the lake while she was pregnant with my grandfather, who ended up being born in Tadjikistan, before they returned to Leningrad after the war. Her two older brothers were not as lucky, as the both died in the city from a combinstion of starvation, frostbite and exhaustion. Very sad, may they rest in peace

*Красивая фраза. Ещё бы была правдивой, а не пропагандистской, было бы вообще замечательно.*

А в чем сосбственно пропаганда?

@@AxULeZ*В том, что погибшие американцы, французы, британцы или немцы известны поимённо и пофамильно. А у нас до сих пор в полях, лесах и болотах безымянные тела находят, и не могут гарантировано идинтефицировать, вместо нормальных могил хоронят в безымянных т.н. "братских могилах", так в сегодняшней России хоронят бомжей, у которых нет родственников. Но где бомжи, и где погибшие солдаты и офицеры? Да и эта пропагандистская надпись, наконец, выбита не абы где, а на мемориале НЕИЗВЕСТНОГО солдата, что как бы намекает, как там у нас всех помнят, и никого не забыли.*

@Akato*Жалкие - это как-раз когда миллионы трупов. А вот когда удалось победить в войне, потеряв меньше людей, чем живёт в Твери - вот это потери хорошие. Но куда там дегенерату Жукову до хитрых англичан, взломавших "энигму", или американцев с их стратегической бомбардировочной авиацией...*

@@daniil_monakhov это пропаганда? Про память поимённо ни кто не говорит, сама фраза говорит о том что всё помнят чего стоила эта даже не победа а война нашей стране. При таких масштабах боёв на такой протяжённости фронта найти всех это задача поиска иглы в стоге сена.

Same bs as saying that the war started in 1939. Typical western centric world view. Japan attacked China in 1937.

@@B20C0 Thats because it was only a WORLD war when Germany attacked Poland, until then it was only separate conflicts like Japan vs China or Italy vs Ethiopia. Thats why the year starting ww2 is 1939 and not 37, by that logic the ww1 never ended, since there was conflict around the world almost constantly, it was just not global, it was localized wars.

More Soviet people were killed by the Soviets themselves, than by Axis forces.

@@AdventGamesOfficial It shouldn't have even been a world war when Germany invaded Poland. It was supposed to be a local conflict, except some very greedy bankers and politicians wanted a bigger war.

The US didn't discuss Russian loses for several reasons. We were in a cold war and we didn't want to create sympathy for Russia and we didn't want to frighten our populace at how difficult a war with Russia would actually be.

Для западных историков они никание не герои. Прямо так и пишут:"Насиловали от младенцев до старух"

@@Admin-gm3lc врут, типичная пропаганда, слушать противно

@@frankhorrigan3444 well done comrade you have destroyed the strawman

@@Admin-gm3lc ну на войне это имело место быть со всех сторон. Но это не отменяет достижения в войне красной армии.

@@oldsport24 Но только в Красной армии за это была высшая мера.

Who were arguably even more evil. Don’t get too grateful. The enemy of your enemy is most certainly not your friend.

@@ddc2957 definitely not more evil

Not much less if any, in my opinion.

@@ddc2957 the difference between the two is that one regime killed based on ethnicity but more horrifically, with the intent to exterminating them from the face of the earth. The other on the other hand, killed based on removing potential threats, or instilling fear amongst the population to reduce disobedience.

@@ddc2957 Eh... America's way worse

Indeed. While the numbers themselves weren't massive compared to a war like WW2, it is still insane to imagine that if something similar like that had happened today, that'd be a deathtoll of around 869 million people. To compare, that is 170% more than the casualities of WW2. One can just hope that the 2nd World War will be the bloodiest war we'd experience for many generations.

Indeed. Still 40M is such a large number, I would say. You can almost contribute why the entire Islamic word is as it's current state because of the mongol/turkic invations from steppes.

Exactly. The Mongols' destruction of Baghdad in 1258 ended the Islamic Golden Age, and dramatically changed the course of Islamic history.

Countries are an artificial construct

The soldiers are just people, they don't want to fight 99.9% of the time, but they are ordered to. Protecting a country is important especially against the Nazi Regime, but there isn't always malice involved so it's good to feel empathy towards all soldiers.

There is a saying. It was American steel, British intelligence and Soviet Blood that defeated the Nazis

@@menschlichestichsage995 Soviets were already on Berlin while the Western front had just surrounded the Ruhr. There's a saying in the Netherlands that translates as “If it weren't for the allies (for us mostly Canada, UK, US) we'd all be speaking german.” I dare to argue if it weren't for the allies, we'd all be speaking Russian. Without resistance, Stalin would have undoubtedly taken advantage of the state Europe was in.

@@StefanVeenstra and the reason the soviets made progress so much faster is because they basically threw young men into the meat grinder with little preparation and overwhelmed the german army. they had cheaper, easy to manufacture equipment and more bodies to churn out

Русские пожинают то, что сеют. Поляки тоже не забывают.

Только тот, кто дал Гитлеру железо и топливо и кто начал войну 19-1939 вместе с Гитлером, польский Гитлер напал, а 17-9-1939 Сталин и 20 лет назад атаковал польскую валюту

@@headhunter1945 Русские всех помнят..и поляков тоже

@@monikaxena2834 а Чехословакию поляки помнят?

@@skywalkerline Знаете ли вы, кто правил Польшей с 1945 по 1989 год, русины, а не поляки, только Валенса вернул себе свободу, а в Чехословакии поляк убил только 1 гражданина, и его выгнали за этот документальный фильм

Всё эти цифры занижены. Погибло намного больше.( СССР потеряло больше 23 миллионов людей...

@@sergki8316 26 миллионов...у нас нет семей которых бы обошла война...........

Za co idioto dziękujesz w ruskiej armi zginęło sporo Polaków i innych naci takie same gówno jak Niemcy

Arma Czerwona...większa zaraza niż, Niemcy... The Red Army ... a greater plague than Germany ...

Тот кто забывает свои поступки и выводы, будет вынужден совершать их снова и снова. Помним и не забываем всех тех кто воевал за свободу.

Respect, My Great Grandfather was around for world war 1 and 2 he had lied about his age so that he could fight and joined the Royal Marines countless stories he would tell, he passed away at 108 years old. He was with his wife for over 70 years and she passed away when he was 96, he was never the same since.

@@N1Moses 108?? holy smokes! did your great grand-dad fight in both wars?

My grandfather lived in India (Burma) during WWII. His entire family was killed when the Japanese invaded Burma, but he was in boarding school in (modern day) India so wasn't harmed. He was later adopted and never returned to Burma. He visited Japan in the 1960s and told me he was amazed at how developed the country was compared to India at the time.

Det kyrilliske alfabet er ikke specielt forståeligt for andre folkeslag.

@@tdamtoft Для этого Google и Яндекс переводчик вам в помощь. Да и второе место по количеству пользователей интернета, занимает русский язык. А у войны вообще нет национальности и языка. Только язык смерти.

Почему вся Европа? «Второй фронт» вам ни о чем не говорит? Без второго фронта мы бы проиграли.

@@baldeagle6531 мы бы дольше шли к Победе. И Победа бы стоила нам больше жизней, чем денег, заплаченных нашим "союзникам", которые присоединились в конце войны к тем, кто явно будет выигрывать. Но не проиграли бы, так как для СССР это был принципиальный бой. Проиграли страны Европы, сдавшие своих инвалидов, евреев и коммунистов. А теперь подло забывшие и свою трусость и предательство на госуровне и коллаборацию. Им Советы благородно позволили считать себя победившими нацизм. А Вы пишете: "второй фронт"...

@@taemck3946 Насмешили) Если бы Американцы не прервали ядерную операцию Германии, то сейчас бы все дружно пеклись в сараях.

why would patriots want war?

My great-grandfather died in the same battle.

Battle of Dubno-Brody is more likely the largest tank battle in history. Rest in Peace to your grandfather.

@@alexfilma16 Nope. Dubno-Brody - +-4300 tanks on the both sides, and about 6,200 tanks participated in the Battle of Kursk, not counting the reserves

@@core1426 Ah, my mistake. You are correct. I was comparing The Battle of Prokhorovka with The Battle of Dubno-Brody instead of the overall Battle of Kursk.

You grandfather is a great man, i hope he's still in good health.

@@CompagnonDeMisere25 sadly he died about 10 years ago, but yeah he was a great guy

I give your grandfather respect as a Japanese

My grandfather was smart. He enlisted in the RAAF. Yes, he was combat personnel (an airfield guard) but at least he wasn't army.

Red Army raped millions of women during and after WW2. They're not innocent here.

Too bad Stalin killed 60+ million of his own people after the war…

That movie is so good you only want to watch it once. It's not horror, but it is so scary. Great film.

If we talk about Europe, Russia won hands down. With great assistance of course but still. Even if Britain was knocked out, it would have only delayed the inevitable, because Russia was just that monstrously strong, resourceful, and with Stalin to lead it. If we talk about the Pacific though, Americans hands down almost solo (some support from Australia, New Zealand, Britain, India). Africa was both British and American.

No one won that war every nation lost so many in numbers because of one country its insane how many people died when comparing how many germany lost russia literally won but lost at the same time just because of the sheer numbers lost. Same can be said for the u.s. im just happy we went in when we did i cant even imagine if the u.s. went in before the russian conflict.

No nation won that war except the USA because every country lost so many people and so much else. The USA was the only country to emerge stronger after the war, and most of why Americans are prideful for having won is really rooted in what was achieved afterward because of it. The United Nations, decolonization, globalization, and The Long Peace. So from this perspective, no nation won the war, except for the USA. Russia is still struggling because of the aftereffects of what happened in those handful of years, whereas the USA was launched into the position of being a superpower.

@@lucasharvey8990 if not for russia the USA would have never reached Berlin that's a fact, russia sacrificed 8.7 million soldiers while we were on the other side storming the beach on D day so imagine all the germans fighting off the russians being on that beach that day there's absolutely no way we were out gunned there tech was superior we showed up after the world done the job and we just hammered the nail in the coffin.

@@jfann1000 Ok, so a few (big) corrections : #1 Japan was the first country fighting technically, since they started the second Sino-Japanese war since 1937, two whole years before WW2. They have been constantly fighting the Chinese until the end of the war, as well as expanding in the neighbouring countries/islands. Heck, they were fighting INDIANS ffs. So Japan was very much spread out. #2 You say the US played a big part with D-Day in 1944. Friendly reminder that as many Nazi soldier died fighting in the Western Front as they did in Stalingrad alone. Let that sink in for a second. The entire nr of casualties in the West, done in a SINGLE battle in the Eastern Front, and Stalingrad was over by the 2nd of February 1943, a whole year+ prior to D-Day. The Russians alone killed over 2.3 million Nazi soldiers. Oh and you do realize that the British and Canadians, plus contingents of French and Polish and whatever else were also fighting on those beaches. The US had 2/5 beach landings to deal with, and you almost screwed over at Omaha, and lucked out when one of your landing forces, after realizing they were in the wrong place, decided to head to Omaha from a different angle, while the British and Canadians who had 3/5 did much better overall. #3 You said and I quote : "If Japan beats US, Japan and Germany dominates. US beats Japan, then focuses efforts in Europe". 2 major things wrong with this: First, Japan and Germany almost NEVER played as a team. If anything, Japan was screwing over Germany. It was an alliance of interests, but they never coordinated or talked to each other. Japan was even more notorious for having it's Infantry and Navy always backstabbing and undermining each other. Japan was doing it's own thing, while Germany was busy with it's own agenda, but that was pretty much it. They were allies in name only. Second, US needing to beat Japan to focus it's efforts in Europe... what are you smoking? The US was easily capable of handling both fronts since it was that MASSIVE, industrial wise, resource wise, and population wise. The US dedicated it's Navy and Marines to deal with Japan, while the Army was sent to deal with Europe. The war in Europe was over by May, while Japan only surrendered in September. #4 "Let's not forget that after the war Russia high tailed it out of Europe"... *what* It would have been VERY nice if Russia "high tailed it out of Europe" , except it occupied pretty much ALL of Eastern Europe. "...and eventually negotiated to the east of Germany"... ughhh ... It was decided in advance at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 that Russia would keep half of Berlin and a big chunk of Germany (the war in Europe was as good as won by that point). That's why the Allied forces weren't in such a rush to reach Berlin before the Russians did to begin with. And once again, Russia kept *ALL* it's gains for over 40 years. *HELLOOOOO* Oh and you do realize Russia is part of Europe too, right? Like on a standard map, Russia occupies like 1/3 of European land... #5 "Let's not forget, who had atomic weapons usable then? The US" ... *bruh* ... While it's true the US was the first to make an A bomb, you are forgetting some simple facts... The first nuclear test was in July 1945, the Trinity test. Germany surrendered by May 1945. Russia didn't give 2 sh*ts about nukes since they weren't even a thing by the time they took Berlin. It's only after Nagasaki in Hiroshima several weeks later that anyone would learn what an A bomb was. And also, reminder that Russia was also doing R&D on nukes and it didn't take long for them to catch up either, especially since they really did circles around you with their espionage & counter-espionage, staring with the Manhattan project itself (yes, they did have double agents in there), and all throughout the Cold War. Also, Japan was still considering fighting until the end even after the 2 nukes. The last straw was the fact that Russia also declared war on Japan, and with the European theater now finished, they could mobilize all those millions and millions of troops, and tens of thousands of planes and tanks to get to Japan, and reminder that Japan is next door to Russia, unlike the US who had to cross an entire ocean and still wooped their asses. So while the nukes did play a big part in Japans surrender, it wasn't the ONLY thing that did that. For reference, the 2 nukes were on 6th and 9th August, while Russia declared war on the 8th, and on the 9th launched a massive invasion of Manchuria and kicked the Japanese out of it. #6 "The US during WW2 combines is THE hardest, toughest, baddest group of fighting men the world has ever seen" and this right here is a classical case of nationalism... go wave your flag in a Burger King, especially if you dishonor and disregard all those other millions of soldiers from all over the world making a damn difference in this conflict, you twat. Russia legitimately gave (and still is) the Allied forces pause for concern. To start a war with Russia after WW2 would have been madness, given its MASSIVE ARMY. You are also dunking on the British, who achieved some insane feats themselves, both in intel and in battle... ffs they deciphered the Enigma code, they played big roles in the invasion of Italy and on D-Day, they kicked ass in Africa, and held of the German invasion in the battle of Britain in the air, while being attacked around the clock and outnumbered, the French, Polish, and Yugoslav resistance forces and rogue troops that escaped who really hampered the Nazis via assassinations, sabotages and intel (and in major operations when possible). The Finish who really f***ed sh*t up for Russia in the Winter War. Those troops the British deployed that were terrifying in close quarters with those curved blades (forgot the names). The Japanese, small as they were in comparison, gave you a really hard time btw. If they didn't have to divide their forces all over Eastern Asia, and their military wasn't that f***ing inept by backstabbing each other, you would have to REALLY invest in the Pacific theater (but this is a what if scenario so we will leave it at that). And reminder, Germany took on ALL of EUROPE, mostly alone (since the Italian military leaders (just the leaders) were inept af). Germany conquered most of it, pushed the Brits to the wall, and gave serious grief for the Russians. The saying "The European War was won by British Intelligence, American steel, and Russian blood" is there for a reason, you know. The US didn't even have an interest in the war prior to Pearl Harbor (at least officially), so it's army at the time wasn't exactly threatening either. Lastly, the US had a big advantage from the start. The war never reached home, neither in this war, nor the previous. Europe was devastated af after the first (economy, industry, and population wise), yet still recovered before the second one started, but the scars were still visible by the time it started. With that being said, I wont dunk on the valor, competence, and sacrifice of US troops. The Pacific was won mainly (almost entirely) by them, and their role in Europe and Africa are not to be ignored. But they weren't the supreme Juggernauts you want them to be. Reminder, you got your ass handed in Vietnam by a bunch of farmers, Korea wasn't exactly a win either, your war on terror is going to sh*t (and another reminder, you are the ones who enabled it in the first place!!!), and you cowering over the whole Ukraine dumpster fire isn't exactly reassuring. So how about you pull your head out of your ass, and try to be OBJECTIVE in your analysis. So how about YOU learn "some actual history. Not the agendas you were taught." And before you jump the gun and call me a commie : I really don't like the Russian government. They screwed over my country BIG TIME, and are a real threat since I am from Romania, right next door to Ukraine. So don't imagine I am sympathetic to Russians or against "capitalist Americans" because of some personal reason. I am trying my best to be objective and give all credit where it is due, even if that means talking nicely about parties I might not really like. Now, if I had made mistakes or some sort of misunderstandings in my analysis and comments, due point them out. I would like to know if I am wrong on something. Edits for a few mistakes and small additions

Not true , maybe at the end of the war , but at the start most of german youth was in nazi youth .. and were done alot of fighting on streets against jews and communists and also later in army .. lets not change and forget things like that .. they were the nazi army , of course it doesnt mean everyone was nazi but in first 3 years they had majority popularity it was only later that people turned on them

@@kriskong9962 While this is partially true you kinda ignore the fact that participation in the hitler jugend which i guess you mean with nazi youth was in fact MANDATORY. But you are right, the nazi's came to power with a majority vote even if tons of other shenanigans were going on. What im saying is that an 18 year old conscripted soldier in 1943 couldnt reasonably be held accountable for the atrocities of the nazi regime and calling them a nazi instead of simply a German soldier automatically implies that boy was in fact evil.

@@mistrants2745 I understand what you mean and noone who studied and understand ww2 would not held accountable every soldier for crimes against humanity that were done by the nazis, because only "chosen" meaning ss and so on were know what was going on in concentration camps .. However wheter they liked it or not they were fighting for the nazis on battlefieled and their vision of the world.. therfore i think its ok too call them nazi soldiers as of people who fought for the nazis .. what i am worried about is if we start to say that they were german soldiers and try to polish up the words we use in future , the future that you and me are not part of it lets say 100+ years from now people will slowly forgot and downplay what happend in this war ...

@@kriskong9962 There is an opposite equally bad possibility for the future, and its already happening: mystifying the evil of WWII. Hannah Arendt wrote about this in 'the banality of evil'. One of the worst things we can do when it comes to taking lessons from WOII is pretending like it happened because an entire country of almost supernaturally evil humans just decided to do evil things one day. The horrifying part of WOII is that the people on the 'evil' side for the most part werent evil people inherently. The further we get removed from WOII chronologically the more we start to see it as some sort of distant and incomprehensible evil which prevents us from learning from it or preventing it once signs start to pop up again of similar behaviour. Most people who reads 'nazi soldier' will likely think 'nazi' and in turn automatically think 'evil', ESPECIALLY a hundred years from now. And in doing so miss the part that made WOII actually terrifying, and in turn failing to learn from it.

Yeah man..

Здесь не точная информация. СССР потерял больше 23 миллионов человек. В СССР практически в каждой семье есть родственники, которые погибли на той войне. Все города в кладбищах. Вот это представить невозможно....

If we talk about those who did not return from the war, then there were 8.7 million Soviet citizens, and about 6 million German citizens. It is not possible to get a more accurate figure due to the fact that German losses were not accounted for in 45. Plus, about 1 million were lost by German allies and citizens of other countries who fought in the Wehrmacht and SS troops. Thus, the ratio of demographic military losses of Germany and the USSR was approximately 1:1.3. At the same time, both sides took about 4 million prisoners of war and 60% of prisoners of war died in German captivity, and 12% of prisoners of war died in Soviet captivity. If we talk about civilian casualties, then in the USSR they amount to about 20 million people, and in Germany - from 2 to 6 million people. It is not possible to determine civilian casualties more precisely. This difference is due to the duration of hostilities on the territories of these states, as well as the genocide carried out by the Germans on the territory of the USSR. All these figures have scientific justification or are supported by documents.

@@aura4341 They gave 8.7 million soviet military deaths, with estimates up to 14. A good guess in the middle would be around 10 million. German military deaths were around 3.7 million. Even at a most conservative estimate for the soviets and a most pessimistic estimate for germans you never get under a 2:1 ratio, more likely 2.5:1 to 3:1

@@aurigo_tech The figure 8.7 was obtained on the basis of the analysis of combat documents, the calculation methodology is outlined, the figure is put into scientific circulation. Other figures are speculation. But it is not possible to calculate the losses of Germany according to the Krivosheev method, since not all combat documents have been preserved, and in 1945 there was practically no calculation of losses. The methodology for calculating German military losses was proposed by Müller-Hillebrand. According to his calculations, Germany's irretrievable demographic losses amounted to about 5.5 million people. Which is not surprising, since Germany suffered the main losses on the Eastern Front in 44-45, when they were practically not counted. The figure 3.7 reflects only the number of those killed, indicating the place of burial, which is typical for the German system of counting losses as a whole. For example, the German reports indicated only the number of irretrievably lost and combat-ready tanks, while the Soviet reports reflected not only the number of lost and damaged tanks, but also indicated the nature of damage and the causes of losses.

@@aura4341 According to multiple sources the ratio of dead germans vs dead soviets is usually well above 1:2 The highest numbers I could find for germany mention 6.9 m solders dead (Ploetz, 1965) and 20 m for the SU (Vladimir I. Koslov, 1989). The lowest numbers I could find is the 5.3 m (Rüdiger Overmans, 1999) for Ger and 8.6 for SU (Dmitri Timofejewitsch Jasov, 1991) though that is a very untrustworthy number. The highest german estimate vs the lowest soviet indeed gives a ratio of just 1.25. The lowest german vs the highest soviet will give a ratio of 3.77. Again, using a sensible estimate the actual ratio should be around 2.5, which is also the middle between the two extreme values I mentioned.

@@aurigo_tech Here everything depends on the calculation methodology, and not on the spread of numbers taken from nowhere. The figures of Krivosheev and Muller Gillebrand are substantiated by documents and methodology. The sources of the others are unclear. It should be noted that with the beginning of the Cold War, a large-scale propaganda campaign was launched in the West to discredit the Soviet system in general and the role of the USSR in World War II in particular.

Most people in America understand the losses of the Russians. Everyone knows of the sickening atrocities that Stalin committed. To the point that people argue whether Hitler or Stalin was actually more evil. The problem is that the war on the Eastern Front is so open to debate. If Hitler hadn't been an absolute fool, and actually provided his army with appropriate clothing, food, and supplies (None of which he supplied properly for the Russian Winter), would the Russians have won? I believe the Russians would have fell before the winter and counter attack could even start. They failed to take Finland ffs, and had to sign a peace deal. They got utterly shit on at the start of the invasion by Hitler, and it wasn't until the Winter came and killed the vast majority of the German Army through freezing and starvation did they get to push back. That's not to say the staggering amount of Russian soldiers lost isn't still a massive loss, and a massive travesty, but to say the Allies would never have won because of the Russian Army is not entirely true either, and is in itself complete ignorance if you ignore the fact that the vast majority of German army starved and froze to death in the Russian Winter, arguably making it the only reason the Russian Army was able to push back after. The fighting in the cities, and such was extremely fierce. As it was along the entire western front, but the losses we see in this video, is again mostly due to starvation, disease, Stalin himself on his own people. Both sides were being destroyed utterly by the Winter, Russia just had closer supply lines when they could finally get food, new troops, and gear to their front lines, and finally push the decimated German Army back to Berlin.

@@Cramblit "They failed to take Finland ffs, and had to sign a peace deal". If you're referring to the 'Winter War', it was the Finns who effectively capitulated (despite enormous Soviet losses) - by signing the Moscow Peace Treaty in 1940, ceding vast tracts of land to the USSR. The Second Soviet-Finnish War, in which the Finns were allied with the Nazis, was a rather different affair, of course - and irrlevant to this discussion. "That's not to say the staggering amount of Russian soldiers lost isn't still a massive loss, and a massive travesty (sic)" Quite ! "to say the Allies would never have won because of the Russian Army" I think you mean _without_ the sacrifices of the Russian army, yes ? "if you ignore the fact that the vast majority of German army starved and froze to death in the Russian Winter" I don't - but, aside from the well-known lack of Winter clothing etc - if the 'Russians' hadn't put up such a stout resistance themselves (despiter Stalin's equally 'idiotic' purging of the Officer Class in the Thirties), the Germans could still have swept through to Moscow, and wintered there while securing their rather stretched supply lines, and re-equipping their troops. Of course, 'General Winter' played a large part - but that should blind no-one to the stolid resistance put up by the common soldiery of the USSR. Just as in 1812 - when Napoleon was compelled to retreat. The 'fact' remains, that if Hitler had secured or at least stabilised the Eastern Front, thus enabling him to bring back only a few SS and Wehrmacht divisions to the West, the Allies would NEVER have got off the beaches in 1944. Or, arguably, at any time thereafter - given the highly-advanced weaponry that the Nazis were in the process of developing -(and I don't just mean jet fighters, of course). 'We' in the West won that bloody war only by the skin of our teeth - and thanks in VERY LARGE measure to ther sacrifices of the ordinary folk of the USSR in the East. And that's all there is to it, frankly.

@@marvinc9994 Even if the Wehrmacht was able to bring a large part of its forces back, it just wouldnt be enough. The Atlantic wall was no where near prepared by the time the Allies landed (around 2% or 20% by the time of D day) and the Germans lacked the production to keep up on the western front. Yes it would've taken a few years but there is no way in hell the Allies wouldn't capitulate the nazis (unless of course the wehrmacht succesfully defeats the soviet union, at that point you can already just give up)

@@marvinc9994 statistics and numbers can be argued about who would of won without who's help,but everyone seems to forget about a very important component,the atomic bomb.the U.S.A developed it first and we would have used it.so it doesn't matter if Russia were defeated,the U.S. would have destroyed Berlin with one bomb.not to mention the U.S. and Britain had complete air dominance near the end of the war.just look at what the U.S. and BRITAIN did to Dresden with the fire bombing.

I suspect the U.S. may have been looking ahead to the end of the war also.while the U.S. was battling the Japanese empire I'm sure there was no hurry to jump into battle in Europe,I suspect very few tears were shed over a bunch of communists and Nazis killing each other. and when the war would be won the U.S. knew that the communists/Soviets would be exhausted and therefore be a less threat

The number of Stalin's victims being doubtful is only true in that 20 million is probably low. Idk where you think most modern historians agree that it's less. The Soviet State derived info is completely worthless in terms of determining accuracy, Stalin controlled all of it and therefore it is totally unreliable.

The finns did not take part of the siege, They stayed around 10 European miles from central Leningrad

No matter how smart you are , you will always fall to hatred and paranoia

This always bears repeating. Russia was the largest of the USSR States but the losses include all of the former soviet states.

Да, правильно говорить СССР.

citizens under German occupation lived much better than when the red army controlled territory (except for jews, homosexuals, etc..)

@@Starter102 thats not the point. The Soviets made the greatest sacrifice and the dead should be rightfully remembered and recognized. Your problem lands on the leadership

To bad that these generals regreted of what they said since Soviet became the new threat since the Soviets saw Americans as Pseudo-Allies despite Stalin purged 22 million russians and Starve 4.5 kulak famers plus Stalin gave the Red Army the green light to shoot any farmer that tried to escape to a nearby town to get food for his starving family then 45,000 Polish were brutally murdered by the NKVD in the Katyn forest know as the Katyn forst genocide then when WW2 was done and USA and England was nice and gave Poland and Eastern Europe to Stalin which return 10 million Eastern Europeans were either shot to death or sent to Northern Russia/Siberia then you had the Warsaw Uprising where the Soviets did nothing when they were across the Volga river and watching the Germans and Polish killing one another and not helping the Poles out so Poland will be a easier country to take over and spread communism.

@@joeyreidelbach5509 whatever you said doesn't take away from the truth of what those Americans said about the Russian soldiers and people.

@@joeyreidelbach5509 stop taking drugs!!! And look for information in more reliable sources!!

Because Stalin ruined it. To this day many Russians worship him and his political ideology.

@@airplanegod If Stalin didn't kill off all his Generals the Russian death count wouldn't be so high.

Сталин совершал много ошибок. Сталин в ответе за много преступлений. Но при всем том даже испытав НА СЕБЕ все эти его преступления и ошибки русский народ в отличии от внешних экспертов отдаёт ему должное в роли центральной организующей личности,

@@ВадимДрачёв-и4ж man I read the Cyrillic alphabet but that it, i can pronounce everything here but I don't know what any of it means

Hungarian troops showed themselves worse than the Nazis. Punitive operations against civilians, the destruction of women and the elderly are the actions of the Hungarian army.The 102nd Infantry Division and its participation in Operation Zigeunerbaron are well remembered in Russia.

Politicians are the only individuals who ever win. The people always lose regardless of being on the "winning" side.

As long as 2 men living under the same sky there will be war, always will

@@derrickowen8162 And we, the citizens, let them by voting for ever more stupid rulers. Greetings from sad Poland.

@@NocnaGlizda An endless loop.

WW2 was won. It was won by USA. It's WW2 and it's aftermath that caused USA to become the ultimate power. Remember: USA suffered no losses apart from military ones (and even those pale in comparison with other countries). Central and Easter Europe was torn and mutilated by war. Poland lost 16-20% of its population (depending on who counts), Russia lost more than 20 million (again - depending on who counts). Multiple Polish, Russian and German cities were completely destroyed (just look at Dresden, Leningrad, Stalingrad or Warsaw pictures!). China and Japan decimated... Japan and Germany occupied... The only country that came out from WW2 stronger and unscathed was USA. It took other countries decades to catch up. Don't be mistaken: I do agree with your premise from humanitarian point of view. From statistical and economic point of view I have to disagree.

А что рассказывать про участие финнов в блокаде Ленинграда и их лагеря в Карелии ? Лучше уж про Сталина ...

Да, День Победы это самый большой праздник в России! Праздник победы, скорби и гордости. В каждой семье есть свой герой или несколько героев.

All thanks to the fact that the Soviet Union won the war, but now Western countries are desperately taking it out of history, because it was the Soviet Union that knocked the Japanese out of Asia and this interferes with propaganda

I'm Russian, and I'll tell you that we've been shown stats, that are clearly showing that it was just between us two. And I think from all of that we went out greater friends than ever before in history, like when you become friends with the guy you fought at school and none of those cunning guys, trying to rewrite history like Americans with their sanctions and English with their brexit are going to stop us from building our friendship.

да брат даже сейчас как раз пытаются растянуть войну на украине.

Still can't feel bad for bolsheviks

CCCP had the manpower but there soldier's were poorly train cause Stalin purged his experince generals had them replace with inexpirence generals that didn't know what they were doing hence the large Soviet death toll and where as the Germans were more experince and better trained which inflict heavy death toll on the CCCP.

@@joeyreidelbach5509 Zhukov was the best Soviet general in the Eastern Front and he survived the purge, the problem is that the Soviet Military was undergoing reorganization (remember Russia went through the Russian Civil War, everything in Russia was in shambles from all the fighting. It is the reason the Soviets wanted a non aggression pact with the Germans...they are not ready). Soviets having no professional army is just false, although frontlines was most likely fought by conscripts, flanks and rear sabotage of German supplies and strongpoints were done by ELITE infantry. and FYI Germany had manpower, almost 4 million Axis was in the Eastern Front by 1943 vs 6.7m Soviets, they just couldn't replenish men as fast as the USSR 1. Soviet Naval Marines (Black Death) -Crushed the Germans in the Moonsund Landings, Kicked the Germans out of the Caucasus 2. Very heavily equipped Guards units which lead breakthroughs toward Germany 3. The heroic deeds of elite Soviet Sappers And much much more. Even the penal battalions of the time had efficient battlefield performance Not all soldiers were conscripts, but conscripts were meant to absorb the brunt of the force inflicted by elite. Soviet breakthrough strategy is almost similar to Hannibal Barca's encirclement maneuver

Ага... они любят задним числом рассказывать, что их просто завалили трупами. Это очень смешно для тех читателей, которые видели в реальной жизни работу пулемётов.

Yes, we continue, because the violation of the Minsk Agreement, the shelling of Donbass, and the potential threat from Nato

Yeah they found out that was false

The way I see it, the Soviets are the main reason why the Germans and their allies were defeated, while the USA is the main reason why Democracy managed to win the war. That's why the USA is called the Arsenal of Democracy, because it may not have suffered the most to win the war, but it certainly is the reason why the democratic world managed to hang on and come back stronger than ever. I think that's what people mean when they say the USA won WW2. They mean to say that the USA won the war for the democratic world.

@@lucasharvey8990 do i look like i care about the democratic world?

I think both are important but in different ways and for different reasons. It's good to examine it that closely, but it's also important to step back from time to time.

You mean the V2 guided ballistic missile that were use on England and were very accurate to reach its target well as it became a such of a threat that the British Intelligence agency were sending false reports out that V2's were missing there targets which force the Germans to change launching locations so they can really miss there targets. Good old deception.

И в казахской тоже 🇰🇿

В Украине и Беларуси ещё больше

Added to our list

My Russian great grandfather's story could be interesting too, but it wasn't. When Germans caught him as a captive, they used him as laborer, and never gave him any food. The end.

Что они там понимают? У них же СССР вместе с Германией оккупировал Польшу. А мирные жители погибали в ГУЛАГе.

​@@alexpushkin8939 По-твоему, англоязычные зрители читают комменты на русском? Раздел Польши с Германией не "у них", а в истории XX века А в гулаге, по-твоему, погибали НЕ мирные жители?

Я надеюсь, вопрос обращен не к англоязычным зрителям, а к тем, кто у нас "может повторить" и любит поиграть в милитаризм

@@genrikmuradyan9967 По-моему я ответил на *русский* комментарий, а не" для англоязычных зрителей". А в истории ХХ века СССР не оккупировал Польшу вместе с Германией. А мирные жители погибали в своих домах, на заводах, в концлагерях. И это не "по-моему", а по факту. Тут вроде разговор о *военных* потерях. А в ГУЛАГе заключенные просились на фронт. Доходчиво объясняю?

It would be idiotic to believe they were the good guys though🤨