The Soviet Role in World War II - Antony Beevor 

"The British supplied time, the Americans supplied treasure, the Russians supplied blood". A fair summing up of what was after all, a collective effort.

Russian officers who interviewed captured German officers were surprised at how many of them had copies of "With Napoleon in Russia: The Memoirs of General De Caulaincourt, Duke of Vicenza." A Russian asked a German officer "Why do so many of you have this book?" The German answered "We want to know how this is going to end."

As a Russian, I'am thankful for all the help USA provided in crushing fascism. I'd like to also point out that my great grandpa who fought in the war did so not for Communism or for Stalin, but for his people. Most soldiers did not care about any of that. Ideologies don't matter when you are in a trench!

With all due respect, it does seem plausible that Stalin was planning an invasion of Germany himself. For all the criticism of the Icebreaker theory, no-one has explained, why did the soviets have more detailed maps of German cities than, say, the Smolensk area, and German phrase books with things like "where is the local administration building"? And why production of tanks before 1941 was focussed on light assault BT tanks suitable for German/European roads not for marshy territories of Belarus and Ukraine. Why so many troops, machinery and ammo where at the border, and became an easy target for the Germans?

Hitler wrote about Lebensraum already in Mein Kampf. The russians fought against enslavement and/or extermination. The clichés about fighting by patriotism or for communism were mere secondary reasonings, but are now very popular outside the USSR.

if they come to take your life, your family, your belongings, you fight, no matter the Politics. Nation or religion.

I learn so much every time I read one of his books and/or watch him speak or be interviewed. No one can do this consistently unless they really know the subject.

"Please join me in welcoming Sir Anton Beevor." One would have thought she could get the name right.

I can only imagine the chaos if the commenters to this video were in attendance at this talk and participated in live Q&A.

I think Churchill summed it up best, "The Russian (Soviet) Bear clawed the guts out of the Nazi War machine."

"Vehicles captured from the French army"??? Now we know why they never reached Moscow! 😅 This last hour was one of the best I ever passed on youtube, Antony Beevor is an excellent communicator and a joy to listen to with his many quotations from historical figures highlighting an impartial analysis of facts and figures of the Second World War. Thank you, sir!

The entire continental West capitulated. The USSR never even had that choice. Tends to set a tone.

Love your books Antony,.....thankyou

What seems to be forgotten in Russia is the fact that the U.S. waged a planetary war at sea,in the air and on land. The russian navy was insignificant compared to the U.S. navy, Royal Navy and even the canadian navy. The russian air force was important but never used at a strategic level ,unlike the U.S. army air force and the Commonwealth air forces. Ww2 was a total war at all levels. War on the russian front was titanic but chiefly a land warfare.

Why British and French military forces were beaten by Hitler near Dunkirk.

Col Douglas Macgregor Retired briefly mentioned that high ranking officials and military officers privately thought that Britain was fighting the wrong enemy (in their private diaries)

Interestly devoid of western historical inaccuracies. For instance, most WW2 films are myopic glorifications of the US and UK that never even reference Russians in the war. Japan is also curiously passed over for the most part. Wonder why.

I love his books. Specially Stalingrad. Can recommend it.

It troubles me a little that an acclaimed historian like Beevor names the "Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" of August '39 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - this is wrong. The treaty was never called like that neither in Nazi-Germany nor in the USSR. For comparison: we don't call the Munich Agreement of '38 Hitler-Daladier-Chamberlain-Mussolini Pact although those three non-german guys helped Hitler to bring down the CSR and allowed Poland to scavenge the Trans-Olza territory and proto-fascist Hungary to take even larger portions of CSR-territory. The Munich Agreement alonside with the later unhindered annexion of Austria greatly enhanced Germany's war machine, economy and prestige. Stalin worked until the very last to get the western allies at the table against Hitler but anti-bolshevism und general mistrust towards the USSR made this impossible. Hitler exploited that with the non-aggression treaty and Stalin gained two crucial years to prepare against the Nazi-attack which was sure to come; the leading USSR-politicians were totally sure of that.

24 million is total casualties, among which 8 million military, and about 13 million civilians 7 million were killed for the fact they were russians 2 million in germany on slave labor 4 million - famine, ilnesses, lack of medical support There may be some debates about proportions and total number but during the blockade of Leningrad - 0.6million people died and it just 4 minutes in the video, trilled to know more

I saw an interview with Sir Antony in which he explained that after his work on the battle of Berlin, and the subsequent outrage coming out of the former USSR, he can no longer do research there but must instead rely on former Soviet citizens to research the archives

The thing about lend lease good is that they could have been produced in ussr and were being produced. However lend lease allowed soviet production to shift towards other things, thus providing an industrial boost of a sort. For example, instead of building trucks in ten factories they could now convert them to build tanks. So lend lease didn’t really save Russia or caused it to reach Berlin, it just allowed it to suffer less casualties and defeat Germany faster than it would have on its own. Plus he doesn’t mention the hundreds of outdated allied tanks like the M3 and the Matilda that were being sent in the lend lease, as well as outdated planes.

This is a spectacular college. We are financial supporters of this college. I have one suggestion when you put these programs on or anytime have these young girls speak they all sound like chipmunks to the elderly crowd. Please impress upon these girls to speak up and slow down. I’ve been in the audience where half of the continent of these young girls is not understood or heard. Thank you so much.

I’m always impressed by the depth of knowledge of people like Beevor : for example how he disproves people who keep saying the bombing of Germany was useless, by citing the numbers of 88mm guns and fighter aircrafts withdrawn from the eastern front to defend German city’s.

Reinhard gehlen, chief of intel for foreign army eastern front has a lot of valuable info on logistics during the campaign.

impossible to watch beevor without thinking of peep show

Esteemed Sir Antony Beevor, The psychological turning point didn't come after the Soviet victory in Stalingrad (23 August 1942 - 2 February 1943)! It took place after the battle of Moscow (October 1941 and January 1942)! This was exactly the moment for Stalin to quote Churchill: "This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning". This was the moment when the first candle was lit in the darkness of the fate of the people of the Soviet Union!!!

The Germans conquered France in 38 days. In Stalingrad, during this time, they only moved from one side of the street to the other.

One very important point Antony Beevor makes is that it was Churchill's decision to use strategic bombing to placate Stalin while the Allies prepared for the second front. It was NOT Arthur Harris, who as leader of Bomber Command and a loyal subordinate to the PM, could not have done anything other than show enthusiasm for a task he knew would certainly cost the lives of thousands of his men: and it did: 44% of them, the highest losses sustained by any body of fighting men in WW2, apart from the German U-boat service. Yet, at the end of the war, despite Churchill being the architect of the bombing campaign, he still turned his back on Harris and the 55,673 men of Bomber Command who died, which was disgraceful and simply showed Churchill for what he was: a pure politician and just has ruthless as Stalin when it came to throwing away lives to serve his purpose. Nonetheless, Churchill is still regarded nowadays as the "greatest of all Englishmen". In my view he was nothing more than an opportunistic political turncoat who believed he was a military genius with a divine right to lead because he was the ancestor of the Duke of Marlborough; was also an opportunistic turncoat and owed his own military reputation to a considerable extent to the Duke of Savoy. British people seem to forget Churchill was also the architect of the disastrous Gallipoli landings in WW1 and the unnecessary "soft belly" of Italy campaign in WW2, besides being a drunk and an intolerant bully who rarely listened to anyone else's opinion.

There is little question that the Soviets would have won the war in any event. Total US aid amounted to less than 9% of Soviet materials. But the question is stupid anyway, because the idea that the West goes for a stroll with Hitler, folds up it's principles and facilitates the Nazi psychosis is reprehensible. The better question is would England have survived had Stalin simply moved East with his government and freed the Germans to concentrate on Britain? Would Suez, Iran, and India fallen and given Hitler all the oil? Would the racists in the US South have made a pact with Hitler and brought fascism to America?

Excellent review.

"It is necessary to write (and speak) the truth about Stalin as a military leader during the war years. He was not military, but he had a brilliant mind. He knew how to penetrate deeply into the essence of the issue and suggest military solutions" Marshal A.M. Vasilevsky When Stalin said in 1931, "If we don't produce 10 million tons of steel a year, in less than 10 years we will be crushed," he was right. Ten years, that is, 1941. If he had not made that incredible effort, which was indeed, from a human point of view, very expensive, we would still be living in the Auschwitz era." Roger Garaudy (France) "Deep knowledge, fantastic ability to delve into details, quick wit, and incredibly subtle understanding of human character ... I found him better informed than Roosevelt, more realistic than Churchill, and in some sense the most effective of military leaders. " A.HARRIMAN, US Ambassador to the USSR

On Mars south of Stalingrad; did not the Axis forces also have a depletion in artillery or thought so; as this weapon, artillery was concentrated in Stalingrad sector?

The numbers are too big to grasp.

who is the bombshell woman at the beginning??

Thank you. Awesome lesson. I really missed a (more) objective view of the Red Army struggle along Operation Barbarossa, the siege of Berlin and end of WW2

The Soviet role was simple: they won the war. The war started in 1939 and ended in 1945. The second front was open by US and her allies in 1944 (probably more to keep the western europe under US control, rather than beat the Nazi Germany - which was already defeated).

I know even during the cold war, Soviets were thankfull for Studebaker trucks.

Viktor Suvorov isn't a neo-nazi, he's a former Soviet intelligence officer. And after looking at the evidence in the Soviet archives over years he came to the conclusion that Stalin intended to invade Germany in 1941. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy Which would be backed up by the deployment of most of the regular Soviet forces right on the border with German. Then in central Poland after Hitler and Stalin invaded and destroyed that country together. And claims that the Red Army was sorely unprepared for offensive operations in the summer of 1941 are ridiculous. When after two years Stalin had nothing but success with offensive operations. First defeating the Japanese in the far east. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol Then the successful invasion of Poland. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland Then the invasion of southern Finland and victory over the Finnish forces in the Winter War. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War Then the invasion of the Baltic states. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states And annexation of Bessarbia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Bessarabia_and_Northern_Bukovina But according to conventional "wisdom" all the offensive capabilities of the Red Army suddenly evaporated. Crews forgot how to maintain and use their equipment and factories suddenly couldn't make replacement parts. Even though the most advanced tanks at the time were rolling off the Soviet assembly lines in large numbers. The Germans didn't run into T-34 tanks a month or more after the war in the East began, they encountered them immediately. There were 1,400 T-34s either in service or on the way to the units on June 22, 1941. Over 700 KV-1s and 2s built and operational or in transport.The Red Army had many excellent artillery in large numbers in 76, 122, 130, 152 mm etc... The Red Air Force had many thousands aircraft including capable new types like Yak-1, Mig-3, LaGG-3, Il-2 and PE-2. Stalin had over 1 million trained parachutists and an entire corp of 50,000 paratroopers right at the front in the summer of 1941. And the list goes on and on. What happened in the summer of 1941 is not a failure of the Red Army forces, it was a failure of overall Soviet Command. Stalin wasn't terrified of provoking Hitler, he was making he sure he did not arouse German awareness of his coming attack in August of 1941. And Stalin missed all the signs of the oncoming German attack because as Suvorov points out he assumed Hitler was sane. Stalin was looking to see if the German forces were preparing for fighting in winter conditions. Whether they were being supplied with the lighter lubricant they would need for their rifles for fighting in the brutal Russian Winter cold. Whether German stocks of lighter oil for winter conditions were being sent to the front depots and anti-freeze. And whether millions of sheep in Germany were being slaughtered for the warm sheepskin jackets that German troops would need in Russia over the winter. Stalin saw none of these because Hitler was so reckless as to not prepare for winter operations. When Germany hit the Red Army on June 22, the Red Army was totally unprepared for defence because they had been ordered to stand down by a Stalin that had been thoroughly fooled by Hitler. And most of the best units of the Red Air Force were annihilated on the ground meaning they couldn't provide air cover for the ground forces and reconnaissance for the Soviet command. They also couldn't effectively bomb advancing German units. Many Soviet units were still on the way to the front and those already there were thrown into total confusion with no defence plans at all. Those units which did open their sealed orders attacked into the German lines and were eventually encircled and lost. Blind and reeling the Red Army was highly vulnerable not because it lacked fighting power but because it was blind and had no orders. The German high command with its free use of the skies and intact command and control had a better idea of the location of Red Army units than Moscow did. Stalin was preparing for invasion in the summer of 1941 based on the evidence, not some political need for a reason for the invasion. It takes a lazy academic to write all this off as some "neo-nazi" conspiracy and considering the significance of this conflict to all of history afterwards it is a real disservice to keep on with the same broken explanations for the stunning Soviet loses of the summer of 1941. And far from indicating how weak the Soviet Union was militarily, what happened indicated how strong it was. Stalin had almost unlimited reserves of men and adequate reserves of arms to replace army after army as they were lost in the summer of 1941. How is that something a weak state would be capable of. And if Stalin had beat Hitler on the march think of the likely results. Instead of the three million men and 3,000 tanks that Hitler had to send east, Stalin had as many men on the front and upwards of 20,000 tanks and 18 million reserves to quickly replace any loses during an invasion. And the newest equipment rolling from the factories were T-34s, KV-1s, etc.. It would have been the Germans reeling under a surprise attack and attempting to adjust to a tempo sent by Stalin not Hitler. While facing an almost unlimited resupply of lost men and materiel. The same entire armies of reserves that Stalin frantically deployed to replace his front line units lost in battle in the summer of 1941 would have been sent to attack and invade an ever depleting German army while the Romanian oil fields would have been invaded and seized effectively knocking Germany out of the war. Stalin was coming in 1941, it's why he had destroyed his heavy defences like the Stalin line, why most the regular Red Army forces were right up at the front or on their way and why the Red Air Force was on bases right at the front where they were wiped out in days by German surprise attack.

With all the mighty Sovjet resources available, if that country was normally politically managed and prepared during the 1930's, Sovjet should have been in Berlin summer 1942, not 1945. And saved millions of their citizens. Stalin was not the resquer, he was the main reason for millions of victims and that Sovjet almost lost it all.

Antony Beevor is a great historian. He is a non-masochist Westerner, and so is misunderstood by many people today.

Something the professor misses, civilians didnt want to evacuate Leningrad because the Germans were shooting at passenger trains.

Thank you, Commander Beevor.

i could hear this gentleman talking about the eastern front for days. thanks for the upload.

Whilst I agree the Russians weren't preparing for a pre-emptive strike. It's strange how hundreds of thousands of Russian troops were in the field when Barbarossa started?

Very interesting and informative speach of A. Beevor and as a historycally interested German I learned a lot. But in one hinsight I have to contradict Mr. Beevor: the Movie 'Holocaust', shown in 1979 when I was a student at Bonn University had only limited impact on the emotional acceptance of German guilt for Nazi mass murder in Germany. The first deep impact had the fact, that allied troups forced German civil population to visit Concentration Camps days after their liberation, with all the corpses of victims still to be seen and the footage of death marches and freshly liberated KZs and forced Labor sites like Birkenau or 'Mittelbau Dora'. This visual evidence was shown in most German movie theatres and the popultion was ordered to attend to these performances. The Nuremberg Tribunals had a mixed effect, as they where seen as 'Siegerjustiz', the tribunal of the victors, a bit of the 'hang the Kaiser' of 1918/19. Next remarkable step was the students movement of 1967/68 and the trial of Adolf Eichmann, which both influenced the minds of a whole young generation, who then asked their parents 'what have you personally done between 1933 and 1945'. The rest did biology, the generation of participants in attrocities and mass murder got very old or had died. But now, with the participants and eywitnesses dead, unfortunately a new generation grew up in Germany, of which more than a few are denying the reality or relevance of what our forefathers did in the 1940ies.

A true pleasure, enjoyed every minute! Thanks for sharing!

This is why i prefer history of antiquity - the emotions are already well cooled.

1.5 million Leningrad residents died during the siege, not "...over 800,000...". Just a correction.

Hardly any of these historians mention the effect of the Soviet war with Japan. When the US started economic embargos of Japan, Japan realized it had to fight the US in order to attack sources of oil in Asia, so it made a peace agreement with Russia. This allowed Stalin to bring troops from it's Eastern front with Japan, just in time to save Moscow. Russian historians claim without these troops Russia could not have been saved. The Germans were less than 50 milies away, and Moscow was a train hub, everything that moved in Russia went through Moscow so Moscow was the key to saving Russia. At the same time that the US was supplying Russians with weapons and wheat, Russia would not help the US in it's war with Russia. Even Doolittle's raiders who accidently landed in Russia were arrested and imprisioned for the duration of the war. It not for the US, Russia would have also had a war with Japan in the East and would have had to split its resources.

You should hear the central European v ersion of this history

26.25 4,5 billion tons of supplies? cite . 26.57 17.5 billion tons of supplies?

Lecturer said that Stalin named Second Wold War as Great Patriotic War. That is not right claim. Every person in USSR and nowadays in Russia considers the World War lol as GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR

Finns always were amazed of the fact that americans would not have russian crews on the supply convoys to Murmansk. There was also a secret notice from Americans: If finns cut the railway to Murmansk, Americans would declare war on Finland, so the raid were merely a show...

Thank you such a enlighten and balance conference.

But will the British ever look in the mirror and acknowledge their own crimes against humanity throughout recent history as the German people have done? Not as long as there is a so-called Sovereign on the throne one thinks. The British Empire upon which the sun never set was not won with a charm offense you know. The death toll of Queen Vicky may very well exceed Stalin's. And yet the silence is STAGGERING.

Great video 😄

Beevor is best when he's talking strictly about WW2. When he veers off to contemporary events, it's like listening to Henry Kissinger. As for the turning point of the war, Albert Speer puts it at November 41, when it was clear that Barbarossa/Typhoon would not lead to the capture of Moscow. Germany was not equipped for a long war. Lend Lease was not a factor at that time. In 41, the Germans had lost a vast number of their elite soldiers, men who were irreplaceable. Without Western aid, the Soviets would have shifted some production from tanks and artillery to the more mundane trucks, locomotives, etc. The fighter aircraft that they got from the US were strictly second rate compared to their own aircraft. I also question whether Khrushchev and Zhukov made the remarks attributed to them.

Outstanding drill-down lecture. Many thanks

He does his best to put the soviets role down, he should keep on trying harder...

'hussars,' and he sounds like it. the soviet role was to suffer massively, while the west watched and approved, then win the war, at which point the west decided to join in, to prevent an entirely soviet europe.

the vital importance of the arctic convoys is often overlooked -particuarly the supply of food, steel and trucks-enabled the soviets to continue BUT why didnt the germans block the railway from murmansk???it must have been vulnerable to air attack at least-if not cutting using the thin waist of finland in the northern centre?

I still think MARITA critically slowed down BARBAROSSA for no other reason that it would have occupied a lot of attention. Military staffs, not unnaturally have a great deal of trouble doing two things at the same time.

I have clear that for anglosphere it is still very hard accept the fact that they did not take Berlin, it is yet something hard to accept for them, even 70 years after the end of the WWII

2:54 is that of pre-war soviet territory and population?

A very good lecture... I enjoyed this...

It's very interesting to hear another perspective on ww2. I learned the history of ww2 in Russia, and at that time did not fully understand the differences in interpretation of the same facts. Even though I can't agree on some of the point made hear it was interesting to listen.

Antony Beevor has written numerous acclaimed histories on matters to do with WWII...put his credibility very much on the line for public, critics and other historians to assess. Yet all along the true historians were lurking in the comments section of RU-vid.....dang, now how to sell my many Beevor books.

Robert DeNiro called and said he wants his thumbnail image back

The chances of success of a Soviet attack in 1941 may have been folly, but nonetheless, the USSR had millions of troops on the border. Any enemy would see that as an imminent threat.

Starts at 2:43

Much as I admire Beevor's work, I feel that I must take issue with the figure of 13000+ Soviet troops executed by the infamous blocking detachments at the Battle of Stalingrad. Given the horrendous shortage of able bodied troops on the western side of the Volga during battle, particularly in the period before the river froze and men needed to be ferried across under fire from German artillery and aircraft, not to mention the period when the river was filled with fast moving ice, preventing almost all attempts to reinforce the city, it is highly unlikely that Chuikov would have been able to spare so many men for the sake of making an example. When you take into account the fact that 62nd and 64th army records clearly show that the blocking detachments and police units had been folded into the combat element early on in the battle due to manpower shortages in front line units, the figure seems even more questionable.

The Russians fought on their land and neighboring countries but no other country in history has ever projected massive military might completely across an ocean, let alone 2 oceans. One of those oceans was crossed against the largest naval power in the world which was supplying and supporting fanatical ground troops who fought to the death. This fact never ceases to amaze me.

A couple of points here worth noting. The Second World War obviously was a collective effort but the Soviet Army performed nearly all of the bloody grinding down of German Wehrmacht divisions until Normandy in 1944. The Soviet Army did much of the fighting with the battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad and Operation Bagration. EACH ONE of these Eastern battles were much larger than the Normandy campaign in the West. So the Soviet Army inflicted around 80 percent of all Axis casualties in the European theater. From 1941 until the end of 1943, the Soviets were responsible for more than 90 percent of casualties inflicted on the German and Axis forces. Lend Lease wasn't a signficant factor until 1943 or after the Battle of Stalingrad. Some British Lend Lease, such as Matilda tanks and Hurricane fighters did help the Soviets in 1941. But what really stopped the Germans were Soviet weapons such as the powerful PTRD antitank rifle, Ppsh-41 submachine guns, Soviet mortars and artillery and increasing numbers of T-60 light tanks, T-34 medium tanks, and KV heavy tanks appearing in late 1941 and 1942. Surviving T-26's and BT series tanks also took part in the fighting in the Moscow campaign. Soviet winter equipment, unkforms, and lubricants were vastly superior to German equipment in minus 30 winter temperatures. The Allied strategic bombing campaign would have been better used for tactical and operational bombing for British and American ground forces invading Marseilles-Toulon in southern France in late 1943 after the North African campaign. Italy could have been invaded from the north by British and some American forces to cut off German divisions in Italy. The southern invasion of France in late 1943 after invading Siciliy, Sardinia and Corsica would have been an enormous success. The German defenses in the sputh of France were marginal. The whole Normandy campaign could have been scaled down or even eliminated. The Allies landing all their forces in Marseilles-Toulon could have marched up the Rhone valley to Lyon and then fought major battles against German Wehrmacht divisions. Had all the Allies airpower supported the Marseilles-Toulon operation with tactical and operational bombing it would have been a big success. Ike's Transportation plan for the Army Air Force could have started many months earlier destroying German resources on railroads, roads, marshalling yards, barges, motorized columns and airfields. The invasion of Southern France in late 1943 was a doable and feasible operation because the Germans only had a few under strength divisions in the south of France. The Vichy government would have folded after the first few days of an invasion, offering only token or no resistance to the British and Americans. It could have helped the Soviets a little bit earlier and would have been a better expenditure of resources than the air campaign over Germany. The air campaign over Germany didn't really accomplish much except kill lots of American and British airmen. Until the American Mustang fighter came off of the assembly lines bombing Germany was a losing proposition for the Allies.

Fantastic lecture and great Q&A. I guess a lot of Russian viewers felt insulted, I know it's a bit different culture but I hope most of them understands critique is aimed not at Russian nation, that was first great victim of bolshevism and communism, not people that went or were sent to fight for their faith, land, families and race, but evil regime that was causing that harm to them and neighbour countries.

Excellent. Thanks for sharing this.

4:58 occupying border The alliance was not fully 'unnatural' 5:01 or at that particular point, it was disbelief partly at the pace/possibility

a very good lecture,will have to look more at your work

this gentleman and his fantastic books, is literally all you need to write about the war as a student. highschool teachers should have all his books available to students.

It's very clear that the Soviet Union was most responsible for the defeat of Germany. Any neutral observer would come to this conclusion.

W hat about Mark Solonin and Viktor Suvorov books?

did he speak of Stalin's purge of many of the officers?

Great, I've just discovered the subject of my A-Level History coursework on whether Stalin had been planning a preemptive strike is a Neo-Nazi conspiracy theory... At-least my conclusion didn't agree with the theory. Thanks Beevor, you couldn't have told me this 11 years ago.

The title of the video and of the speech it shows is "The Soviet Role in World War II".Yet in his forty minutes speech, Antony Beevor, talks about almost everything BUT the role of the Soviet Union during WW II.Yes, he gives a very brief, too much if you ask me, timeline of the Eastern Front, but even that is incomplete.I would expect to listen about the significance of the battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, about operation Bagration e.t.c., but almost none of this is here.The only fact that he gives about the role of USSR in WW II, is that most of German casualties occurred in eastern front.On one hand, yes, that says a lot about the role of USSR in WW II.On the other, something just doesn't seems right.He is very intelligent, has too good and in depth knowledge of history and he is very good in the use of the English language, both in speech and writings, in order to believe that accidentally gave a speech about the role of USSR in WW II, without in fact saying almost nothing about the role of USSR in WW II.Historians usually like to cite facts, dates, important "timestamps" if you prefer, especially during the limited time of a speech, still, none of this exists in his speech.As i wrote previously, something just doesn't seems right. P.S. To avoid any misconceptions, i am from Hellas.I have read his book about the battle of Stalingard.And finally, i would be extremely curious to listen a speech about the role of the British Empire during WW II by Anthony Beevor or "ο νοών νοείτω" (translated it means "who is able to understand, understands") as we say in Hellas.Thanks, it was a very enlightening video, though probably not in the way Anthony Beevor would prefer.

Generally like the lecture. One point I disagree very strongly is that Stalin did not plan to fight Hitler. He did, that not the " rubbish " at all. And Stalin finally achieved his goal: conquer the Europe, if not all Europe, huge chunk of it. Same goal set up by Putin now. Do not believe? See what happens in next 3-5 years.

Sir Antony is one of true legends of the historian community. As a resident of a former colony of the British Empire, there is a lot of (perhaps justified, perhaps not) resentment over it that leads a lot of the people here to glorify the Soviets' (& Stalin's) role in defeating the Germans, similar to the sort of idiocy in which the Russian Putin worshippers, as well as people dumb enough to worship Putin elsewhere, are currently engaged. (Or they make excuses for the Axis. Anything to avoid giving credit to the hated Empire). The simple historical fact is that the Soviets were getting crushed until the Western Allies rescued them by supplying tons and tons of weapons, raw material and finished goods, including rudimentary gear like combat boots & radios. Britain & the US transformed what was the most primitive, ill-equipped & starving army in the world, into one that was actually a match for the Wehrmacht. I've also read that they didn't necessarily have to do this to the extent to which they did. They could have rolled it back a little, just enough to allow the Wehrmacht and the Red Army to obliterate each other somewhere within Russia. I think Poland & the Baltic states would have appreciated that, would have saved them a lot of grief. Not to mention all of the German women who fell victim to the Red Army's orc-like savagery, which is not very different form the behavior we're seeing today in Ukraine. FDR's delusions regarding the USSR, as well as erroneous estimation of it being morally superior to the British Empire (which today is a laughable proposition) weigh heavily upon the history of Eastern Europe, and a lot of the rest of the world.

I'd like to hear the thoughts of Max Hastings on Mr. Beevor's speech.

Notice that he uses German casualty figures to dispute Soviet figures. He's a modern cold warrior, not a historian. Pointing out Stalin's faults is easy work. Understanding the Soviet defeat of Germany can't be honestly done using the distortions coming out of German, Soviet, British, and American versions of the Eastern Front. Recent work is for the first time assembling an objective if still partial account of what's been a very politicized historical account.

For the shiny-headed gammon at 50:20. Perhaps he should pose his incredulity to those closer to home before questioning Russians.

Hmm. I do seriuosly doubt his exact mortality figures. Sure, there are lists but considering the mayhem going around at the time it can only be approx. estimates.

As a Czechoslovakian, I was taught the same Russian propaganda in school. There were only two lines in the history book about the Western Front during World War II. When I asked about it, my teacher told me that the Western Front wasn't important to defeat Germany. Luckily, a couple of weeks later, the book 'Eye of the Needle' written by Ken Follett came into my hands. When I started digging deeper in the library about World War II, I discovered the truth and my interest in military history began. I am now 60 years old and have been living in the UK for over 15 years, and history was the only reason I started learning English.

In one hand, the US encouraged Soviet invasion of Manchuria at Yalta conference, and in the other hand, the US denied Japan's Invasion of Manchuria (for its self-defense against Soviet expansion) and severely criticized Japan during 1930s, started economic warfare to stragle Japan, keep hostile attitude leading up tp the hull-note, which triggered Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. The end-result was Korean War in which the US lost another 35,000 GIs IF the US understood Japan's standpoint about Manchuria correctly, the US and Japan did not fight each other and we had tracked different course of history.

Stalin had done not only political genocide, but ethnic one as well.

Just finished reading Beevor's Stalingrad book. Easily one of the best military histories of all time.

Sir Antony gave a very incisive lecture on an involved subject. Fascinating, thank you..

Why did England and France declare war to Germany and not to the USSR. They both invaded Poland

Leave it to Beevor!

Antony Beevor's _Stalingrad_ was the first of his books that I read and found it an excellent read about that protracted, agonizing battle. Beevor writes a good war history, no two ways about it.

I'm re-reading "Stalingrad" now and what strikes me most is Beevor's bias which boils down to this: Stalingrad was a struggle of German bronzed demi-gods who "looked like athletes from Nazi propaganda film" fighting Russian drunk cannon fodder. The bias is subtle, it's in his choice of words, in his description of the German and Russian officers and many other things. Read it carefully and you'll see what I mean. It makes me wonder which side would Beevor rather see winning this battle. And on a factual note: After the war sergeant Jakob Pavlov, the Hero of the Soviet Union, never "became Archimandrite Kyrill in the monastery at Sergievo". Also he could not be, according to Beevor, "very frail" at the time of his writing "Stalingrad". Pavlov died a good communist and a 3-time deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1981, 17 years before the book was published. A history book is as good as its single inaccuracy.

Boris Pasternak was a pretty fair Russian novelist and poet to come out of the Stalinist period.