Konstantin Rokossovsky was the guy that planned Operation Bagration and insisted for multiple breakthroughs. The rest of the Soviet high command was against this, but Stalin went with Rokossovsky's plan after telling him to think about it three times. On the fourth time, Stalin said "your confidence speaks for your sound judgement".
Rokossovsky gets no love from popular military history. That guy had balls of neutron star material. I wish I could get my hands on his book, 'A Soldiers Duty.' Old dusty copies are going for like, $600.
Troops from the following fronts took part in Operation Bagration: General I. Kh. Bagramyan, commander of the 1st Baltic Front, General I. D. Chernyakhovsky, commander of the 3rd Belorussian Front, General G. F. Zakharov, commander of the 2nd Belorussian Front, Marshal K.K. Rokossovsky commander of the 1st Belorussian Front, Marshal G.K. Zhukov coordinator of the 1st and 2nd Belorussian Fronts, Marshal A.M. Vasilevsky coordinator of the 3rd Belorussian and 1st Baltic Fronts, general A.I. Antonov representative of the Supreme High Command Headquarters - development of an operation plan. Marshal Rokossovsky was a talented military leader, his front played an important role in the defeat of the Germans in Belarus, but he only carried out the plan that was developed by Headquarters. Victory always has many faces.
This is a myth from Rokossovsky memoirs. No other evidence about it. The latest declassified documents confirms that A.I.Antonov was the main figure that planned Bagration.
This story is Rokossovsky's own self-aggrandizement post war that he wrote into his memoirs. Records of military councils on planning operation 'Bagration' show entirely opposite story where Rokossovsky was arguing for a single powerful attack by his front but was forced to change his mind during the debates on the subject.
The irony being that you can make a case that when the Soviets rolled over the Japanese in Manchuria in August 1945 that that was the greatest military defeat of all time in a single contained battle. The Soviets conquered an area the size of Western Europe in 10 days while suffering almost no discernible casualties. Getting back to Bagration and the destruction of Army Group Centre, the Soviets had the Germans so confused it took the Germans four days to realize that Minsk was the key objective. By then their front had been shattered.
And during that entire operation, the Soviets destroyed and captured the entire Kwantung Army, the general and largest Army Group in the Imperial Japanese Army, with more than 700,000 soldiers.
The Kwantung Army was stripped of air support and supplies which were needed in the Pacific and Japan. The Japanese navy had ceased to exist and no supplies could be shipped back from Japan.
I would think losing your entire Army twice in 6 months as the Soviet Union did in 1941 would trump this minor skirmish. Russia lost more troops in WWII than all the Axis countries, the US, the British commonwealth and France combined. Never let anyone tell you Russia won WWII. At the start of that war Russians made up 7% of the world population. Now they are little more than 1%. They have never recovered from the war they helped start.
The German dispositions were the greatest reason for this catastrophic defeat. By holding themselves deep inside Belorussia, with their AG South already pushed into Poland and Romania, the entire front of AG Center screamed "encirclement". Hitler rejected a repeat plan from early 1943, Operation "Buffel" (Buffalo), where Ninth Army had successfully pulled out of the Rzehv salient, freeing some twenty-five divisions and considerably shortening their front. This plan would have withdrawn almost all of AG Center behind the Berezina River; leaving only a screening force that would have orders to "bug out" once the Soviets struck, having them waste their artillery on "hitting air", blown all bridges, and waited for the Soviets to cross, counter-attacking their bridgeheads as they formed. The eventual plan would have been to make a fighting withdraw towards the Bug and Niemen rivers, taking the sting out of the Soviet's overwhelming superiority in men, artillery, and armor. This might have saved enough men and equipment to hold the "Ostwall", and have the Soviet Army exhaust itself trying to invade Central Europe. At this point, all hope of a strategic victory that'd restore the initiative to the Germans was gone; all they could do was hold out and sue for a favorable peace, and hope the Allied-Soviet alliance would fall apart. It should be kept in mind that the Allied forces in "Overlord" were largely contained in Normandy, the going through the "Bocage country" was slow and COSTLY. The Soviet success in Bagration meant that all reserves left, and there weren't a lot, had to go East in order to stop the Soviets from stomping right through Poland and onto Berlin itself right then and there; NONE could go to the West! Of course, between Monty and Bradley, the German forces of OB West were finally ground down, and even a desperate counter-attack at Mortain, in response to Patton's breakthrough into Brittany once US Third Army was ineffectual; only HASTENING their own catastrophe in France. It should be kept in mind that the follow-up from Bagaration could, in theory, have ended up with the Soviet forces in eastern Germany itself by autumn of 1944. There were several problems with that: (1) The doomed forces in the various "fortresses" did, in general, hold out until their supplies were exhausted, before what was left surrendered, denying critical road junctions that hampered the Soviet advances more than German resistance on the front itself. (2) Many German soldiers did manage to escape both the Soviet Army and the numerous partisans; capture by the former meant going to a POW camp with a poor chance of survival; survival of capture by Soviet partisans meant almost certain death. Still, it took awhile before these men could be restored to health and assigned to a combat unit; many were no longer fit for front-line duty. (3) The Soviet army had still not entirely solved its ineffectiveness in sustaining the logistics of a long drive, despite them now having American-made Dodge and Studebaker trucks as well as M4 medium tanks. Many Soviet tank divisions were stalled for lack of fuel and shells with practically no Germans in front of them. (4) General Model was expert at defensive warfare; he held back his panzers until the lines stabilized, then used them for counter-attacks which typically caught the Soviets off-balance. Indeed, just as they were about to take Warsaw on July 31, 1944, three SS-panzer divisions launched a riposte from the Narew river, and forced Zhukov to withdraw his main forces about thirty-five miles to meet them. This was part of WHY the Soviets "betrayed" the Polish Home Army that rose up against the Germans that day; they were afraid of their over-extension costing them dearly, as similar experience had revealed previously. Letting the Germans deal with those "pesky" Poles of the AK, who the Soviets didn't want in power after the war anyway, was also a factor. (5) The progress against Army Group North, in trying to break into the "Baltic States", was unsatisfactory. Also, and infuriatingly, the main defenders weren't German at all, being a hodgepodge of European, East, West, and North volunteers, led primarily by German officers, but, again, many non-German "Nazis" were in charge of their countrymen. Their motivation wasn't so much Nazism as it was to keep the Soviets out of THEIR respective countries, especially the Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians. This Stalin would NOT tolerate; he wanted the Baltic states back, and was willing to commit whatever it took, which took nearly a whole year as AG North held out in "Kurland" until war's end. (6) There were political and ECONOMIC objectives to the South, particularly to take Romania, which had long been a thorn in the Soviet side, out of the war, and establish Soviet hegemony in the Balkans before the British could come back. Most of Yugoslavia was effectively under control of Tito's partisans anyway, with Germany having a grip on the larger cities and desperately trying to hold the rail lines and roads. The anti-partisan work was so bad that German soldiers had the option of requesting a transfer, to the EASTERN front, and there was a WAITING LIST. This would also strip the Germans of their supplies of petroleum; which, of course, would fairly much doom their war effort. So, taking Romania out of the war, and entering Hungary, and linking up with Tito's forces, was a higher priority than further advances in Poland. The Soviets facing AG Center contended themselves with building their supply network, including converting the rail lines to the broad Russian gauge, and reinforcing their numerous bridgeheads over the Vistula, Narew, and San rivers, which would help them in the "VIstula-Oder" offensive of January 1945.
Always remember the man who wasn’t there. General Heinrici, the defensive specialist, warned that a major offensive was coming, and he wanted to shorten his lines and form reserves for counterattacks. For this, he was relieved by the Grofaz, and would only be brought back at the end to try and save Berlin.
To be fair, when was the last summer without ANY major offensive by either sides on Eastern Front? Given that German had lost the initiative in the East after Kursk, it didn't take a "defensive specialist" to say the Soviets were going to attack. And when an offensive was coming, the last thing the German commanders need was their infantries leaving their trenches, turning around with their back facing Soviet tanks and troops. Secondly, shortening the lines for the German defenders also shortened the lines for the Soviets as well, and in strategic sense, the Germans giving up a major Soviet city would allow the Soviets to take and expand massively their own manpower with the free cities without any causalties while the German got nothing in return. Any potential defensive advantages in terms of less thinner lines would be offset by the same offensive advantage Soviet would received, in the end achieving little in strategic sense while only running the risks of surprise attack and wasting time and fuel during moving the German troops.
@@sthrich635 i think the point was that this specific “defensive specialist” wanted to focus on counter attacking breakthroughs instead of holding firm. German doctrine and supply heavily favored this type of strategy and it had a lot of success for them previously. Although they may not have had all the personnel or resources to do this imo it would have been a better method to slow the soviets down. High command never wanted to give up ground however and fighting to the last man had some strategic success but over time it decimated their numbers
@@zoogie980 Except during summer 1944 Army Group Center didn't have sufficient proper counter-attacking forces available - most Panzer forces were in the West, and it mostly contains unmotorized infantry divisions - they were simply too slow to react to the mechanized Soviet tank armies breaking through their lines, imagine foot soldiers with a bunch of horses trying to catch up platoons of T-34. And such tactics would decimate the German forces even more - rather than German infantries fighting tooth and nails in the trenches and taking a few Soviets with them, they would be charging and dying in open fields in pure WW1 style. And how would German doctrine and supply possibly even favor such strategy? In 1944 the biggest bottleneck on German operations/tactics were fuel, and fuel translate to mobility. In other words, German doctrine favor LESS mobility operations instead of mobility-heavy ones such as giving ground then counterattacking to take back (that would be a two way trip, imagine the fuel cost - if it succeed at all). Not surprising that High Command got better awareness on the economy and supply of their own country that a general spending most of his time looking at maps.
@@Thompson123-ih4uh Not many empires would last long when the forces of international finance are able to manipulate the worlds most powerful countries into fighting against their own interests
Ya know what's crazy? Growing up in America, in school we were always taught that the Soviets "contributed" to Nazi Germany's defeat, but it was always assumed America and the Western Allies did the most work. The Eastern front is basically just mentioned and I never fathomed just how monumental and important the war in the east was. They, by far, played the biggest role in Germany's defeat.
And the 14,000 airplanes donated to the Soviets? What impact would you evaluate it had for the soviets? Or the 13,000 tanks? or the 400,000 jeeps and trucks? There's more, you can look up the rest yourself if you want.
@@Marcelo_DBZ_Music The irony is that the Soviets and their Nazi friends literally initiated WW2 when they invaded Poland and split it between them. The Soviets planned and started WW2 along side Hitler and the Nazi's, they were partners in crime.
Another thing to note about the casualties is that whilst they were a lot higher for the Soviets, the majority of these men could be treated and returned to the frontline. Of the 700,000 casualties, many would’ve been caused by sickness from the swampy conditions of the Pripyat Marshes, and these men would quickly get better with rest and treatment. For the Germans however, most casualties were suffered through the encirclements, meaning even if lightly wounded a soldier would be captured and thus couldn’t return to the fight later on. These German losses were permanent, whereas soviet losses were often temporary.
Most of the Soviet deaths were not in battlefields, but from starvation, torture and execution as prisoners, including the civilians murdered in occupied and besieged areas. There's a very simple reason why Stalin got his way without a societal collapse and that was the fact a much worse fate awaited in the other side.
@@naervern2107 And that Stalin was actually a very well liked leader and very competent at his job. The soviet peoples were on board with the project that was the USSR. Do not mistake western anti-communist propaganda with actual history... Ludo Martens "Antoher View of Stalin" is pretty elightening.
The chap doing the main narration is an excellent choice for the work, and having a little accent certainly adds to the nature of the intentionality of the topic. The presentation of the on camera person is also top quality. Another solid video.
The transformation of the Red Army showed after early 1942 is fantastic. Their "deep battle" operations have always fascinated me. "Blitzkrieg" stopped working after the dashing victories of the 1939-41; Soviet deep battle tactics marked the period of war between 1942-45. Also, thanks to all Soviet soldiers for their sacrifices fighting fascism and imperialism. And thanks the Museum for this informative video!
>fighting fascism and imperialism >turns all of eastern Europe into a collection of satellite states and force them to use centrally planned economies hindering their development by decades loool
Well... the Soviets were and pretty much still are very aimed at conquest and empire building. And fascists and communists come from pretty much the same background. The war was not over in '41, but after Hitler betrayed the Russians (with whom he invaded Poland and started WW2 with) and certainly when Hitler declared war on the USA following Pearl Harbor, the Germans were doomed. No more blitzkrieg when you don't have fuel for the army. Plus the overstretched logistics.
The Russians basically had unlimited manpower and materials. In pretty much every battle, the casualty rate was around 4-1. The German Generals and Field Marshalls were the real geniuses, and it would've been scary to think what they would've been capable of if men, materials, and fuel weren't always huge issues. These so called amazing Russian offensives were just German tactics with overwhelming amounts of everything.
@@Agtsmirnoff The rollout of the t-34 was a big deal at the time, although I agree that by 1944 it was old news. Don't forget that the true genius of the t-34 was the ease of production... so while the sloped armor wasn't technically new, the production techniques that allowed the soviets (and the USA) to produce thousands of them was more unexpected. It was enough to cause alarm in the Nazi ranks and an immediate switch to the design for future production.
@@SuperNintendawg the T34 wasn't particularly cheap or easy to make, but the soviets managed to make an expensive tank cheaply by making it very poorly. The T34s that fought in ww2 were absolutely terrible
I did a tour of the wider area in September 2018. Minsk, Belarus was amazing with some great museums. The Khatyn Memorial Complex was a sombre experience.
Yes, it is very strange that the Soviet-German battlefield, which was the main battlefield of World War II, is almost never mentioned by Western media.
It's a shame the Red Army's capabilities late in the war get completely overshadowed by earlier disasters. They sure proved able to re-learn their trade.
Kursk and Stalingrad take all the Eastern Front's attention. You'll be lucky to find someone that even knows about the multiple battles for Kharkov. Army Group Center's devastation was a sucking chest wound. Anyways, Operation Overlord went down and very soon after, Bagration. Axis losses piling up from the disasters in France and out East, on top of the Italian meat grinder, and a bloody partisan war in Yugoslavia (over 100k German troops were there in 1944), it was just too much. There were still scores of German troops in places like Norway. The Allies had true strategic coordination and mutually supported each other, not just with material aid. The Axis never stood a chance.
Or was it that the Germans and Japanese were unsupplied, deprived of air support and stretched too thin by allied air superiority. Imagine if all those tens of thousands of 88s defending Germany's skies were shredding T34s like they did in 1941 and 42.
It's also a misconception that red army was complete disaster. Hitler started the invasion of USSR the same day Napoleon did when he invaded Russia a century before because he wanted to prove the world he was the greatest military leader in modern history. The USSR did the same thing to the nazis as Russia did to Napoleon troops. Stalin had the decision to let nazis sink in their territory to stretch german front lines and supply lines. They knew they were inferior in technology and their aim was to use overwhelming firepower and manpower to overcome the nazis after they were deep in USSR territory. Hitler himself had that conversation with Finland leader recorded in a train when he confesses that he would not imagine USSR had industrial facilities pouring out tanks in a scale no other country could do at that time. Stalin was doing it in the Urals, at the far east and german intelligence only knew athat after Stalingrad and Kursk. From the strategic sphere Stalin had control over the war against Germany. It was Germany that got frustrated with their advance in soviet territory had not major gains, because soviets were evacuating their cities and burning it to the ground. It was the only way the soviets could win the war was to handle huge losses. It was USSR plan since the begining. Their stretegic plan worked as they thought...because when nazis got into Stalingrad Stalin said to fight until the last man...and all after that is history!
I know right, can never get enough of learning more about ww2. The scale of the war is just completely mind boggling. A million soldiers here a million soldiers there etc.
I'm absolutely loving these videos! Great work IWM for putting together such professional documentaries and involving actual members of staff in the presenter roles.
The follow-up operations would be as devastating. Group North would be cut off and isolated for the rest of the war in the baltic states. Group South would be encircled and destroyed, enabling Romania and Bulgaria to swap sides against Germany and cutting their access to Romanias oil.
We have to start calling the "Soviet Union" for what it really was -- the combination of the greatest contributors, Ukraine and Belarus, with the Canada/USA supported Russians a tier below, and the other unfortunately dominated republics as well. You know this is true.
@@MultiCappie ukraine and Belarus were occupied for 3 years. The bulk of ukrainian and belarussian casualties were civilians killed by nazis. This does not make even sense, the russians were 75% of the red army, the majority of the industry was in the RSFSR. Saying that Ukraine and Belarus were the real "heroes" is pure historical revisionism. On lend lease, sure it was really useful al togistical level and not letting the population starve but the main part started arriving late, in 1943. And the USSR exported tons and tons of materials to the Allies. And the only reason the japanese army surrendered was for the invasion of Manchuria (japanese army, not the japanese state)
@@MultiCappieIf it was just Ukraine and Belarus the war would have been lost never mind the fact that most Ukrainian and Belarusian land was occupied by the Germans for a good chunk of the war the USSR was a union of states and everyone had to give something for the war effort even Mongolia which was not part of the USSR sent thousands of soldiers and tons of foodstuffs to the USSR for the war so no neither Ukraine nor Belarus get so say that did most since the entire union was doing something for the war.
@@thegamerv2346 First, thanks for straw-manning my argument, that just never gets old, but second: And if it were "only Russia" - no input from USA/Canada, Ukraine, and Belarus? What then? Go ahead, embarrass yourself.
A great video, despite some minor details (T-34 front armor was sloped since it was initially designed), about the worst defeat the german army suffered in the II World War, and the greatest victory for the Red Army. It was a masterclass in war tactics (the greatest maskirovka operation in history), organization and strategic planning, and the ultimate victory in military doctrine for the soviets. Glory for the soldiers and the armies of generals and marshals like Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Vasilievsky and others.
11:58 Apparently 5th Panzer Division claimed 295 Soviet AFVs destroyed including 128 by the 505th Heavy Panzer Battalion Tigers, while losing basically all the 29 Tigers they had there plus 107 of 125 Panzer IVs and Panthers. Actual soviet losses are unknown though, and according to armor historian Steve Zaloga, rampant overclaim and double counting in such battles led to Fremde Heere Ost (German Eastern Intelligence Branch) usually reduced such claims by about 50% to get a better picture of enemy losses. 15:20 That Lvov-Sandomierz offensive in the south deserves just as much attention as Bagration IMO. Even reduced, AG North Ukraine still had far more formidable artillery, arnor, and air support than AG Centre and as such, was a more formidable threat. 1st Ukrainian Front had to pull out all the stops, including some very unorthodox uses of infantry and armor, to win the day. 17:30 It should be noted that the Soviet number includes 300000-500000-ish wounded or ill but not taken out of action. Total permanent losses (killed and missing) was roughly 180000. High losses but compared to the German loss of150000 captured and 150000-225000 killed or missing, the numbers were definitely in the Soviet favor by this point in the war.
those tanks were not lost as Soviet tanks from prior years were "lost". Thing is that Germans had been able to control the battlefield in previous battles (many of them). That meant only the crews had been lost and the tanks were salvaged and repaired. In this battle USSR controlled the battlefield and restored a lot of the tanks.
@@maxmagnus777And for Germany it was reversed, their previous losses were oftentimes recoverable as long as they controlled the battlefield and when the red army started pushing faster and faster it went down the drain, many German tanks were immobilized, abandoned and captured during their retreats.
@@Levon_RnD Yes, if you've watched ANNA TV from Syria. Tanks with GoPro. They are clearing areas from ISIS. They've lost some tanks and used them later on. Even today, when the tech is far more advanced salvaged tanks can be brought back to life. That is why in Ukraine they use artillery to "double tap" the damaged tanks all the time.
It's 2024, 80 years since all this happened. Can I ask, why bother? Why bother with accuracy? Your estimate of Soviet wounded has a variation of 200,000. History when at war is bollocks and wars are too. Every Soldier alive only want to salute the real men who stop war from ever happening. All the other salutes are forced salutes.
We also have to start calling the "Soviet Union" for what it really was -- the combination of the greatest contributors, Ukraine and Belarus, with the Canada/USA supported Russians a tier below, and the other unfortunately dominated republics individually as well. You know this is true.
Great video! Sadly, most Americans are clueless about the sacrifices Russia made during WWII. I'd never heard of operation Bagration, and I've been a WWII scholar since childhood and a collector of Soviet militaria and esoterica for the last 30 years-John in Texas
The Soviets would not have had to make such sacrifices if they had not allied with the Germans from 1939 through 1941, if they had not cynically rampaged over Poland and the Baltics, if they had not attempted to bully the Finns, and above all if the paranoid and murderous Dzhugashvili had not slaughtered so many in his own military AND ignored all the warning signs that Operation Barbarossa was on the way! It's just sickening that so many individuals paid for the Red Czar's follies with their own lives while he endured...
@@ColinWrubleski-eq5shPoland mistake was to occupy russian land at the time of russian civil war. They later got the bill for that. The finnic dictator had big country fantasies, and were lucky the Soviet Union made peace with them
@@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh Stalin would not have done this if Britain had not told Stalin to fk off when Stalin wanted to made this arrangement with Britain first !
Operation Bagration was a massive campaign and rather prominent (in academic history rather than popular culture), so it's quite surprising you never heard of it if you were really a WW2 "scholar" from young.
Just one small additional tidbit...... sometime toward or at the end of Bagration a flask or two of sea water was flown back to Moscow and presented to Stalin. He was incredulous and overjoyed when told the flask(s) contained seawater from the Baltic.
Shortly after the Soviets reached the Baltic Sea, the Germans counter attacked and drove the Soviet forces off the Baltic coast which was also around the time the bottles reached Stalin; he then requested that the generals pour the water back in the same spot they collected it :)
yes, I heard they did that because Stalin refused to believe they were on the coast, (I heard it was 3 bottles,..but who will really know after all these years)
My grandpa was a 22 year old lieutenant of artillery controlling 5 M30 Howitzers in this operation. Part of 56th howitzer regiment. The orders were very strict - you had to shoot ALL your ammo and on SPECIFIC time. If you missed ONE shot you were court-martialed. You could not move around in trenches during the day, the only movement was during the night. He got 2 red stars along the way. One for hand to hand combat when German 18th tank division got surrounded and tried to escape under Dobryneno, Belarus and one after flanking Germans with a radio and calling an artillery strike on 2 BTRs new Yuzefovo, Belarus.
I love your content. With great respect to both narrators, could it be possible if you only keep one narrator? I feel in between narration breaking the immersion and feeling a bit weird.
Hard to feel sorry for those Nazi PoW's considering the vile, horrible treatment of Soviet PoWs already in 1941, when they were deliberately starved in open air concentration camps without access to any amenities. 1 million Soviets starved in those first 6 months of the invasion. Backe's Hunger Plan was truly despicable.
"Hard to feel sorry for those Nazi PoW's considering the vile, horrible treatment of Soviet PoWs already " 1st) Soviets usually were not vaccined which is one big factor for the high death rate of Soviet PoWs. 2nd) The USSR didn´t sign the Geneva convention. It´s a bit stupid to complain about my enemy didn´t abide by the rule of law while myself ignoring the rule of law.
@@kodor1146 What utter nonsense. You can't vaccinate against starvation, or exposure. Try vaccinating against dysentry. Further, are you saying Germany hadn't signed? Because if they had, they were obligated. Additionally, the Soviets offered to abide by the Hague Convention, if Germany did. The Finns managed to treat Soviet prisoners better, and they didn't have the whole of Europe to plunder for food. The OKW suggested they abide by the Hague Convention during the planning, but Hitler intervened. Thereof the Hunger Plan. So your argument falls very flat. It was a deliberate act to starve, actually murder, by a despicable regime. Please stop making excuses for them.
@@kodor1146 the Soviets offered to abide by the Geneva protocols, but Germany declined.... The OKW suggested in the planning stage, but Hitler thought better. Thereof the despicable hunger plan.
@@bastikolaski8111 "the Nazis were warcriminals. The Soviet Union was to nice to them" That´s not entirely true in fact most of the stuff the Germans did during WW2, for example mass shootings in the context of partisan warfare were in fact in accordance with the rule of law by that time.
I studied in Minsk in 1977, and our group visited the Great Patriotic War Museum there. Some earlier versions of the T-34 were more square-on at the front. The improvements came later.
(11:27) Huh, interesting to hear the Berezina river and Barysaw (Borisov) mentioned. This was the site of a famous battle in November 1812, between Napoleon's Grande Armée and the Imperial Russian Army, as Napoleon was retreating. It was a disaster. Lots of people and materiel fell into the icy waters as pontoons and bridges collapsed or thin ice cracked. Napoleon's army took 20-30k casualties, the Russians ~10k, and maybe 30k more non-combatants casualties were also recorded. There are famous paintings about it, like _Crossing the Berezina River_ by Peter von Hess. At least in 1944 the battles in this area happened during the summer, but I wonder how many of those fighting there realized what had happened close by 132 years earlier.
You are wrong. The Battle of the Berezina River was a French victory that allowed Napoleon and many of his troops to escape to the west. In fact, los_ses were heavy on both sides (especially for the Grande Armée).
@DinkyDoughnut Not only in Britain. Due to the Cold War, the West was uneducated about the Soviet sacrifices. For instance, so little is still being taught about the battle of Stalingrad.
There's no question that the Soviets contributed greatly to allied victory, but lets not pretend that the western allies didn't do the bulk of the work, not always on the frontlines, but in logistics, intelligence and other support.
It must be noted however that the plot of the operation was developed by colonel-general Antonov. He was the true mastermind of Bagration. Antonov was the deputy head of the General Staff. Nominally the head of the General Staff was Marshal Vasilevskiy but he was mainly one of Stavka's representatives at the frontline (it was a unique post not comparable to any of the western armies). And the bulk of the work in the General Staff was done by Antonov.
Finally a detailed video about Soviet operations of WW2 without the cold war era propaganda stuffed in every 30 seconds (human wave myth, treating the soviet troops as mindless slaves etc.) Very rare these days to see an actual objective view of the Eastern front that is also this well researched and narrated.
With huge forests and swamps.The terrain was very difficult.I would imagine that many German Units just panicked.Either they couldn't put up resistance or escape was difficult because of the terrain.Most German Units at this point of the war had fewer vehicles.So escape on foot would be the only option with Partisans everywhere.
Maskirovka is not only camouflage , that's only half , the other half is reinforcing them in their illusions of where the major blow would fall the German could see that four full tank armies were in south Ukraine , which they were , that was a very obvious threat they didn't see that there was a massive secret build up in Belorussia
The only disagreement I had with this was I would have put the battle of Kursk as the battle that turned the tide of war in Europe. The single largest battle in history and the biggest tank battle in history also the biggest loss of aircraft. It was the last offensive the German army had before being forced into defensive positions. Operation Bagration would never been achievable if the soviets had not won the battle of Kursk. That’s just my opinion and I also wanted to say I thoroughly enjoyed this video and the history behind it.
We have to start calling the "Soviet Union" for what it really was -- the combination of the greatest contributors, Ukraine and Belarus, with the Canada/USA supported Russians a tier below, and the other unfortunately dominated republics as well. You know this is true.
@@lyndoncmp5751 75% of the German army was in the east, Rommel was using cobbled together tanks from Italy and what was left of his panzers. I don’t think hitler gave a damn about the afrika corp. Good call on Stalingrad. I forgot it took place a year before Kursk.
@@ericnickerson1060British and Commonwealth forces winning at El Alamein ensured Germany and Italy could not take the Suez Canal and Middle East oil and decided that Turkey would not join the Axis. North Africa was crucial geographically and resources. Germany spent 2/3 of its WW2 expenditure and material resources on its air and sea forces and these were largely in the west. Already by the end of 1942 only 25% of German fighters were on the Eastern Front. The overwhelming vast majority of German Army divisions on the Eastern Front were second rate, non mechanised, poorly equipped horse drawn rabble because Germany pumped most of its resources into the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine. The USSR would probably have lost in 1942 without the west.
Thanks Helen for an excellent podcast. The graphics, narrative and footage worked very well. Also, a useful reminder of the sacrifices made by the Red Army in defeating the Wehrmacht. For most of the war they were up against 75% of it. It is shocking that so little is known about this battle in the West. 1:53
Tim Bouverie, "The opening months of Operation Barbarossa (the code name for the invasion of the Soviet Union) produced some of the most spectacular victories in German history. Vast territories were conquered; whole armies captured. Yet by the end of it the Red Army had not been destroyed and Russia remained undefeated. This was the crucial point. Hitler’s plan rested on bringing the Soviet Union to its knees in one swift summer campaign. His failure to achieve this meant not only doom for his Russian adventure but, ultimately, for the Nazi state itself. As the leading German industrialist Fritz Todt explained to the Führer on November 29, 1941: “This war can no longer be won by military means.”
What the germans did to the people of the places they occupied in Eastern Europe is beyond imagination, they were not treated like France. I missed you talking about that. It is necessary to educate people about the sacrifices they made. I worry about the relativization of this sacrifice by the western media, relativizing the sacrifice of the soviets is relativizing the evil they faced. Their victory was good for humanity.
Nice try pushing Soviet propaganda. The Soviet regime was solely responsible for the suffering of the Soviet citizens. Their huge casualties happened thanks to Soviet regime incomplete leadership
@cachorrovinagre2979 honestly do you think any big army was nice during wars? The british, usa, russia germany, ottomans, mespotamians, romans, french, spanish (lets not forget what they did in south america) all were brutal unfortunately that is part of war it is either conquer or be conwuered. People like you are so soft these days life is way to good and comfortable for you. Really always about educate go do your own research and see if your country has a clean bum or not.
It is odd that the standard narrative includes Stalingrad, El-Alamein and D-day, but leaves out the single most decisive operation in the war, Bagration. I cannot say that I am too happy with Stalin ending up dominating Eastern Europe, including Poland(!), but the fact remains. This video is very enlightening, historically speaking.
I would say the standard narrative was Stalingrad, El Alamein, and Midway/Guadalcanal. By the time Operation Bagration rolled around, the Axis powers had long lost any hope of claiming victory. So no, it's not the most decisive battle of the war.
@@lowdpacks7874 Perhaps, but I meant the list of battles I mentioned to be more of a visible turning point in the war; an indicator the tide had turned against the Axis powers, not necessarily the scale or impact the battles had on the war.
"If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war," he wrote in his memoirs. "One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me." -Nikita Khrushchev
@MrVlad12340 In 1963, KGB monitoring recorded Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov saying: "People say that the Americans didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own. Ridiculous, we would have been overwhelmed by Hitler."
@MrVlad12340 Without U.S. supplies, the Soviet war effort would have been futile. America supplied Stalin with 400,000 trucks, 2,000 locomotives, more than 10,000 rail rolling stock and billions of dollars' worth of warplanes, tanks, food and clothing. At the same time, the U.S. also supplied nearly a quarter of Britain’s munitions. “We were lucky to have America as an ally,” Russian historian Anatoly Razumov told VOA recently. He said American technology and supplies formed the base of Russia’s war effort. “And we want to close our eyes to that. It’s shameful! Sometimes I talk to ordinary people who don’t want to understand. We were together during the war. Americans saved us from Hitlers push. How would it be if we hadn’t had this help? It was not a victory of just one country over Hitler. It was a victory of the whole world over him.”
@MrVlad12340 Without U.S. supplies, the Soviet war effort would have been futile. America supplied Stalin with 400,000 trucks, 2,000 locomotives, more than 10,000 rail rolling stock and billions of dollars' worth of warplanes, tanks, food and clothing. At the same time, the U.S. also supplied nearly a quarter of Britain’s munitions. “We were lucky to have America as an ally,” Russian historian Anatoly Razumov told VOA recently. He said American technology and supplies formed the base of Russia’s war effort. “And we want to close our eyes to that. It’s shameful! Sometimes I talk to ordinary people who don’t want to understand. We were together during the war. Americans saved us from Hitlers push. How would it be if we hadn’t had this help? It was not a victory of just one country over Hitler. It was a victory of the whole world over him.”
@MrVlad12340 Without U.S. supplies, the Soviet war effort would have been futile. America supplied Stalin with 400,000 trucks, 2,000 locomotives, more than 10,000 rail rolling stock and billions of dollars' worth of warplanes, tanks, food and clothing. At the same time, the U.S. also supplied nearly a quarter of Britain’s munitions. “We were lucky to have America as an ally,” Russian historian Anatoly Razumov told VOA recently. He said American technology and supplies formed the base of Russia’s war effort. “And we want to close our eyes to that. It’s shameful! Sometimes I talk to ordinary people who don’t want to understand. We were together during the war. Americans saved us from Hitlers push. How would it be if we hadn’t had this help? It was not a victory of just one country over Hitler. It was a victory of the whole world over him.”
You could add that Hitler's orders to hold out until the last man weren't completely bonkers. The German divisions lacked the vehicles to effectively pull back and marching backwards on horse drawn carriages leaving behind all heavy weaponry was even more futile (as you said, the soviets were advancing at breakneck speed). Even if it was successful the result was a few hundred, maybe thousand lightly armed broken soldiers. The "reasonable" thing to do was to fight until they ran out of ammunition trying to buy time for the rest of the army. Like it or not, those divisions were lost the moment the Soviets decided to go around them. There could have been no organized retreat, even if it was permitted. Fighting to the death was also not something out of the ordinary on the Eastern front, any captured troops risked execution on the spot, deportation to Siberia was a sure thing. If you got deported, you most likely died anyways. The Soviets were extremely vengeful on the Germans as the Germans gave no quarter when they were advancing, they received none the other way around. If anything the Eastern Front was a "kill or be killed" place.
We have to start calling the "Soviet Union" for what it really was -- the combination of the greatest contributors, Ukraine and Belarus, with the Canada/USA supported Russians a tier below, and the other unfortunately dominated republics as well. You know this is true.
Just reminds me how silly it is that we Americans say that WE won the war for the allies. Yet our efforts were relatively small compared to what was happening on the Eastern Front.
Like it or not the US was the economic and production engine behind the whole allied war effort including the USSR. Without the Americans supplied and fighting in WWII, the western allies are defeated and the USSR would lose large parts of its territory and probably be pushed well back from Moscow and be forced to retreat to central and eastern Russia.
To make things worst, by this point in the war the German oil situation was absolutely critical. While in the past the retreating Germans could stay ahead of advancing Soviet force, this time the Germans simply did not have the oil to speed away and men on foot were chewed up by Soviet mobile forces.
Poland did not asked Soviet Union for help. They've prepared a rebellion keeping it in secret from Soviets. Only after rebellion in Warsaw has begun and germans enter Warsaw with 2 armored divisions to smash it, Churchill called Stalin and asked Soviets to help polish rebellion in Warsaw. It was 36 hours in. Soviet army just advanced 500 km, had tired divisions on the edge and no supply lines. Warsaw was still away from russian front line and well-protected by germans with 5 armored divisions. 500 km is too long to quickly deliver the reinforcements and start the assault of Warsaw. Soviet Union atm didn't even had a signed plan for it. But Soviets immediately launched a supply operation. Soviet planes did 2500 flights with food and weapons and 2000 flights to cover planes and suppress the anti-air defence of germans to support the rebellion, but it just had no enough forces and was defeated by germans before Soviet Army can help them. No one even asked Soviets when the time will come to rise the rebellion. And now you're telling us Soviets are "failed to support the rebellion". Terrible lies.
i agree. Different thing did the allied in italy, when advancing from rome they stopped in the appennini and let the partisans believe they were arriving.. and then letting them die by hand of the nazi reprisal operations...
There is no such thing as soviet help. Why would the soviets even care about helping a nation that they stole land from along with the germans? We saw how much the soviets cared about poles with the Katyn massacre.
Not a lie, Stalin didn’t want to support the Poles and ordered the halting of the Red Army to let the Germans finish them off. Stalin always wanted Poland as a puppet / buffer state against Germany, and didn’t want free Poles to get in the way of it post war.
@@pault3945 Nah, even if Stalin didn't want to support the Poles, the Red Army was actually halted from its tracks in the Battle of Radzymin, where the 3rd Guards Tank Corps was encircled and destroyed by a Nazi counter-attack in its drive to encircle Warsaw, and all tank formations were ordered on the defensive. 5 hours later the Warsaw Uprising begins.
Excellent video. Very few people arrive at the secret sauce of 1 part talking heads, 2 parts maps, and 3 parts archival footage. Animation or reenactment is, of course, right out.
Anything to do with Operation Bagration without the mention of Rokossovsky is unfair. He had to fight his way to get approval for the operation. The entire General Staff at Stavka was apprehensive of his plans presented on a few papers carried by Rokossovsky in his pocket to get his approvals. One man's determination and belief changed history.
Amazing informative video. An interesting followup video could be the Siege of Budapest, again not something that is often talked about and an interesting microcosm of the eastern front.
My great granduncle took part in the liberation of Minsk under the 48th Army. By this point in the war, he was a brigade commander. Meanwhile, my great grandfather on my mothers side was fighting under the 40th Army of the Second Ukrainian Front
The biggest Soviet asset was Hitler. His preoccupation and obsession with non-strategic targets and objectives (Stalingrad) and his absolute refusal to allow his generals to make strategic retreats sped up Germany's inevitable defeat.
and there was a neo natzee yt natioalist dude larping on tiktok that how great of a commander Hitler was, bro was convinced by someone that Hitler is in top 10 list of greatest generals
@@maniac3449 I think it was Operation Foxley, where the British Special Operations Executive thought about trying to assassinate Hitler with a German-speaking sniper, who'd shoot him when he was taking one of this walks in the Bavarian Alps. The British ultimately decided against the operation, because Hitler was doing such a good job at losing the war and thus was more valuable to the Allies alive.
When comments are made that "each river crossing was a Normandy invasion in itself", this shows a complete lack of understanding of the difficulties of an open water assault which is orders of magnitude more difficult than just a river crossing.
16:10 The lack of support had more reasons. Yes Stalin did not want Home army to have an influence in post war Poland. Another reason, as you the video later states was Exhaustion. Soviets DID want the uprising to happen but when they were ready for it Home army didn't want to wait because they coordinated with the soviets in Livov and then the soviets detained the home army members
@12:20 the presenter states that the "upgraded T-34 had sloped frontal armour". What is she speaking about? The T-34 always had sloped frontal armour. It is the upgraded three-man turret and it's 85mm gun that gave the T34/85 the upgrade she should have been talking about.
It's so good to see the IWM give such recognition to Bagration, to the USSR/Stalin and most of all to the doctrine of Deep Battle / Operational Art. I was born in 1961, the year the Berlin Wall was raised. I was a reserve officer towards the end of the Cold War, and I remember the fear of MAD. Now, as time has passed, as the Berlin Wall crumbled and Soviet archives were (too briefly) opened, I followed the evolution of historiography, and discovered the magnitude of the USSR's role in WW2. This does not prevent me from being firmly in favour of Ukraine today. I hope we in the West remain their strong support, until they are ready for peace. I write from Belgium, the old "Battleground of Europe".
The success of Bagration depended just as much on the Wehrmact's operational and logistical shortcomings as well as Hitler's micromanagement as it did on it's strategic ingenuity. I think if Operation Bagration had been tried against the German Army of 1940/41, it would've been a massive failure. As it was, Germany was more or less already defeated by 1944.
Bagration set off fear and panic in the OKW. Any smart staffer would have packed his bags for Buenos Aries then. There’s all kinds of forums rehashing the war to find a way for Germany to win the war. Their failure to beat England meant the chances of winning were slim. By turning East, slim chances of victory became no chance of victory. The fact Germany did as well as it did is testament to the fighting skill of its best troops.
The Soviets didn't stop outside of Warsaw due to logistical problems, that was a deliberate halt by Stalin in order to weaken free Polish forces, which aided his goal of subjugate the Poles, a nation that he hated.
Stalin had a vendetta to pick with the poles due to the defeat that the nascent USSR suffered at the hands of Poland during the Soviet polish war a defeat which a certain Mikhail Tukhachevsky put squarely on Stalin for his decision to siege Lviv instead of covering the southern flank which cause what became known as the miracle on the Vistula , Stalin would later execute tukhachevsky and many thousands of polish people in the USSR ( communist or not) this is also a factor for his decision to sign the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Germany.
That's what they got for siding with Western allies that was nowhere near them and freely antagonizing both Germany and USSR. In the end they got gutted, blasted, wrecked, and subjugated by both sides in turns without a single French or British soldier defending their land.
@@sthrich635 So the Fascists and the Communists destroyed Poland because they had the audacity to want to be a free and independent nation? Yep. That sounds about right.
The soviets were allied with and helping supply Germany as they threw the west off of continental Europe An amphibious invasion is very difficult and the soviets took the brunt ofbthe fighting because of their own actions
The Soviets by the End of the war had reached the limit of manpower reserves … if the war had continued they would have been pulling in older and younger soldiers well past and before their adequate fighting age , Germany had long passed their limit as had Great Britain… Japan had also past their man power reserve limit… the UnitedStates was said to have 6-8 years left of adequate manpower in reserve if needed because their was so many people reaching mandatory enlistment age and there reserve was enormous …. The United States didn’t only have an extremely deep industrial capacity it also had an enormous manpower capacity as well , this by no means undermines the Soviet Union’s overwhelming contribution to the winning of the war specifically in Europe…but the United States was essentially fighting two equal sized war simultaneously on each side of the globe.
You are totally forgetting that the UK had the ability to draw from troops from all over the commonwealth. Canadian forces were vital, and they could rely on South African, Australian+NZ as well as Indian forces. The UK was not past their limit at all. Even if the homefront was. The sheer amount of troops that the commonwealth could field eclipsed even the USA. They never got to the point of using it all. The Japanese, Germans and Soviets simply threw their men in the meatgrinder. Germany due to infighting and inadequate use of forces. Soviets due to bad tactics and Japan I don't know what they were thinking.
@@dgray3771 Canada was a seperate fighting force as were Australia and New Zealand who in fact were seperate sovereign nations and not part of the UK so I forgot nothing actually …. Canada who had the largest population of the 3 Commonwealth countries had 1 million of its 12 million population in direct service to the war effort ..there wasn’t a lot left in manpower reserves , so I’m not sure where you’re getting all these people from , and the uk had reached the limits of her available manpower …. This being men at the ages 18-50.
16:20 Okay, I felt something was wrong with this part, so I went to digging and unsurprisingly that's just a bunch of lies, propagated by modern polish government. For starters, Red Army didn't suddenly stop. 1st Belorussian front under Warsaw in Jule-August by that point fought for over 600 km, was exhausted, overstretched it's supply lines and had to wait before Air Force could move closer to provide proper support. Also germans weren't just running away, they not only massively fortified the city, but also launched a successful counter attack in late July and by early August pushed back 1st Belorussian front from Warsaw. The Red Army could only regroup and relaunch it's offensive in September, managed to take Praga district from North-east, but got stuck at Visla river, because rebels couldn't stop germans from blowing up all bridges. Attempts to force Visla by the 1st Polish Army ultimately failed under german fire and at the same time rebels were massacred by german reinforcements. On 30th of September Soviet command seeing how poor things got made the decision to launch a new diversionary attack to allow remaining rebels and remnants of soviet soldiers stranded on the west bank of Visla to evacuate, but by that point rebel leaders had already made deals with german commanders and surrendered. Which btw soldiers of the Polish Army viewed as betrayal of their nation. They also didn't take lightly KA cooperating with germans. Secondly, Stalin blocked allied support to polish rebels? Stalin himself sent way more support to polish rebels. From memoirs of marshal K. Rokossovsky: "On September 13, the rebels began to be supplied by air with weapons, ammunition, food and medicine. This was done by our Po-2 night bombers. They dropped cargo from low altitudes to points indicated by the rebels. From September 13 to October 1, 1944, front aviation carried out 4,821 sorties to help the rebels, including 2,535 with cargo for the rebel troops. Our planes, at the request of the rebels, covered their areas from the air, bombed and stormed German troops in the city.” This was possible thanks to soviet radio operator Ivan Kolos, who worked alongside rebels from September 21th to October 2nd. Stalin also wrote to Churchill in August how Red Army will make all in it's power to launch a new front wide offensive to liberate Warsaw. So no, nobody suddenly abandoned anyone here. Thirdy, how about taking a look at organisers of the uprising? Not only did they fail to properly supply their troops, not only did they chose the worst possible timing when germans had already knew about their plans, on many occasions Krajowa Army also actively cooperated with germans, hunted soviet partisans and even attempted to stage rebellions in western Belarus and Ukraine. And don't forget polish nationalists in it's ranks who massacred thousands of jews and ukrainians. The whole uprising was politically motivated gamble in an attempt by government in exile to liberate Warsaw without soviet help, which only led to over 200k civilians getting killed and a quarter of the city getting demolished by germans in retaliation. But we must say their ploy was well though out - if they were to succeed, that's that, but if they failed, they could've blamed it on soviets for now charging in to save their asses. Red Army lost about 280k soldiers around Warsaw from August to December in their attempt to break through to rebels. Is this not enough, dear poles? Were soviet soldiers supposed to lose twice as much more by trying to force Visla head on under heavy german fire with the city likely destroyed in resulting heavy clashes? Ultimately the real heroes, the real polish patriots were those who liberated their country from nazists alongside Red Army. Krajewites by comparison were just opportunists and collaborationists, whose machinations cause great tragedy to polish people.
I was very familiar with this WWII history since I was a subscriber to the magazine "Strategy & Tactics" when I was younger. One of the featured games was "Destruction of Army Group Center" and no matter what approach I tried, the Germans always lost in the game.
380.000 as well as 1.000.000 dead prisoners "throughout the war". Both numbers don't tell the full story, as german soldiers were held captive until 1955.
The start of the end of Germany was Moscow, 1941. The loss was too treat for German resources. Stalingrad was the icing on the cake. Germany then retreated and in July 1943 Hitler decided to lash out like a dying animal at Kursk.
Despite Hitler's military stupidity and a 4+:1 superiority. The Soviets still lost almost twice the number of troops as the Germans. Doesn't sound like a great victory to me. Sounds like the Soviets traded their soldiers' lives for territory... nothing more. ☮
In August 1944, If you count German divisions in Italy, France and those defending the coast of Norway, etc then that ratio is a lot less. Almost 100 divisions in the west, compared to 145 in the east.
Good to see 5th Panzer Division being mentioned - taking on a whole Guards Tank Army by themselves and only being forced to withdraw due to their flanks collapsing. Afterwards the russians paid credit to them and told future commanders to avoid trying to go through 5th Panzers and instead to try and go around. Fun Fact: The russian advance was so fast that when 5th Panzer's initial trains arrived at their staging area the russians were so close the German tanks directly engaged the russians while still loaded on their flatbeds. They had to clear the area so the rest of the division could arrive.
@@PhD_Dad It was a strategic victory as it destroyed any possibility for the Germans to hold their defensive lines. 9 months later, the Soviets took Berlin.
@@klaudioabazi4478 Yes I know, that’s obviously. My point was/is that if the conditions of any conflict are so dire that this kind of loss can be seen as any type of victory is appalling.
@@PhD_Dad Bro, the armies of Hitler and Stalin were meat grinders. Their leaders considered victory at all costs necessary. Even if you took outrageous losses the better the victory. It's the dilettante approach to total warfare, and it's horrendous.
Great video, but there is no necessity to say POW instead of prisoners of war as it is the same number of syllables but as any acronym it obscurs the speech. Thanks for all the work made in this video.
Stalin didn't want "socialist" government in Poland - the legitimate Polish government in London was socialist then. Stalin wanted to turn Poland into satellite state, kind of colony of Soviet Union, he wasn't pro socialism, he was against Polish independence!
fascinating presentation. Where were the t-34s and other hardware produced? It is one challenge to mobilise the man-power but where did the tanks/artillery all come from in such a short time? I assume the factories in Western USSR cities were previously bombed out by the German air forces...meaning the materiel had to be mfr'd and then shipped across huge distances. I've always wondered how were they able to outpace the Germans in that capacity?
