Invading the Soviet Union 1941 - Just Stupid? - Barbarossa without Hindsight

when it comes to the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 Operation Barbarossa some people note that it was just a stupid idea while although the planning and execution for Barbarossa had plenty of errors in it as outlined in one of my previous videos it was not so stupid as some people the chest yet there are many hindsight warriors out there that don't understand that the idea itself was based on the knowledge of the time and clearly not limited to the visual thinking of the Germans alone according to a large array of sources most British and American government officials regarded the USSR as small as doomed when Germany in hell as attacked on 22nd June 1941 so what resistance was expected to last only for a few months or even only a few weeks according to some these perceptions were not only hammered below a mid-level government officials but apparently also officials at the very top so it is time to take a look at what the military and political professionals thought at the time because in hinds that is rather obvious via Operation Barbarossa failed yet in hindsight winning the lottery is also quite easy this video is basically a highly upgraded version of one of my first videos thus it will also address quite many of the various issues people brought up so yes I will talk about Napoleon and also the Battle of kayaking goal big thank you to all my patrons will help me to continue my channel and go from Bailey sauce version to this rotten bowel sauce video so let's get started for which we need to take a short look at the first world war basically ever military or political professional in charge in the Second World War experienced the Great War in one way or another this meant most of them fought in the terms of the Great War now for Germany in the First World War the main front line was the Western Front which were launch durations of the war was quite static worse on the Eastern Front it was far less static although robust them from was the main theater of operations for Imperial German army on the Eastern Front the Germans achieved most of the victories and ultimately drove Imperial Russia out of the war since the Russian Empire elapsed toll was simplified a bit on the Eastern Front the Germans won with the second rate team while on the Western Front the lost with the first red team yet this information only becomes really crucial once we consider what happened in summer 1940 the archenemy of Germany was Franz and it was assumed that the French were the most formidable foe forever marked at the Battle of France lasted mere six weeks in which the French were crushed and the British Griffon of the continent additionally Denmark Norway Belgium and the Netherlands Rose a Concord as such the Germans achieved in a matter of weeks what the fathers couldn't achieve for four years in spite of tremendous amount of losses additionally the previous quick victory over Poland was in stark contrast to the experience of the First World War as outlined by Robert city know perhaps Poland was not a true test of the new mechanized German army it was a second-rate power buff of modern weaponry but even countries like Poland had proved to be tough nuts to crack in World War one Belgium Serbia Romania Bulgaria hence one could argue that the Germans were bit all optimistic and starting to believe their own [ __ ] after all one wrong key assumption of Operation Barbarossa was that Hitler assumed that the Soviet Union would collapse after the initial attacks yet according to a study that looked at British and US losses from the time he was not the only one that assumed at least some kind of collapse or breakdown would occur in 1939 the British chief of staff in particularly complete breakdown of the economy if a full-scale military mobilization was attempted furthermore in some cases such assumptions were supported by recent observations Putra theorists were believed to exist in the living conditions of the population were described as very poor the Polish and the Finnish campaigns in 1939 to 1940 seemed to confirm that the mobilization system and the economy were unable to cope with the stress of even limited war although US President Drew's work was one of the few high-level officials that actually believed the Soviet Union could sustain the war many others in the United States didn't share his views just shortly before Barbarossa commands in June 1941 the Dean assistant chief of staff Carl Nelson submitted a memo to us chief of staff the memo was an assessment based on the vomit and Red Army taking into account qualitative and quantitative aspects Mason predicted that Germany could rapidly defeat the USSR over for Stalin regime and seize the USSR besson's provinces he also believed that the total the structure of the army was a possibility in 1941 which would open up superior to the Chairman's all way to Lake Baikal Mason concluded that the German attack on the USSR was a sound military operation if launch had July 1st with reasonable chances of a full success prior to winter setting in in general the British and US assumptions only showed minor differences from each other additionally the French also underestimated civil union as such they were willing to risk a bore of the Soviet Union since the intended to pump saw it oil was study plans or projects who worked up to assembler franco-british air force in Lebanon and Syria to bomb so at all ones in the Caucasus that were from the autumn of 1939 have been right for industry to circumvent the Allied blockades so yes in order to limit the oil that the Soviet Union would deliver to Germany the Allies considered and actively prepared on Bombay the Soviet Union and such risking a war fit something come up more in-depth in this video anyway it was rather obvious that nearly everyone seemed to underestimate the Soviet Union the question is why did they do it My GERD the French Americans and British were anti-communists racists and as such produced very biased views about the Soviet Union yet let's look at the reasons why they had such negative fuse in the Soviet Union and Red Army thus we need to take a short glance at the Soviet performance prior to the Second World War the first one was the Battle of Lake Hassan in 1938 so let's wanted to fortify the heights near the lake yet the Japanese attacked the Soviet attachment and defeated it after a while on order of Stalin himself the red army finally count the attacked the Soviets had far superior forces compared to those of the Korea army at least three to one if the Japanese managed to beat back every attack by the Soviets inflicting heavy casualties before it could be a further escalation in the fighting Japanese and so at negotiators which the diplomatic solution note that according to Alexander Hill who published a book in the Red Army in 2017 the balance of wars was less likely steep and the swords took some ground yet he agrees that the performance of the Red Army was rather lackluster from supply through the battlefield command and control in coordination between arms the Red Army performed poorly at Lake Kazan at Lake Azam was a minor fear and information about it was slightly errata limited yet the Red Army was operated in other theatres of a much greater scale and with Western observers closer to reaction like Poland in 1939 when the Red Army attacked sixteen days after the initial German invasion at which point the Polish forces were mostly retreating from the Wehrmacht or fighting it nevertheless the Red Army faced serious problems however even if we make some allowance for the fact that the Soviet units had little time to prepare for this specific operation it doesn't solely explain how such overwhelming forces suffered the losses it did with opponents actually committed only a fraction of the limited forces available to combat it's probably most negative effects on the Red Army's reputation was delivered to them by the Finns in the winter war of 1939 to 1940 although ultimately the Red Army won the Finns made them pay for every little snowflake with blood the limited wars against Poland and especially Finland confirmed the perceived so it weakness only militarily but also economically many of these shortcomings could appear caused attributed to the effects of Stalin's purges which convinced some of them that the Red Army was just a broken shell and since the sword union was a closed of society it was rather hard to get proper information additionally based on the existing information it was impossible to tell if the Soviet Union had increased instability or not the purchase could have created more unrest and disloyalty yet it could also have increased the stability nevertheless they had many debilitating effects especially in combination with the major expansion of the Red Army at the same time so what observers duly noted the terrible command and control of the forces and complained about the inexperience of thousands of young men thrust into positions of authority they never dared however to criticise or even mention publicly Stalin's decision to decapitate the army at the moment of greatest danger for the Soviet Union additionally we need to consider that other countries and regimes didn't perform anything similar Germany had the significant advantage in 1937 to 1938 that it was not in the process of slaughtering a significant proportion of its existing commanders and nor was promote ability as dependent on political factors the British and US assumptions quite often noted the inefficiency of the industry and the system itself such assumptions were not completely off after all many factory managers direct the heels when it came to making the necessary conversions for them it was able to boost order models and reach the quotas than to risk charges of fracking by pausing to convert the plans to produce more modern aircraft similarly the historian Adam tools noted in one of his articles the performance of the Seward war economy was one of the true surprises of the Second World War in the first world war poverty and underdevelopment had undermined the Tsarist war effort and brought Russia to a collapse by 1917 which also brings us back to the perception of Russia and the Seward Union from the first world war and later the collapse of the empire during Great War the following Civil War and the defeat in the Polish saw at war or reinforced views on the Soviet Union's weakness of course today we know that the Soviet leadership through important lessons from the winter war yet that wasn't apparent additionally those lessons would take time as such a don't think that anti-communism a racism played a major part in the British and US assessments of these overt Union they have underestimated certain aspects of civil society but probably not because they considered them so different but in certain instances probably too similar to themselves if you contemplate about the following the level of Hamelin is a union made a mockery of the argument propounded by pre-war British and German governments that an adequate food supply was a cornerstone of success in the circumstances of total war but of course there was also an indicator that the Red Army could be formidable foe namely the Battle of cocking goal whereas the Japanese call it the Battle of no Mahon it there were various issues with it first it was a single instance on a limited scale a hiking goal demonstrated the viability of so a fury and force structure but it was the one bright spot in an otherwise dismal picture furthermore we should not forget that the Chairman's in the assessment of the Japanese in the second sino-japanese war were quite ambivalent about the Japanese performances additionally an experienced and well-informed observer of the campaign especially battles of Shanghai and Nanjing maintains the view that the Japanese army would be unable to match an European enemy for which in this context the Russians should be included as well which is something I come and greater detail in a video on my second channel so be sure to check it out yet I can hear already some of you typing while in the comment section one named Napoleon is Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 now although there are many similarities the problem with learning from history is that just because two events had the same outcome doesn't mean that they are similar enough let alone comparable at first glance there are many similarities the russians exploit the vastness of the territory then waiting armies suffered from poor logistics and finally got worn down to name a few while the problem is the difference is a far bigger and larger numbers wall one similar it is sometimes brought up is that Napoleon's Grand Army and de Vere mounted horse-drawn artillery this is a mime opinion quite odds since both the type of artillery and artillery tactics were fasted different but yes it is about transportation well besides horses develop those at trucks trains and airplanes similar the speed of communication between the two periods is hardly comparable the fastness of space where this variety is quite different than for a radio operator yes the Russians of a territory was in both cases huge under the conclusion taken from this factor P quite fatalistic because both Napoleon and Hitler serious logistical shortcomings during their campaigns it's like it take two of your friends that are bad at math and ask them to help people for math homework once they both fail you conclude that your homework can't be done this of course doesn't mean it's easy after all it's math and besides that Napoleon was afraid to conquer Spain as such do you consider Spain O's to be uncomfortable additionally quite many historians you bring up around the first world war that Napoleon wore that didn't work anymore and some note that changed already a bit earlier military historian Michael Howard wrote an epitaph for an error in writing about Prussia's 1870 war with France 1870 was as much a victory for prussian bureaucratic methods as it was for the Prussian arms the romantic heroism of the Napoleonic area was Steamroller into oblivion by a system which made of war amount of scientific calculation administered planning and professional expertise so one must decide did war had changed significantly or not one could argue that the differences were merely on tactical level yet railroads Telegraph's radios and the aircraft clearly had an effect on both the operational and strategic level as such a fine to holster on artillery analogy at best a weak illustration as worse the deep misunderstanding also if you look at the map Napoleon move basic in one straight line to Moscow burst of air marked invaded from the Baltic Sea down to the Black Sea on a full front such Napoleon didn't occupy most of Russia even though he took Moscow in terms of fighting power and staying power there's also major difference after Napoleon had reached Moscow he stayed for five weeks then he retreated on 19 October 1812 West developed was still attacking an early December 1941 this was in stark contrast to the Grand Army on 5th December Napoleon appointment commander-in-chief of the Grand Army and left for Paris five days later the Russian army captured Vilna and how that it's pursued by 25th December last remnants of the grand army recross the Nieman and quit Russian soil so the Grand Army entered and left Russian soil in the same year this is why contrary to the Second World War II Master the Red Army crushed here as crew permitted in summer 1944 three years after Operation Barbarossa they were still German troops on Soviet soil and not a major aspect we need to consider is that the very act in 1941 was at war for less than two years in contrast the French Revolutionary War started in 1792 and ended in 1802 followed by Anna Pollock was from 1803 to 1815 so by the invasion of Russia in 1812 France and parts of Europe had seen a long string of conflicts for almost two decades although the mayor mapped in summer 1941 had various flaws it was still at its peak this becomes more apparent if we look at the comparison between 1941 and 1942 according to the organization Department of the channel staff of the Army 136 divisions were capable for offensive and defensive operations for summer 1941 in contrast in March 1942 a mere eight divisions achieved this rating of course some might argue at Napoleon's Grand Army was also at its peak in 1812 to delay its enormous size but that size was achieved by various means one calculation shows the 25 nations contributed troops through a Russian campaign and that well over half of the force across the Niemen in 1812 were foreigners of course some foreign troops like the Polish ones were of excellent quality yet others weren't the strategic flanks however were poorly secured in the north there was an auxilary Prussian Corps under York in the south and austrian corps under Schwarzenberg both of dubious reliability although many point out their Grand Army suffer from poor logistics put discipline and morale was also a pressing issue thirdly discipline in the army was lags the result the troops plundered indiscriminately instead of carrying out orderly requisitions the outcome being paradoxically that the officers at any rate those who refuse to take part in such excesses staffed even when the man found enough to eat similarly other office note the lackluster discipline throughout the campaign yet the burning of Moscow had according to the statement of a French officer the most influence yet the great fire had a tremendous impact in the French army which is centered in chaos and disorder pew in the law a French artillery officer recalled that the army had dissolved completely everywhere one could see drunken soldiers and officers loaded with booty and provisions seized from houses which had fallen prey to the flames the streets were strewn with books porcelain furniture and clothing of every kind this was in stark contrast to the Wehrmacht that didn't dissolve even though it was exhausted in winter 1941 when the sword can't attack started it is thus fair to assume that the Grand Army in 1812 was in an less capable state than the Via Mart in 1941 well of course there's one final point that needs to be addressed namely why started to front war isn't it stupid when the British Empire is still in the fight to attack the Soviet Union well at first this point makes sense yet the problem was how to achieve peace with the British Empire the main issue is that the people underestimate the complexity and difficulty of amphibious landings and that they required usual naval superiority unless surprising and cerrado weak force is achieved like what happened in Norway 1940 but that scenario was out of question for Britain and a problem for neighbour superiority is that it takes time not months but years or even decades therefore the phrase name a strategy is spelt strategy Outland is in a previous video that the nation of Britain even when the verifier conditions was almost impossible forever mapped in 1944 1941 the dismal name was drenched with the kriegsmarine would have been barely unchanged additionally the British at this point would have been better entrenched and prepared as well not to mention that the Luftwaffe would also have a hard time in the Second Battle of Britain now one could argue for a Mediterranean strategy but again this would require mainly naval and air forces West the army which was the strongest and most numerous branch of the via mart would be mostly idle and Hitler's idea was to defeat a civil union who finally convinced the British to sue for peace although this was clearly not the best idea yet considering the limitations and strength of the Wehrmacht it was one that made the most sense at the time since the German army was strong and the kriegsmarine a weak and the Soviet Union was mainly a land power now before we conclude this video a short reminder about new ins to do some comments on the original video noting that something is not stupid doesn't mean it was smart brilliant good justified necessary or anything else it just means not stupid additionally there's a clear distinction between idea and execution now since we got that flank covered let's do the conclusion before in during the second Boer War the Soviet Union Red Army were at least underestimated by the British French Americans and Germans in many aspects this underestimation was probably influenced by various biases yet Russia wasn't particularly well known for its stability for a long time additionally the civil wars of a polish war the purchased the butterfly kazan division of foreign and especially winter war didn't suggest that the Soviet Union would turn into formidable great power anytime soon carking goal was just a minor blip that could be easily disregarded since it was an anomaly and the victory was also achieved against the non-western power and non Western powers up to that point had mostly rather lackluster track record at the same time Germany rearmed itself in a short amount of time and then swept across Europe in an unprecedented speed and with minor losses defeating various land powers in a matter of weeks for which most assume mumps wave him years alone Napoleon's 1812 campaign in Syria brought up SD an argument the Barbarossa was just stupid even a short look clearly indicates that compare Napoleon's campaign with Operation Barbarossa is superficial since it's completely ignores the myriads of technological changes in communication transportation that a clear influence on purchased tactics operations and strategy quite ironic considering the many historians note something along the following lines yet in 1914 the armies of Europe behaved as if warfare had remained unchanged since Napoleon's time but hey maybe after 1918 everything went back to Napoleon another aspect of course is how far away my god even despite the long list of errors wrong assumptions and ideological insanities yes invading the Soviet Union was problem it was most fatal decision yet it was clearly not a stupid decision given the available information at the time and especially considering the assumptions of a large amount of non German military and political professionals now if you enjoyed this video and want more consider supporting me on patreon because it makes my work way easier and as a result you get better videos big thank you here to Andrew and Justin for review and vital input as always sauce a link to description thank you for watching and see you next time [Music]

Channel: Military History Visualized

Views: 863,619

Keywords: Military History, Military History Visualized, Operation Barbarossa, Without hindsight, Napoleon 1812, battle at Lake Khasan (1938), Battle of Khalkhin Gol, Winter War, Wehrmacht 1941, Grand Army 1812, Barbarossa without Hindsight, Invading the Soviet Union 1941, Just a stupid idea, US views on Barbarossa, British Views on Soviet Union, 1812 vs 1941, Why was the Soviet Union underestimated, world war 2, military history visualized barbarossa, napoleon invades russia 1812

Id: FQdjGJJktfk

Length: 22min 28sec (1348 seconds)

Published: Fri Jun 22 2018