70 Years in Study: The German-Soviet Front in WW2

This is an introduction to novel approaches in the study of the Soviet-German Front in World War II. Let's have a look at the evolution of literature and historiology in the past 70 years, and compare the materials available to researchers then and now, with a focus on the most recently released archives.

[@stephenmichalski2643]

Objectivity will always be the key way to study history ...or anything for that matter.....if one's true desire is to discover the truth. I loved and studied history since I was 7......avidly soaking up all I could. Unfortunately it took until I was nearly 30 to realize that all that is written and said is not gold or true......and another 10 years for that fact and the methods and thought processes to attempt to even begin to achieve that to really sink in. Whether by design or innocent human error so much we have been taught to be true is in fact at the least distorted. One aspect among many I've found is one must almost always do a "background" check not only the author's references.....but the author him/her self. Like maintaining justice and impartiality in government and law...vigilance to exclude personal bias is both vital and necessary. As fallible humans......it can be a tall order. Now at 67.... I'm fairly certain it's an unending struggle. Just goes with the territory.

[@Armageddon4145]

You're right: learning History is not as obvious as learning mathematics... There's way more room for subjectivity, it's not an "exact" science. Many historical facts that seem to us obvious come in fact from wrong popular knowledge. And you sure need to check every source again and again. It's really a struggle to achieve accuracy in this process.

[@davidrasch3082]

RIGHT! I didn't know soldiering until I spent three years in the field artillery, hungry took on a new meaning!

[@davidrasch3082]

@@Armageddon4145 When soldiers talk among themselves with no nonsoldiers around they use their own language. Words take on special meanings for them.

[@jakethejeweler3092]

Very well said, it's a hard pill to swallow and one that's halfway down. Y'all are also right about people who've served their country, people like me will never be able to see it through that perspective, and it's a sacrifice that should be held in high regard if that sacrifice for your homeland. Y'all take care

[@gordy3714]

It's always said in the 1st 6 months of Operation Barbarossa the Soviet Union was a shambles in terms of tactics, weaponry, leadership etc, but I think of it like this, the Soviet capacity to take the losses it did in terms of manpower, resources and land but to still keep fighting and not capitulate was one of the greatest feats of bravery and self sacrifice mankind has ever witnessed.

[@Armageddon4145]

I do believe you're right saying this.

[@nadirzacaria4554]

The voice of the narrator for me, is linked forever to the captivity of Feldmarshal Paulus, that I discovered through this channel.

[@Armageddon4145]

Yes, my friend Brad is more than just a narrator: he's a real associate now... And he's becoming a reference for Stalingrad!

[@PattyOflan88]

Very underrated channel. The algorithm will pick you up among the community eventually

[@Waterflux]

My takes on the sheer complexity of studying the Soviet-German War from my personal experience: 1. The very first time I found about it was back in the early 1980s when I bought my very first computer wargame: Chris Crawford's 'Eastern Front (1941)' which was available for Atari-8 bit home computers. What started to get me hooked to the history of the Soviet-German War: in the more difficult game levels, as the German player, I could not beat the Red Army! 2. I wanted to figure out why I could not defeat the Red Army. Therefore, I started raiding my school and city public libraries for books covering the 'Eastern Front'. Overall, my findings tended to revolve around the idea of 'what mistakes had the Germans made'. Bear in mind, this period of my life was in the late-1980s, meaning whatever materials that I could find was rather limited. 3. 1991: Goodbye, high school, and hello, university! During the first day I arrived at my university, I went to its bookstore. David Glantz's 'When Titans Clashed' caught my attention. It was in hardback and was only recently published. My curiosity got the best of me and I bought one! I still consider it among the best book available for any Westerners interested in the Soviet-German War. However, I would not recommend this book unless one is already familiar with how most military historians write -- e.g., lots of numbers, key military leaders and staffs, verbally plotting unit movements and actions. 4. The rest of the 1990s: Because I lived in Oakland, California, I had very good access to second-hand books as well as other public libraries within reach of public transit system. I was able to find all sorts of books, ranging from a book containing an anthology of personal accounts from Soviet generals and marshals to concepts and themes found in Soviet military science. 5. Early 2000s: Grabbed David Glantz's 'Stumbling Colossus'. This book gave me a much better understanding of why the Red Army was unprepared for the Soviet-German War. 6. Since the early 2000s: The proliferation of the internet, ranging from online forums to the KZbin has allowed me to further refine and widen my understanding. Quite enjoyable, I must say ...... :D

[@Armageddon4145]

What can I say, same story here :)) Wargames labelled Eastern Front, Glantz as a landmark in military literature, used books... But a Russian background to balance the western bias. Thanks for your feedback!

[@vadimkochkin9095]

God bless you and Tik and Brad with your research , time , resources and attention you give to these historical events! Наш соотечественник Михаил Ломоносов отметил: «Народ, не знающий своего прошлого, не имеет будущего». As the saying goes "Nation that don't know its past don't have a futute"

[@chee2893]

There is no words to describe that. Just a feeling of excitement for what you'll present next. Love your narrator btw

[@Armageddon4145]

Thanks a lot... I'll tell him!

[@TyrSkyFatherOfTheGods]

Thank you, Anton - I've learned so much about both Stalingrad and the study of history from you!

[@lolbrigader]

Wow I thought there was much more certainty to the history, and had no idea about how much the times have influenced our understanding of events. I've read a couple of the books shown and parts of a couple more, and wouldn't have suspected that up to 70% of what happened is still unknown! Very eye opening and appreciated. This while video was very informative. It's great to know that times are changing and there is much work to be done, along with intelligent and motivated people to do it. This is definitely one of the greatest historical channels, full of amazing content. I appreciate it a lot, and am thankful for it!

[@hoosierdaddy2308]

Great channel and great videos. Thank you for sharing. Very cool history. 🤘♥️

[@alejandrocasalegno1657]

The German-Soviet war history is ONLY 70 years old, i will not live to read all information avalaible..........but i will never give up!!!!

[@mikesnyder1788]

Fantastic video! This is how good history is written, through the analysis of proper primary resources. And I am so glad that Alexander Werth received positive comments. I absolutely loved his Russia at War, 1941-1945. Very highly recommended!

[@Armageddon4145]

Thanks a lot for your interest, Mike!

[@mikaelm5367]

I would argue that it is impossible to be completely unbiased. We are all (I assume) human, and history is the story of humans. All of our information comes through the senses, and is filtered through our own personal experiences. It behooves us then to be *aware of* and discuss our biases openly in our work, rather than assume that we can riwe above them and thus unknowingly let them colur our work.

[@Armageddon4145]

Absolutely. What's mandatory is the ability to question everything, as opposed to stick to one source, and always remain open minded.

[@daringdare5078]

The video rightly champions objectivity in history and states that the terms: ‘The Eastern Front’ and ‘The Great Patriotic War’ are inherently biased, yet then suggests we use the biased alternative term: ‘The German-Soviet Front’ in contradiction to the videos thesis. The Term: ‘The German-Soviet Front’ is still biased due to that it places irrational emphasis on only two of the countries that participated, (being Nazi Germany & The Soviet Union) when in fact many countries also sustained losses during the course of the conflict (Romania, Hungary, Finland, Slovakia,Poland, ect..). My proposed solution is the term: ‘The Eastern European Front’ which has its rationale being: it is derived from the objective field of geography rather than the subjective field of sociology and therefore effectively supports the rational of the video. Edit: Wrote ‘German-Soviet war’ when I meant ‘German-Soviet Front’ (and pointing this out doesn’t invalidate my argument).

[@Armageddon4145]

Soviet-German Front is more accurate than Soviet-German War.

[@daringdare5078]

@@Armageddon4145 ‘Soviet-German Front’ is still biased as it relies on naming based on subjective sociology (of naming participants) rather than objective geography (of naming where it occurred) similar to other fronts in WW2 (Pacific Front, Burma Front, North African Front, Italian Front, ect..).

[@soviettankmen]

well i used term "Axis-Soviet Front" for this matter, but "German-Soviet War" is definitely less bias, since it was mainly germans who fought against soviets

[@andrewcoons8060]

As far as German archives: David Irving a British Historian is #1 and his book Hitler's war is a must read! Ice breaker is a good one also

[@the1ghost764]

Wow. I really enjoyed this.

[@Hambone51315]

When I was young, I believed alot of the myths of the Eastern Front. It took me when I was older, to realize that the western history on the eastern front was written by defeated German generals, such as Halder and Guderian. My dad was an Intel officer in the Cold War so I had a very biased view on the soviets. My grandma visited the soviet union three times and gave me an even worse view of the soviets. Thank you for showing me facts and a non biased assessment of the German-Soviet front. Not just for this video, but all the videos your team has made.

[@Armageddon4145]

Thank you for your interest! Indeed the primary aim of the channel is to restore some balance between the different visions, heavily biased during 50 years.

[@darrendeluca8938]

For me, I've always been a student of history and love the deep dives into WWII history. In the west, in schools we are taught WWII consisted of Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Atomic Bomb in the pacific. In Europe, it's France falls, Blitz, Normandy, The good guys win, the bad guys lost.. but they repented and we're not mad at them anymore. Oh yeah and the USSR was on our side too, but they're actually bad guys. Until I discovered Tik and yourself, and many of the authors you mentioned, I was content to focus on the American contributions to the second world war. It's only now that I understand, the US's contributions in Europe were largely in supplying others with weapons of war, and even Hitler considered the fighting in the west a side show to the "real" war with the USSR. The suffering and sacrifice of the collective peoples of the USSR was unimaginable. The fighting dirty, bloody, lethal and full of hatred. Generally speaking, a few incidents aside, American POWs were treated well by the Germans, as were German POWs treated well by the Western Allies. Enemies for sure, but not enemies with hatred. Not the case in the USSR, where slaughter, starvation, pillage and absolute destruction was the norm. Stalin was not a moral man... one can make an argument that he was even worse than Hitler; but perhaps no other man could have done what needed to be done to achieve victory? I don't know. The Soviet German war should be a primary focus of any history of WWII... It defines the geopolitical landscape to this day.

[@Armageddon4145]

Many thanks for your extensive and excellent feedback. Very good summary

[@nadirzacaria4554]

"To come close to the objective reality". What a gigantic work is to be done to reach this goal, I'm convinced it will be attained in the near future (historians are still making discoveries about battles of the napoleonic era !).

[@stevenleslie8557]

Didn't the Russians ban Antony Beevor from the archives?

[@thomask.9850]

" It is true that the archive of Russia’s defence ministry is virtually inaccessible to foreigners, and access to the security services’ archive is highly restricted, but all other archive collections, both in Moscow and in regional centres, remain open, including one of the other military archives." This is from an article in the Guardian and a quote by historian Donald Filtzer. I dont know if Antony Beevor was being personally banned but him saying 'Russian archives were closed to foreign historians in 2000' is simplifying the matter. On the other hand this video is simplifying it too of course.

[@SteveJonesScaleModellingSite]

Great reference material. Thanks for sharing

[@Armageddon4145]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@nonamesplease6288]

Love your videos! I just don't seem to be able to wrap my mind around the scale, brutality, and sheer pointlessness of this war. My most telling bias, then, is my lack of ability to fathom the scale of the disaster that was the war in the east.

[@Game-Boy.]

Great video. I have a question, in your opinion Is Antony Beevor’s book “The fall of Berlin 1945” objective?

[@Federico-cc7hc]

Awesome video; wish it lasted a few more hours... thank you.

[@Federico-cc7hc]

I would like to add Spanish subtitles to your videos, if you see it fit...

[@RDR12344]

Really well done video keep it up

[@will5107]

My father was a linguist, I had not thought of the semantics of Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War. What i mean is that I see your point.

[@dustywoood]

Brilliant channel.

[@ww2hungary827]

Terrific! A great push by a very select few researchers utilizing Russian archives included TsAMO RF have done excellent work to retell the air war as well which is an area where possibly less research has been completed. As such the tales and myths of the air war are also crumbling alongside those of the ground war.

[@marcostrujillo2617]

Hello, could somebody please help me find information about this "report by soviet journalist Isaac Minsk" which was classified by Stalin. Is it even translated? I have been googling it madly to no avail. I'd appreciate it. Is there anywhere I can find either the original sources translated or preferably a good book that quotes it extensively? This is truly fascinating. Actually for a history buff to be told that 50% of what he knows about WW2 is wrong, which implies many hours in the future of having to engage in learning "about" WW2... well there could be no greater pleasure.

[@Armageddon4145]

It's Isaac Mints not Minsk. You can read Stalingrad by Jochen Hellbeck, it's basically the translation of all of Mints work on this topic. A very good book.

[@marcostrujillo2617]

@@Armageddon4145 Thanks a million. And keep up the great work!

[@wretchedfibs4306]

Wow ! Really important work and great eye opener for me about the philosophy of history. Might help us understand the present a bit better, too:)

[@davidrasch3082]

Being a child of the Cold War(b. 1950) I read the German accounts. Now I've changed to rereading Vasili Grossman's Stalingrad and Life and Fate as the center works. I have the Glantz work and Alexandr Werth's among others. Grossman's works provide clues and hints which are bracketed by authors like Glantz&House and Erickson for the movement of forces.

[@caryblack5985]

I would also suggest reading Davis Stahel's books Operation Typhoon and Battle for Moscow. I think you will get a lot of in depth information from them.

[@davidrasch3082]

@@caryblack5985 Thanx! His books are on my shelf.

[@bookaufman9643]

I was wondering whether the more recent Russian works we're big enough to be printed in English? I'm way too old to be learning another language at this point.

[@Armageddon4145]

Some of them are translated yes: Isaev, for one, and almost every other author mentioned in the video

[@billd.iniowa2263]

QUESTION: Can we count on the Soviets to be as accurate as the Germans were? We often hear about the Germans' strict attention to detail and complete record keeping. Were the Soviets under Stalin as devoted to this practice? Or did they have "two sets of books"? One being the truth and the other being "The official record"?

[@Game-Boy.]

Hypothetically how do we know that Germans were accurate and Russians were not? Should we trust Germans and distrust Soviets?

[@mattanderson6336]

I think we in the West have a more German view because the former Wehrmacht soldiers were free to write their memoirs however bad their involvement while the former Red Army soldiers had to write from a political perspective that glorified the Communist Party. It was either Konev or Rokossovsky who refused to write their memoirs because he said ‘I’m not going to lie!’

[@Armageddon4145]

And thus both Western and Eastern literature was flawed during the entire Cold War.

[@biggunshop9637]

Thanks very much!

[@ernstwiltmann6]

Shared on several Facebook Groups.

[@kdfulton3152]

Well let’s get started on that 70% Mr Anton! Wow! I never thought about it in those terms. For example, I’ve always called it “The Great Patriotic War” or just WW2. My bad 🤦‍♀️. Great video 👍👍👏👏👏💕 Glad you’re back. Brad too. 😄

[@ilokivi]

An unfortunate consequence of the secrecy concerning the decisions and records of the Second World War is that it is very difficult to check documentary records with the original authors and combatants at all levels. So long after hostilities ceased, almost all personnel have died and only documentary sources remain. These can be incomplete, as memories are imperfect and bias can interfere with providing an objective record of what happened and why it occurred.While with the opening of archives our knowledge and understanding can improve, it may never be complete for these reasons and we need to be aware of this.

[@Armageddon4145]

That's correct of course, instead we must rely on cross checking different sources to confirm the events. Thanks for your feedback.

[@tabletopgeneralsde310]

Nice video, that is why I think books from the cold war are biased but if they know not better it makes them not a liar.

[@Armageddon4145]

Some did it knowingly.

[@tabletopgeneralsde310]

@@Armageddon4145, also true. I mean not everybody lies about the war. The fact that we have today make some of them look like liars. Very nice content btw. would love to use some of it in in 18 month for our own project.

[@PotCommitted]

Two biggest myths with regard to the European theatre of operations that imbues the Anglo-American psyche to this day, 1) the size/impact/importance of their role/contribution in the ultimate defeat of Nazism, and 2) the idea that the Allies were noble, righteous defenders of democracy and freedom, heroes, the good guys. This pertains particularly to the British, who used the victory over Nazism to completely whitewash their history of pre-war imperialism and then fabricated a new national character portraying themselves as the plucky underdogs, defenders of freedom.

[@GeographyCzar]

So many heroes gave their lives to save the world from Hitler... the death toll was always staggering, the opening of the former Soviet archives has revealed even more. It is sad that the sacrifice of so many went unheralded for more than 50 years because of political concerns by the Soviet administration. Now, I must admit that I too am biased; growing up during the Cold War, the Communist propaganda tended to belittle the US contribution. This made me very frustrated. I felt the sacrifices of my own family were ignored by pro-Soviet historians. For example, the uncle I was named for was named for his uncle who died liberating Lorraine in the fall of 1944. Was his sacrifice superfluous? Were the Soviets able to defeat Hitler on their own? There is no way I can answer this question without bias. It is too emotional for me. My studies have led me to believe that without American lend-lease aid, strategic bombing, drawing off of key German air and land units at critical junctures during the war, the Soviet Union could have done no better than simply survive indefinitely. The vast spaces of the Soviet Union gave them the ability to suffer tactical defeat without strategic collapse. But they could not have prevailed against the Wermacht to the extent that they did. Europe would likely not have been liberated at all without US intervention. The Normandy landings were perhaps unnecessary by 1944, but in 1942 and 1943 the Western Allies had to draw off enough of the German war effort to allow the Soviet Union to recover from their setbacks of the first year and a half. The food and fuel and vehicles and boots and ammunition and guns that America shipped to the Soviet Union, especially in 1943, made it possible for the huge Red Army to launch the sweeping counteroffensives that liberated much of the Ukraine during the second half of 1943 and early 1944. I do not think this would have become possible if the Soviet Union had been left unsupported. These are just a few conclusions I have drawn from my four decades of study. My bias motivated my study, especially early on, but that does not make my conclusions inaccurate. Now, with the opening of the archives, my general understanding of the war has been enhanced. I find my early conclusions are on much firmer ground. The fighting from the Battle of Moscow onward was much harder for the Red Army than I ever knew. The outcome of the Soviet-German War was by no means a foregone conclusion as many claimed when I was young.

[@Armageddon4145]

Thanks for sharing these wise words, sir!

[@clearsailing7993]

The 300,000+ Studebaker trucks sent to the Russians were especially helpful since 90 percent of the German armies were not motorized. Fast movements can determine the outcome of a battle or keep your troops from being surrounded.

[@СтепанОсипов-г7н]

My father is Armenian and my mother is Russian. In that war, 2 grandfathers and two great-grandfathers fought with me (two great-grandfathers were killed), one grandfather was wounded and disabled, the other reached Keningsberg, and then in Majuria he beat the Japanese. The Japanese, would not surrender to you if we didn’t take their entire industry to the continent. They didn’t care about their people and your atomic bombs. Poor Mongolia helped us in large volumes almost for free, you don’t even need to stutter about US help, Russia paid more 40 years in gold for all this, America earned on the blood of Russian children and women, America cursed itself with this.

[@TheFaderland]

All this historians should get together and look at the month after Germany's reunification and Putin's speech at the Bundestag in Berlin! Who rejected Putin's and Russia's Hand Of Friendship?

[@DerekCully]

Impressive detail/insight into your rational and methodology.

[@parkestanley2436]

I have a morbid obsession with The War on The Eastern Front. Still cannot fathom the insanity, the senseless waste of human life and destruction of property. Really, the entire WW2

[@andrewblake2254]

The German attack may have been senseless but it made sense to the Russians to defend their country. They really did not start that mess.

[@parkestanley2436]

@@andrewblake2254 Yes, of course

[@clearsailing7993]

I heard that the rich German industrialist (and Henry ford) backed hitler. They did not want the unions to infiltrate their companies. If this happened, they would have to pay higher wages. The industrialist told hitler they would back him financially if he would march on russia and eliminate communism. The unions were being pushed by the communist. Henry ford use to say that he wished he could hire only a pair of hands instead of the whole person. Hitler was getting many natural resources from Russia before they went to war with each other. If he he could no longer buy them, then he would try to steal the whole country. Historically, the Prussians had to attack fast and be successful right away or they ran out of resources and lost if the conflict was drawn out. Hitler thought he could win in a few months. It didn't happened, the conflict dragged out, he ran out of resources (especially oil) and lost.

[@geopoliticsjunkie4114]

Word salad not what i expected

[@moistmike4150]

Wow! That WW2 was freakin' terrifying. I just glad no one got hurt.

[@keithscott3466]

I would believe those made infamous rather than those made famous... The former have no reason to to lie for nothing will change for them The latter have much to protect and reason to lie

[@frederikbjerre427]

Good reminder of critical thinking, ty.

[@DinoCism]

I always found it bizarre as a kid how much the American/British perspective of WW2 took as gospel the memoirs of Nazi generals who we would have gladly hanged in Nuremberg and would have seen as inherently biased narrators on another subject. But simply because the Soviets were our "current enemy" and the nazis were an old enemy that we could see as "no longer a threat" we could afford ourselves the luxury of taking for granted all their bigoted and often emotional excuses and justifications for their own failures and ratiopnalizstions and downplaying of genuinely shocking and impressive successes of the Soviet army, people and (hardest of all for us to give any credit at all to) their system of governance or organization.

[@redjacc7581]

the soviet union didnt call it the "eastern front" because to them it isnt the east, its on their western border. This topic is semantics and isnt important.

[@vespasian606]

A history of history comes to every scholar in the end. Regardless of the subject. Acknowledging ignorance is one of the steps to understanding and makes for a keener eye when looking at material that appears to contain new research. A lot of the time it's just spin but when you read something fresh with actual quoted sources it can be an interesting rabbit hole. The study of history is definitely something that requires an appetite. Just be ready to eat a lot of bullshit sandwiches.

[@zoidfist5900]

Fair winds on your journey! Southeast is sailing along.

[@ginkax]

Now if we can only do the same for the "Western Front".

[@fnayr00]

Much talk just questions not you're best video

[@DinoCism]

It's important to remember that just because the reasons for the previous ideological biases that clouded the facts have changed (no more Soviet censorship and no more Cold War impetus for Americans to take the German side in everything and view all events through the funhouse mirror of American Anti-Communism) to say that now our perspectives are "unbiased" as the narrator does several times in this video is still problematic and not altogether true. The Great Patriotic War is still a matter of intense National pride in Russia and thus while there may not be bureaucratic institutions of formal censorship there is still massive popular sentiment about what happened and likely in some cases a backlash against both the nostalgia and the pro-communist censorship of past accounts which may overcorrect in some cases for previous biases. In the US the Cold War may be over, but is it really? The prospect of a "New Cold War" with China is in the headlines everyday. Now that history has delivered its verdict in confirming that China will be a global power and almost certainly the largest economy in the World for many years to come it has also made clear that American assumptions about the "end of history" where, like Russia, China would basically accept the American form of government and the Neo-liberal economic consensus China has done what the USSR failed to do: found success in a Capitalist, market driven world without abandoning its one party, state-driven, planning heavy approach to development with all the trappings of Socialism, hammer sickle and all still intact. This means America won't get another chance at the buffet table like it did when multinational corporations swooped in to buy off all of the USSR's state assets, leaving the population to suffer a plunge in living standards. So Socialism is once again a threat to America's prestige and it's claim to be "the only way" to be in a modern world. So in many ways it is doubtful that American historians are suddenly going to be willing to actually approach Soviet claims with an open mind or view German belittling of their system with much suspicion, since it is once again a matter of national morale for Americans to deride Communism and deny the possibility of any such government doing anything successfully, historical truth be damned.

[@Armageddon4145]

Good points. Indeed there still exist many drawbacks and we can't speak of a completely balanced, unbiased environment. But it's already a lot better than it was...

[@Ebergerud]

I have almost zero sympathy for the inability of Western historians to put the Russo-German war into proper perspective. The Soviets kept their archives shut, published an "official" history that was so bad that nobody would print it. (I saw a translation of it in Washington DC in 1975.) There were some memoirs from Chuikov and Zhukov (Chuikov's claim that the Soviets could have grabbed Berlin "on the fly" in early February 1945 is an interesting comment.) A television series "Unknown War" was so bad it generated a series pointing out how bad it was. We're talking the Soviet Union here - Reagan got it right - they'd lie, cheat and steal just to keep in practice. (They had their "useful idiots" in the West - in the 70s Cold War "Revisionists" had actually convinced a generation of grad students that Harry Truman started the Cold War, not Joseph Stalin. You can imagine how well that thesis stood up after 1981.) So if Western students of WWII weren't able to put the enormous conflict in the Ost in context, give them a break. Think of what was available from Western sources - the US and the UK wrote extremely good multi-volumed histories of WWII on air, sea and land. And if memoirs from Manstein etc got more attention than was proper, they were the only game in town. This didn't really start to change until the German Government began their official history in 1980 (translation beginning in 1990). Since 1991 not only have Western historians like Glantz got in and found gold dust, so have a lot of Russian historians. That war was a bottomless pit and as long as the archives are more or less open, historians from many nations will continue to examine it. But this could not have been done honestly before 1991 - the USSR was that bad.

[@Armageddon4145]

Save a few minor details this is generally what was said in this video. Otherwise it's a misunderstanding.

[@Ebergerud]

I was basically agreeing with you - although I don't think you put enough stress on the contradiction between Soviet Communism and historical method. I had the fabled Harold Deutsch WWII sequence at the University of Minnesota in the late 60s. I even considered writing and honors paper about the Collapse of Army Group Center in 1944 (Bagration). It was no secret that then that the war was decided on the Eastern Front (common usage). It was also inevitable that German view of the conflict received the limelight because so little of value came from the USSR. Stephen Kotkin is working on his wartime volume of his splendid biography of Stalin. It sounds to me that he's going to be harder on the Red Army and Stalin than Glantz is - which is fine. I think what historians don't often highlight is how crude the mass armies of WWII were and how thick the fog of war was considering the technology of the time. I also fear that a kind of revisionism is setting in concerning the Wehrmacht. Yes memoirs are by definition one sided. Over the years there has been an odd admiration for the SS that I've never understood. But in a war between very flawed armies, the Wehrmacht showed a qualitative edge throughout. Fortunately this edge couldn't remove the fact that Hitler's extraordinary ambition did not fit German capabilities.

[@stewartdalton3298]

Is Old Mate Commentating an Aussie bloke? Just asking for a mate. Who also likes WW2 history docs. 👍🧐💋

[@lddcavalry]

Everyone is biased even those trying not to be.

[@gionibegood6950]

in other words, western writers are fabulating about german-soviet war what they think, mainly with very poor resources and without to participate on the events,, the question is are russians fabualting about western front the same shit ? if not, I am on the russian side

[@Armageddon4145]

A good question indeed! We actually never ask ourselves what the Russians are saying about the Western front. The fact is that they aren't saying a lot...

[@gionibegood6950]

@@Armageddon4145 my next idea it is a bit off topic but because you know a lot about wii ... in the movie Battle of Sevastopol, Ludmila Pavlichenko was sent to USA to advocate for the second front.This information is seldom exposed, that the russians were asking for second front since very early (42). my question is: how much is true from the sentence: the americans landed in europe only wth 10 months before the war ended to stop russian to make Vladivostok-Lisabon and not to fight nazis. is it more than 50% true ? thank you and excuse me for this off topic

[@caryblack5985]

@@gionibegood6950 I think that is a lot of baloney. The Western allies opened a second front in North Africa and Italy in1943. Look into it and you will find that many German divisions were sent to these fronts that could have been fighting the Soviets

[@gionibegood6950]

@@caryblack5985 thank you for your opinion, I'm learning more and more...I saw statistics few years ago saying that 80-90% (i don't remember exactly) of german soldiers (not civilians) died on german-soviet front. i think this is saying a lot about the proportions between sides. on the other hand ZDF (a german tv station) has a lot of documentaries about bombardments from americans and brits on Hamburg, Dresda... but not so many from soviets (or at least this is my impression) . i saw also an idea that bombarding London by germans was not an war crime in Neurenberg trial, because the brits+ americans done the same im Hamburg and Dresden... so, everything is from which side you look at

[@Armageddon4145]

@Gioni Begood Tricky question. Don't think this can be simplified like this... Partly true, but not the only reason. And if you want to know more about Pavlichenko's speeches, see our dedicated video "Women's War".

[@thomasmcglynn8813]

When has the cold war over?

[@jasonharryphotog]

I understand your logic, but the battle between German and Russian forces was in eastern Europe hence the eastern front and the battle of the western front was in western Europe, it has little to do with bias as I see it.

[@Armageddon4145]

Again, from a European point of view. From the Russian one this was the Western Front.

[@Game-Boy.]

For Western European countries Eastern Europe is everyone and that is not the case. When we talk about Germans in the Eastern front in other words that means means Germans in the Russian/Soviet front. When you say Eastern it is defacing the people. Because the front was in Russia, only one country, Russia. In the west you have France, Belgium, Denmark……hence Wester front combined or Liberation of France ……

[@jasonharryphotog]

@@Game-Boy. the eastern front trampled all over Ukraine and belaruse and the other countries russia occupied west of the pre Poland invasion border, the Russians were in forward lines rather the earlier russian fortification which were not at all completed so were also in a much weaker position, altogether a dreadful period in history

[@super20dan]

you only need read one book on this and thats the rise and fall of the 3rd reich by william shire. it won a pulitzer and rightly so and remains the definitive book on this subject

[@frederickanderson1860]

Propoganda always confuses any historical events.

[@GeoPoliticsCommentry]

Sounds like more twatwaffle than i want Moving on to someone who talks history not word salad I marked this channel as "do not show me content from this channel"