"Architect of Soviet Victory in World War II" by Dr. Richard Harrison

[@asenaemre]

This is brilliant...I know about Tukhachevsky being the principal proponent of and about Isserson only as an aside. It appears that Isserson was the mastermind of deep battle. Thanks for a very good presentation...

[@triantis35]

All the work was actually done by Triandafylov by order of Tukhachevsky. 4 books were written by Triandafylov which were greatly talked about by Zukov

[@TheMarkJoergensen]

@@triantis35 Only somewhat true. Triandafillov died before he could finish what he had started.

[@DrCruel]

Isn't a bit suspicious that a Stalinist favorite suddenly gets the credit, just after Tukhachevsky is disposed of in a show trial?

[@TheMarkJoergensen]

@@DrCruel What? Triandafillov got credit way before Tukhachevsky died. Both Isserson and Tukhachevsky remarks as much.

[@aryanprivilege9651]

It’s a miracle the superpowers and fifty plus nations endless blood sons soldiers debt capitalism theft never ending checks…As if anyone in Axis wasn’t fighting on sheet will to not be slaves! Read the awe of Japanese and German staff officers soldiers POWs at the might of the USA. Garbage poorly made, terrible soldiers, but anything goes monstrousities war crimes illegal do whatever bullshit blow up burn civilians kill set fire to cities raze everything nuclear and thermonuclear? Must be high! Had too? What despicable lies as always!

[@diabeticalien3584]

So many contributions of the USSR to WW2 are unknown (for obvious reasons, i.e. secrecy on behalf of the USSR and the cold war following WW2). I'm glad this presentation was done.

[@Dakotaidk]

They weren't secretive at all. You can read everything these great generals wrote (if you know Russian, that is)

[@AQW0RIDS]

@@Dakotaidk which were not opened up and translated for half a century, because of aforementioned secrecy.

[@scottyfox6376]

Being an old head, all my youthful readings on WW2 were of 60's,70's & 80's + books. A certain narrative was presented & all the authors seemed to agree on crucial points & events. The subject of WW2 still holds great interest for me so im obliged to listen to newer views with better understanding of events due to superior access to German & Russian archives.

[@luckyea7]

In addition to its territory, the USSR liberated 47 percent of the territory of Europe (the allies liberated 27 percent, with the joint efforts of the USSR and the allies, 26 percent of the European territory was liberated). The Soviet Union eliminated the fascist domination over the majority of the enslaved peoples, preserving their statehood and historically just borders. If we count according to the current state of Europe (separate Bosnia, Ukraine, etc.), then the USSR liberated 16 countries, allies - 9 countries (by joint efforts - 6 countries). The total population of the countries liberated by the USSR is 123 million, the allies liberated 110 million, and almost 90 million people were liberated by joint efforts. The Red Army defeated 507 Nazi divisions and 100 divisions of its allies - 3.5 times more than the allies on all fronts of World War II. On the Soviet-German front, the German armed forces suffered more than 73 percent of the losses. The main part of the Wehrmacht's military equipment was destroyed here: about 75 percent of aircraft (70 thousand), tanks and assault guns (about 50 thousand), artillery pieces (167 thousand). The spatial scope of the Eastern Front was 4-6 thousand km along the front, which was four times greater than the North African, Italian and West European fronts combined. On the Soviet-German front, hostilities were conducted with the greatest intensity and spatial scope. Out of 1418 days, active battles lasted 1320 days. On the North African front, respectively, out of 1068 days, 309 were active, on the Italian front, out of 663 days - 49. The Soviet army fought against the bulk of the troops of Hitlerite Germany. In 1941 - 1942, more than 75 percent of all German troops fought against the USSR, in subsequent years about 70 percent of the Wehrmacht formations were on the Soviet-German front. At the same time, in 1943, it was the USSR that achieved a radical change during the Second World War in favor of the anti-Hitler coalition. By the beginning of 1944, Germany had suffered significant losses, and yet remained a strong enemy - holding 5 million people on the Eastern Front. Almost 75 percent of German tanks and self-propelled artillery installations (5.4 thousand), guns and mortars (54.6 thousand), aircraft (more than 3 thousand) were also concentrated here. And after the opening of the second front, the Eastern Front remained the main one for Germany. In 1944, over 180 German divisions operated against the Soviet army. The Anglo-American forces were opposed by 81 German divisions.

[@dennisweidner288]

@ luckyea7 You need to look up the meaning of the word "liberated". Few of the people in these countries felt liberated. Notice how they all joined NATO as soon as possible after the Soviet empire was dismantled. Now you are absolutely correct that the Red Army at great cost tore the heart out of the Wehrmacht. And we in the West have to be eternally grateful for this historic achievement. But it also had to be noted that the Soviets 1) committed terrible atrocities and 2) as a NAZI ally contributed to the NAZI build-up (1939-41). And there does not seem to be an appreciation in Russia or your text for the critical importance of the War in the West. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html

[@stochasticwhistles]

@@dennisweidner288 1. USSR was never an ally of Nazi Germany. They were never in alliance. They traded, but so did all western powers. Americans traded oil to Nazis way long until Dec 1941. 2. What terrible atrocities? Speculated mass rapes in Germany? Stalin issued an order to execute rapists in 1945 Jan 13. There were over 2000 men sentenced to prison or shot for rapes or as marauders. Nazi Germany had a law where women couldn't do an abortion unless was raped. Guess what happens to statistics in the middle of a war torn country with hunger at large. If you get pregnant and can't support your child what do you do? Go to the doctor and say "I got raped, I need an abortion." Who raped you? Do you say that neighbour Hans? No, because police would start an investigation. You say "unknown red army soldier" which never gets investigated by police.

[@dctuss21]

Most of those countries joined NATO because that was the only way to receive US AID, see Croatia. These countries got bribed and threatened. Join NATO or end up like Yugoslavia. Easy choice at the time

[@teejayaich4306]

You may have a different definition of "liberated" than most people. Yes, the USSR paid the heaviest price and did the most damage to Hitler's war effort, but the USSR also put tens of millions under a murderous and perpetually dishonest dictatorship full of gulags and secret prisons. Go and ask the peoples they "liberated" how they felt when the USSR "liberated them"

[@2uksteve]

@@stochasticwhistles Your post contains more fantasies than the entire Harry Potter series. Read and learn: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

[@DavidHHermanson]

Thanks to Prof. Harrison for a refreshing reading of the history of Soviet combined arms doctrine leading up to WW II. I'd read one of Isserson's works a few years back when in was first translated and published in the U.S. The lecture helps me understand the context and significance of Isserson's work.

[@alexplotkin3368]

I just finished Richard Harrison's book on Isserson. Good book on deep operations. Chapters three, four and five are focused on deep operations.

[@chrisstanbridge4331]

Skip to 28:34 for the good parts.

[@alexplotkin3368]

The fact that Marshal Alexander Vasilevsky praised Isserson's work is solid evidence of Isserson's impact. There were a number of Jewish officers in the Soviet military in the 1920s, 1930s and during World War II. Essentially after 1950, Jews were sidelined or pushed out of the Soviet armed forces. They were largely passed over for promotion, relegated to teaching posts, fired, pensioned off, arrested or sent to command troops in remote areas of the USSR. There were a handful of exceptions like Admiral Konovalov in the 1960s. So much for a 'classless society'.

[@kingcobra7565]

US Army 71-74, UC Berkeley '78. Interesting lecture. Thank you

[@Polit_Burro]

As I understand it, in the aftermath of the Treaty of Rapallo, during the 1920s the Red Army and the Weimar Republic's OKH (Army command) engaged in various exchange programs in which the Red Army was able to draw from the current theories and practices of the German army at a time when that country was isolated. I would be interested to learn what, if any, contacts or exposure Isserson had with these German contacts of the Red Army. I now want to learn more about Isserson!

[@piescespiesces602]

Very interesting lecture ! Big thank you !!

[@halporter9]

Added several dimensions of understanding for me

[@nickbellworks9231]

Great video, thank you!!

[@gillisthom]

the "video" part is generous

[@h2energynow]

Was Isserson at the Kama tank school when the Germans were training in Russia contrary to Versailles Treaty 1919?

[@tjejojyj]

Sonya Davidson Good question. I’d like to know that as well. Also what lessons were drawn by the rest of the Red Army leadership from the German tank tactic training.

[@Internetbutthurt]

I hope you arent trying to blame the Soviets alone. The Soviets allowed the Germans to train, they didnt supply them tanks. France and Britain turned a blind eye to Germany expanding its fleet and air force over Treaty limits.

[@freedomloverusa3030]

Winston Smith - Miserable Ministry of Lies, Castro Balls sucker, your Loved Antiamerican Russians also trained the SS.

[@zoompt-lm5xw]

@@Internetbutthurt well, without soviet oil abd wheat no invasion of poland and battle of France, or battle of Britain. So....

[@Internetbutthurt]

@@zoompt-lm5xw Thats not correct at all. The USSR did not supply much to Germany until 1940 when the war had already started; the Soviets had tried to get a coalition together before war but when that didnt happen and war was inevitable, they sought to delay war until they were ready. Given France and Britain had already declared war on Germany the USSR ensured they would not be attacked for some time by being economically useful to Germany. It was smart. If the Germans had of invaded the USSR first, its possible the USSR might have been either conquered or knocked out and then Germany able to use the vast material they gained against France and Britain, who were never going to stand up to the German Army. We might still have had a battle of britain scenario but without the USSR, the Nazis would have eventually won

[@davidchou1675]

Very intelligent questions...even more enjoyable than the already-good lecture!

[@triantis35]

This edition of V.K. Triandafillov's classic contribution to Soviet military theory makes accessible to Western military historians and analysts one of the most important works from the interwar period. Triandafillov was an outstanding commander who helped to shape the military art, theory and doctrine of the Red Army as it sought to come to grips with the problem of future war. A conscript who rose through the ranks to become an officer in the Tsarist Army,

[@alexsveles343]

Draw the Germans in…make them think they are winning. Early German victories were not victories but a walk into a colossal trap. Just like Napoleon,,,he tought he was winning….but he wasn’t he walked into a trap This is why ancient Greeks called russia Hyperborea

[@Kriegter]

I SEE THE WORLD STILL HAS HOPE. QUANTITY IS BETTER THAN QUALITY, BUT THE WAY YOU USE IT IS ANOTHER THING

[@newnewdaniel]

Where can I get the document he copied? I would love to read it.

[@TheMarkJoergensen]

Harrison translated them and published them in G. S. Isserson and the War of the Future

[@johnwilsonwsws]

49:54 "... again as another typical example of Stalinist whims, or whoever dictated this, just of how badly the Red Army intellectually had been degraded by the purges" It's very enlightening. What becomes clear is the success of the Wehrmacht during Operation Barbarossa was primarily due to the politics of Stalin and his henchmen. From September 1939 to June 1941 they had time to study German military operations in Poland, France and North Africa, they had Isserson's "defence in depth" doctrine on their bookshelves, they just needed to apply it. How did the largest land invasion in human history - 3.3 million soldiers - from a regime that had openly declared one of its prime aims was to destroy the Soviet Union come as a "surprise"? While Stalin purged the Red Army on trumped up charges (14:33) and (not mentioned) using confessions extracted under torture, it was Stalin who agreed to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which allowed the Nazis to launch WWII on favorable terms and then to invade the USSR on favorable terms. The purges reflected a conscious appreciation by Stalin and his henchmen of the mass opposition to their policies, especially allowing the Nazis to destroy the independent organisations of the German working class without any opposition and the subsequent growing threat of another German invasion AND the abandonment of Lenin's conception that the fate of the USSR depended on the world revolution in favour of the reactionary, utopian and anti-Marxist "theory" of socialism-in-one-country (announced after Lenin died) AND the brutality of the unnecessary irrationalities of the five-year plans. Stalin and the bureaucracy maneuvered with short sighted an opportunist reactions to a crisis they had allowed to develop. Stalin's socialism-in-one-country was the ideology that reflected the material self interests of the bureaucracy that had emerged in an underdeveloped and isolated economy to ration out the shortage of goods and services. Lenin, a Marxist materialist, always insisted that socialism depended on the highest productivity of labor. In place of Marx and Engels "Workers of the world unite", Stalin offered (to summarize) "workers of each country unite, hope workers in other countries will do the same." By 1936 Stalin told American journalist Roy Howard in an interview that the Soviet Union "never had such plans and intentions" for world revolution. That this was the result of a misunderstanding, "a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic." In 1943 to prove to his allies he didn't want world revolution he dissolved the Communist International (Comintern). FYI: ... "[Zhukov] acknowledged that Germany's achievement of surprised on 22 June assumed critical significance because the Red Army had failed to anticipate the striking power of the German army: 'This was the primary factor that determined our losses in the initial period of the war'. Zhukov's admission highlights an important puzzle about Soviet war planning on the even of Operation Barbarossa, whose significance could not be fully assessed until the recent opening of the Russian archives. This puzzle concerns the dangerous disconnection that existed before the outbreak of war between Soviet political strategy and military operational doctrine. From at least 1940, Stalin's German policy required that the Soviet Union maintain a non-provocative stance toward the Third Reich to eliminate any pretext for an invasion. The Red Army, therefore, could no longer expect an early and secret mobilisation against an impending German attack, overturning a central and long-standing planning assumption. Nevertheless, on the eve of war a majority of the best-trained and best-equipped Soviet military forces were forward deployed in an offensive posture along an 1800 kilometre border that left them dangerously exposed to German attack and encirclement. The puzzle looms even greater given that the Red Army was not only vulnerably deployed in June 1941; it was also perilously weak. The purge of the military, starting in 1937, had consumed the vast majority of senior officers and cut huge holes into the ranks of experienced middle-grade officers. This crippling blow came amid the chaos created by a vast programme of rapid military expansion ..." "Planning for War: The Red Army and the Catastrophe of 1941" Cynthia A. Roberts Europe-Asia Studies Vol. 47, No. 8 (Dec., 1995), pp. 1293-1326www.jstor.org/stable/153299 FWIW: I would like to hear - a comparison of "Deep Operations" (Isserson) with "Deep Battle" (Tuchachevsky) - a discussion of the competing strategic doctrines developed in the Red Army. What was the doctrine behind the disbandment of the tank corps? Who wrote it?

[@zschow9259]

wow gota publisher?

[@johnwilsonwsws]

@@zschow9259 I write for the World Socialist Web Site when I get the time. What did you think was the most important point I made?

[@audunms4780]

This is soooooo deeeeep bro.

[@TocTeplv]

Superb

[@triantis35]

The accual work of the deep battle doctrrine was done by Triandafylov

[@juleshammond5652]

Don' t upset the Americans. Say this: 'Great Britain, Canada, the Commonwealth and the USSR will always be grateful for the sacrifice the USA made in the last part of the war in Europe and their contribution to our inevitable victory. Thank you'. It should do, with no disrespect to those U.S. servicemen who gave their lives...

[@zoompt-lm5xw]

Without US steel and food the USSR would have collapsed in 1943

[@dennisweidner288]

@ Jules Hammond The decisive campaign of the War was the Ostkrieg where the Red Army at great cost tore the heart out of the Wehrmacht, Not fully understood, however, is the importance of the war in the Wrest to the Soviet victory. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html

[@dennisweidner288]

@@zoompt-lm5xw Lend-Lease was important, but the War in the West was vital. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html

[@stephenlight647]

Unfortunately the US is still in Europe, and remains the major spending entity in NATO regarding Ukraine. Not really our problem. This is why we should be out of NATO and allowing the Europeans to conduct their affairs, whatever those may be.

[@juleshammond5652]

@@stephenlight647 Wasn't that what happened in the 1930s

[@GeorgeSemel]

I been a student of the German- Russian War 1941-45 ever since I picket up a book when I as about 12 years old Time Life History WW-II in photos Eastern Front! I'm 60 now, and I learn something new every day! This example just further validates a view I had had for a very long time, The Russian People thru no real fault of there own, suffered from really poor to criminal political leadership. And they appear to be hell bent on the same path again! Sad- they are a decent bunch , history just dealt then to many bad hands!

[@bandwagon22]

The biggest lesson is still unknown for you. Actually land battles of WW2 were not near as decisive as common wisdom is suggesting. Big powers like Germany, USA, UK and Japan invested maximum 25% for land warfare. Losses of single even huge land battles were easy and fast to replace because weapons were cheap. For instance Germany used in 1943 4.5 billion RM for concrete shelter construction, more than AFV production during 1941-43. Germany itself used over 6 times more money for aircraft production than for producing armor.

[@samterian7694]

+George Semel what would have happened if Stalin did not exterminate many of his officers?

[@GeorgeSemel]

That is the great unknown, he was in charge, he killed a boat load of his own people for what ever! I come across a little fact about the Russian Boys born in 1923, 80% of them did not survive the years between 1941-45! At the very least if he had not killed off the officers in his own Army or the Polish Officers in the spring of '40 and listened to his intel people and not pick a fight up north with the Finns- maybe there would have been fewer losses, then again maybe not! Then again if the German didn't go on a murder and looting spree, they might have won the war, if they came as liberators but nope! Hind sight is always 20/20 nothing is cut and dry!

The finns were experts working far beyond the front line. Very dangerous in a land like Soviet! But they made lots of damage and collected informations of great value and killed high officers who were travelling behind their lines. Don´t forget Stalin was a bad psycopat who hated russians like most jewish bolsjeviks.

[@mikoyangurevic8634]

Stalin was not of Jewish origin, don't believe to stupid propaganda. Not even Lenin was Jewish. You saw what the communist government did to the jewish faith after it took power. Stop believing the white russian propaganda who fought along foreign invaders (US, British and etc) against the Revolution (US, British and etc).

[@ashishraval6352]

speaker has a weird way of saying isserson

[@russg1801]

How does this this concept of 'deep operation' and its 'shock army' differ from Hitler's Blitzkrieg? Sounds exactly the same to me.

[@xavierpages2854]

There is a good explanation of where the german concepts came from in a video on this channel : "Death of the Wehrmacht : The campaigns of 1942". Also on Mitiltary History Visualized, there's a short video on "Blitzkrieg". Basically, what the germans had was a military culture (coming from the prussians) that emphasized rapid wars, decisive battles, movement warfare (bewegungskrieg) and encirclement of enemy forces for destruction (Kesselklascht like the previous answer states). All of that predated the panzers. What they did NOT have was a comprehensive strategic framework. Since the idea was to win short wars by concentrated attacks, encirclement and destruction of the enemy forces, the view was mostly operational/tactical. And more practical than theoretical. This is rather apparent if you analyze the german operations on the Eastern Front. The focus was always on pocketing and destroying the Red Army. In contrast, the Russians, from end 42 onwards, planned their offensives on the whole strategic level down. Deep Battle was a coherent theory from the top down.

[@andygass9096]

Its partly a mindset but in particular the use of echelons at all levels as well as mobile groups

[@LinhHLe]

it larger in scale

[@dennisweidner288]

@@xavierpages2854 The Soviets and Germans had similar doctrines in part because of the Rapallo exchanges. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww1/misc/pt/vte/vte-rap.html But the point you make is valid.

[@NatashaStory-p6r]

Perez Mary Gonzalez Daniel Lopez Ronald

[@ricardosoto5770]

I have a complaint. Deep Battle was instrumental in the big victories of Stalingrad, the liberation of the Ucraine and Bragation, but the defensive battles fought in 41-42 who grind up the German army were not fought as deep battles. And the soviet enfasis on deep offensive battles hurted them alot in 41 and 42. The Red Army was so married to offensive operations they could not fight defense. And of course Stalin stupidity during the purges weakened the Soviet Army hability to carry their offensive deep battle doctrine, getting rid of the officials skilled enough to carry them. Isserson... he was of Jewish or Mennonite stock? Not a Russian name btw. That can explain why he was not famous.

[@audunms4780]

The batle of kursk used deep battle.

[@pedinomefaux]

Stalin got rid of military officers not because they were in the military or because they were geniuses, but because they were attempting to overthrow his government. They were caught on time and punished. This is common to any country.

[@ricardosoto5770]

@@pedinomefaux actutaly that BS, there was never a plot.. Heindrich Heindrich and Admiral Canaris make Stalin believe in a non existant plot. One of the most succesfull false flag intelligence operations in history. And Stalin did the job of decapitating the Red Army for them.

[@LinhHLe]

Deep Battle not used in 1941-1942

[@ricardosoto5770]

@@LinhHLe That is my point, the Red Army was to focused in the offensive that had to learn with a huge cost how to play defense during the early war.

[@kevinbyrne4538]

Gregorii Samoilovich Isserson was defeated during the Polish-Soviet war of 1919-1921. He spent WW2 sitting in prison. So he had little experience in battle, and that was unsuccessful. Also, when he finally had a chance to test his ideas, he was unable to do so. So why are his ideas noteworthy?

[@alexplotkin3368]

His theories deeply influenced key Soviet leaders such as Marshal Vasilevski, Marshal Bagramian, Generals Zakharovs, Shtemenko and Antonov and many others. Soviet military successes by these commanders in their offensives of 1943, 1944 and 1945 were built on Isserson's ideas.

[@ИринаКим-ъ5ч]

White Ruth Young Mark Taylor Ruth

[@saby76012]

Rubbish. So Stalin had no role in defeating the Nazis!!! So did'nt Churchill or Roosevelt in leading theie own nations!! What nonsense. He could have talked about life and .... of Georgii

[@LinhHLe]

no role at all, his stupidity on par with Hitler

[@dennisweidner288]

@ Sabyasachi SenGupta Stalin certainly had a role in defeating the NAZIs, but he also had a role in 1) launching the War. 2) strengthening German military power, and 3) committing terrible atrocities. www.histclo.com/essay/war/com/wc-nsnap.html He also ordered several disastrous offensives. But unlike Hitler, he learned from his mistakes. Churchill and Roosevelt on the other hand were largely guided by their military commanders throughout the War.

[@josephfreedman9422]

From what I've learned, I do not believe that Stalin was a particularly good military commander - he made a lot of mistakes. However, and this I believe is from Stephen Kotkin, he had tremendous knowledge of military production and kept it going throughout the war through active direction.

[@russg1801]

Soviet victory in the Great Patriotic War isn't any real mystery. They simply absorbed more punishment than even the NAZI war machine could inflict. Soviet generals made the soldiers fear their own machine guns BEHIND the lines more than they did the Germans in front of them. The Proletariat were starved and worked to death to produce the needed weaponry. Many of the weapons were inferior to German hardware but they made enough of them. They actually produced a pretty good tank. The American Sherman was inferior to German armor but again, it was made effective by sheer numbers and the sacrifice of soldiers who manned them. The Russians may have hated Stalin but the hated Hitler and the invader more.

[@ghostofcato3052]

Sir: Rubbish! Russian equipment worked VERY well in the freezing winters of Russia! German equipment was manufactured to such tight tolerances it would seize up in the winter, like their rifles and diesel engines! German machines were never designed to function in extreme cold like the Russian winter! Russian equipment was designed and purpose built to function in the Russian winter! The Mosin Nagant sniper rifle had a very simple scope and could be BZO'd in three rounds compared to the German sniper rifle which took five or six rounds to BZO! Russians cleaned their rifles with oil and a little gasoline and they did not seize up, not so with German rifles! The T34 tank which was an American design licensed to the Russians was power by a turbo charged detriot V12 diesel engine with an ether start system built in! T34s would start at 50 below zero! German tanks had to be left idling all night because they would not start in the cold! The Germans burned huge amounts of fuel while leaving their tanks and trucks running 24/7! German logistics could not keep pace with the Army to begin with and less so as they burned 30 to 40% more fuel than the planners had allocated for each Army or Army group! German equipment did NOT perform well at all in Russia!

[@ghostofcato3052]

+Bruce M. BTW I AM an American and I do read history; I do NOT read propaganda as a general rule! I served in the United States Marine Corps and I was very well trained an educated by the officers I served under! I have a constructive understanding of warfare at the Macro level, certainly better than most! Semper Fidelis Bruce.

[@DavidHHermanson]

TheWersum and 1423dead, Since World War II American military academies and its various war colleges have paid significant attention to Soviet accomplishments and military doctrines during World War II. Likewise, historians of World War II at both public and private colleges and universities are fully cognizant of the importance of the Soviet contribution to the defeat of Germany. Indeed, it's increasingly common to hear American historians speak of the USSR as having defeated Germany. ' American popular attitudes have of course been highly influenced by the anti-Communist political rhetoric of the 1950s. You mistake popular media for serious history and military study. As to high school studies, my public school teachers back in the 70's talked at length about the significance of the Soviet contribution to World War II and the enormous losses they suffered at the hands of Germany. I remember no sympathy for Nazism. Was there an overestimation of the American contribution to victory in Europe? Probably. But, if you had been a student in the Soviet Union at the same time you would have read texts underestimating the contribution of other allies to that same victory. All of this aside, you are commenting on a lecture by an American author, Dr. Richard Harrison, working and studying at American institutions, in which he speaks about Soviet military doctrine and its significance in the winning of World War II. It can hardly be said to be "based on a German point of view." Your comments reveal only your prejudices. The Soviet Union, United States, Great Britain, Canada, and Australia, along with the rest of the British Commonwealth were allies during the war. Each contributed materially to our common victory over Nazi-ism, Fascism and Japanese militarism. Arguments about who bled more or gave more are profoundly disrespectful to all the blood that was shed and all the labour given in the Allied effort.

[@alt-monarchist]

Russ G Uummm......you've been watching too much Enemy at the Gates film...what you are describing only applied to pinal battalions, never regular army units.

[@eagleeye6691]

@Mercb3ast very small Point : Until the end of 1944 the Germans were still fighting within the administrative boundaries of the miserable Bolshevik Union. Until that time, despite the desperate situation, all Bolshevik offensive operations were making mixed gains ( In comparison to the size of the forces used and the firepower applied in each offensive ) But for the bolsheviks it was certainly costly in humans lives and materials .. One of the problems encountered by the Fucking Germans was that they were stretched too far beyond the limits of their : 1-fighting forces and firepower capabilities, 2- their logistic support system and 3- their industrial base , 4- lacking sufficient fuel capacities production and refining and to some extends in raw materials for example in the final stages of the war they missed the high-quality aluminum they needed to produce jet fighters .... 5-The F German forces stretched too far from its main bases and became too thin where they were scattered over vast areas ( about 3000 km in deep and 2000 km in front from baltic sea to the black sea & Caucasus Mountains )... 6- While the F Germans had to fight on three major fronts at the same time They must meet their commitments and fulfil the increased needs of these three fronts in : combat forces , weapons , ammo , other logistic needs ..... although in the Eastern Front the F Germans managed to control geographical areas far greater than what they had achieved on the Western front and the Balkan campaign. They were able to destroy armies groups , weapons and combat equipment and took more prisoners than the western front . I agree with you that one of the reasons for the victory of the wretched Bolsheviks was the share numbers in man powers , weapon systems , munitions and combat materials ....

[@pelontorjunta]

Most of military historians have very narrow battle centric perspective and especially focusing mainly just those slow and quite meaningless land battles. The fact that even Germany gave 55-58% of its munition production to air war is remarkable poorly understood by these apostles of WW2. That fact that USA was in warfare 20 times more combat effective than Stalin's backward armed forces led by incompetent mostly WW1 like commanders is also poorly recognized.

[@aritovi]

In January 1943 was the first USA raid conducted on Germany proper. By that time, the eastern front was already going to the soviet side. The war was won by the cooperation of the allies. But the role of the east was huge. I don't understand why some people try undermine the effort of soviet people. Check the percentages of german casualties made by USA and USSR armies. 2/3 of the casualties can be attributed to the Eastern Front.

[@dennisweidner288]

I would not be so critical of the Red Army, but basically, I agree with you. The munition consumption is just one reason why the war in the west was so important. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html

[@PAPITO_49]

The Russian victory in WW 2 was do to the American taxpayers and the Tanks & aircraft we sent to Russia.

[@PelicanIslandLabs]

Why are these uploads of the quality of 1965 home videos? The IQ is absolutely horrible which makes these vids unwatchable.

[@dennisweidner288]

Fascinating talk. One point. The Soviet Union was not "on a par" with the other major combatant countries on the eve of World War II. Its economy was less than half of the American economy. And its industrial capacity was less than that of Germany and Britain. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/tech/land/tank/pro/tpes-ste.html Now the Red Army at the time of World War II was huge with the largest armored force and air force, larger than that of NAZI Germany. This was the case because so much of Soviet industry was devoted to the military, Even so, the Red Army, like the German Army was motorized infantry, dependent on infantry moving on foot with horse-drawn carts. The only fully mechanized army in World War II was the Americana and British armies. This industrial mismatch is why the War in the West was so important. The NAZIs had to devote most of their industry to the West, leaving the Ostheer (consisting of the vast bulk of German manpower) poorly supplied and supported. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html