Why Hitler invaded the Soviet Union

Sign up to World of Warships with our link for a free starter pack worth €25: wo.ws/3YW2PoX
In the summer of 1941 Adolf Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa, his invasion of the Soviet Union. Often described as an epic strategic blunder, the invasion was supposed to reach Moscow in weeks. Instead, four years later, Soviet troops would take Berlin and destroy Nazi Germany.
But was the move really a mistake? In this video we’ll examine why, in the mind of Hitler at least, Germany had to invade the USSR. And how Hitler’s genocidal enterprise in the east might have claimed the lives of many millions more.
NOTES
The graph at 3:23 should read 'United Kingdom' rather than 'British Empire'.
The map at 10:04 should include Norway as occupied.
Find out more about the Operation Barbarossa: www.iwm.org.uk/history/what-w...
Why Operation Barbarossa Failed: www.iwm.org.uk/history/operat...
Explore and licence the film clips used in this video from IWM Film:
film.iwmcollections.org.uk/co...
Follow IWM on social media:
/ i_w_m
/ imperialwarmuseums
/ iwm.london
Attributions:
Herbert Backe / Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-J02034 / CC-BY-SA 3.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/...

[@PitFriend1]

The nazi’s brutal racist policies in the east was both horrible and helped cause their own failure. Many areas the Germans initially captured like the Baltic States and Ukraine treated them as liberators because they really hated the Soviets. They might have become willing allies against the Soviets like Finland until the nazis immediately started treating them even worse than the Soviets did.

[@authentic229.14]

Strange then, that many Slavs fled with Germans to western Germany as the Soviets pushed back in 1944-1945. Also strange that eastern European people who experienced it back then only praised the Germans and did not tell of any atrocities or bad treatment.

[@Cybernaut76]

@@authentic229.14 Slavs who fled with Germans, knew Soviets would perform some sort of examination and that it would be 100% certain Stalin would show no mercy to those he perceived as traitors while Slavs with "Vlasov" tendencies or dislike for communism, who survived the first few years of German occupation, could possibly not be outright killed by the Germans....at least not instantly. Make no mistake: both, Hitler and Stalin were monsters. The only reason why Nazis killed much less than Communists did, was because their heyday ended in 1945 while the latters heyday ended in 1991 and besides, Communist world included a lot more people than Nazi Germany.

[@michaelhowell2326]

Be honest, you don't really know what you're talking about and left the comment to virtue signal, didn't you?

[@spitfireinvasion]

@@authentic229.14 oh yes, surely, there were most certainly „no atrocities or bat treatment“ committed by the Germans against Eastern Europeans… so strange… Bro you trying to reinvent history? Who do you think is going to buy that crap. Jesus

[@DanielGarcia-kw4ep]

​​@@authentic229.14Well if your country is at war won't you flee? Lol Many people fled, mostly scummy colaborators, and yet manz more people joined the partisan groups and were willfully receiving Soviet aid Some nationalistic people received the Nazis as liberators at first, but then they realized that they were far worse than the soviets. Who are you talking to that no one claimed that the Nazis didn't mistreated them? You must be talking to Nazis yourself then. Germans plans were very explicit and were carried out to a great extent. The only thing that stopped them to accomplish them fully was that the Übermenschen weren't as powerful as they thought they were and the soviets were whipping the floor with them, so they had to make some alliances that would break the second they didn't needed them (as happened with Findland)

[@markfryer9880]

The thing that I find strange is that both Napoleon and Hitler launched their respective invasions within days of each other and they both reached Moscow within days of each other. Separated by a Century of change and they both end up taking the same amount of time to get to Moscow and both fail in their ambitious plans! Mark from Melbourne Australia

[@ArmoredNeko]

Because that's about the only time you can invade. Too early you get mud too late well general winter. The weather did not change that much and Germany's logistics isn't much of an improvement either. Hitler thinks he is better than Napoleon and it turned out otherwise.

[@sillypuppy5940]

Why would they take different times to get there? Apart from the Panzers and a few mechanized units, the Wehrmacht was largely a marching/horse drawn one, not that different from Napoleon's.

[@Liopleurodon]

don't forget that Hitler had to postpone his attack by several weeks because his lackey in Italy thought he can have his own Blitzkrieg in the Balkan, especially against Greece. It is highly debatable if he could've defeated the USSR, but this adventure most likely costed him the prize of Moscow.

[@lesseirgpapers9245]

They both were put to power by the organization created by Loyola. The criminals who planned Barborossa ended up running NATO, EU, Bundeswehr, NASA, Us Intelligence agencies

[@MrNPC]

German logicians at the time said they'd get about 800km in and then stall out, which is exactly what happened, it was doomed from the start. The only real alternative was to let the Soviets join the axis as the Japanese were trying to facilitate and carve up the world together, perhaps postponing the showdown until a later date if at all.

[@victorkrawchuk9141]

Hitler's biggest mistake with Barbarossa might have been his inability to recruit Japan into his strategy against the USSR. Had Japan decided to join Germany in opening a 2nd front in the Eastern USSR, rather than turning its attention to the US in the Pacific in an attempt to secure Dutch East Indies oil, Stalin wouldn't have been able to draw significant forces from Siberia and use them in the 1941 Winter Counteroffensive.

[@paulcarey1708]

The focus on Stalingrad instead of the oil fields to the south and east was classic "pride comes before the fall" as well.

[@gavinmclaren9416]

Indeed. However, Germany had nothing to attract the Japanese into attacking the Soviet Union. I reckon that the Japanese had carefully considered what was best for them in the short term. By the time of Barbarossa, the Japanese had been engaged with the Chinese tar baby for the better part of four years. This fact, as well as the fact that by that time they had no rational solution to the Chinese war (beyond abject surrender to US foreign policy), forced the Imperial Japanese government into action that could break the strategic deadlock in China and resolve, by some means, the American oil blockade. An attack on the Soviet Union would not do this; in fact, it was the Japanese conclusion that while a tactical victory over the Soviet Union was a possibility, that fact would not improve their strategic situation. Even if the combined weight of Germany and Japan did result in the defeat of the Soviet Union, the victorious powers would squabble over the petroleum production, and the Soviet territory that produced the oil would be physically in German hands. Thus, an attack on the Soviet Union would not prevent Japan from running out of oil. So the Japanese were forced into a reducio ad absurdium of attacking the US to get at Dutch East Indies oil. Yamamoto himself referred to an attack on the US as "the height of folly", but the incredibly poor decision to expand the Manchurian war to all of China in 1937 doomed the Japanese, just as Hitler's poor choices eventually led him to fight the three greatest powers in the world: The US, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire, when he really couldn't inflict a strategic defeat on the weakest of the three, Britain. Such is often the fate of totalitarian powers; they have to live within the constraints of their ideology.

[@marshallc.t.2554]

Also the split of the forces into 3, leading Army Group North to be stuck in Leningrad

[@Falafelen]

Japan in 1941 launching a land offensive on a nation the size of the USSR would probably destroy their entire chinese front. Japan's land army was already stretched thin in China and did not have the resources nor the industrial capacity to launch another offensive.

[@timgosling6189]

The Japanese had just been given a very bloody nose by the Soviets under Zhukov at Khalkhin Gol, losing half their deployed combat strength. This collapsed their ambitions to extend their control West from Manchuria, at least until significant military deficiencies had been addressed. Japanese attention then focussed on the southern Resource Area as an easier target for access to resources to support industrial expansion. This was compounded by a resurgence of Chinese efforts, now supported covertly by the US, to oust the invaders. Indeed, in 1941 Japanese Foreign Minister Yosuke was fired after failing to persuade his government to join in the German attack.

[@snapdragon6601]

The losses that the Soviet Union suffered during the Winter War with Finland also probably played a part to convince Hitler that he could defeat the USSR.

[@JeanLucCaptain]

And the political purges after. And the generally disorganized state of the Soviet military as a result. If Hitler had left the Soviet Union alone they might have collapsed on thier own instead he gave them a shot in the arm that ensured they not only SURVIVED but thrived

[@jg3000]

It wasn't about that. He was allied with the Soviets, fighting a war against the British. But getting nothing from the Soviets. Take the Soviet Union and get her resources. Germany was starving for resources like fuel.

[@schokobar4133]

This loses are first not even real and the world just saw how the soviets dont caputere finland,khrushchev invented this numbers to destroy the stalincult, 53k-68k soviets died in the winterwar, dozen of finish and russian historyans proof that like ohto manninem or baryshikov, the soviets lost less materiel in the battle of stalingrad and moscow combined than in the winterwar, people just like to believe khrushchev in the west because that gave them the feeling that the soviet army is not invincible

[@nelyrions1838]

It did play a part. Like with most large decisions, it's often the culmination of many smaller factors that weighs in for the final decision.

[@bas-tn3um]

hitler was against the communists from the word go he only made the pact in poland because he wanted to handle england first. their can only be one glorious leader and they followed opposing sects of socialism.

[@andrewsoboeiro6979]

Anand Toprani documents how Germany faced a severe oil deficit from June 1940 onward- one they consistently failed to plug despite concerted efforts to conquer, import, & synthesize new oil supplies. Invading the oil-rich Soviet Caucasus region was a last-ditch effort to solve a fuel crisis that was rapidly dooming the German military.

[@dr.victorvs]

I mean, it did make the problem much worse. What would happen if Hitler had accepted Stalin's offer to join the Tripartite Pact at the end of 1940 and started buying the oil instead? It's impossible to tell.

[@andrewsoboeiro6979]

@@dr.victorvs it made the problem worse, but the oil deficit was already a catastrophe before Barbarossa, and with no clear way around it. Note that Germany was buying massive quantities of oil from the Soviet Union right up to June 1941, but it wasn't enough to meet the Wehrmacht's needs-- Germany kept pushing the Soviets to sell them even more, but Toprani documents that the Soviets couldn't really do that because they were using up everything they weren't selling, and their own internal demand was rising rapidly with industrialization. Here's Toprani's paper, if you're interested: repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/557628/Toprani_georgetown_0076D_11993.pdf

[@ihl0700677525]

Question is, why tf did Hitler invaded his own primary oil supplier (i.e. USSR) instead of focusing on North Africa and capturing British oil fields in Mesopotamia? IMO oil was secondary to racial and ideological reason. Hitler's priority, as stated in his book, is not the natural resources nor the living space (lebensraum) itself, but the elimination of the "subhumans" and the destruction of the old world order.

[@aBoughtLemon]

Ironically, it was the fault of German generals that Germany lost the war, not that of Hitler. Had Hitler's plan been realised, then Barbarossa would have aimed for the Ukraine (which it did) and then Stalingrad and the Caucuses during 1941 instead of 1942. Had Hitler had his way over the generals, it is feasible - though not inevitable - that Hitler would have defeated the Soviet Union

[@andrewsoboeiro6979]

@@aBoughtLemon it's possible, though note that advancing on a single salient would have carried serious risks of its own, namely inviting northern Soviet armies to counterattack and cut their lines of communication (same reason why it wasn't a good idea to just attack Moscow)

[@saltydog584]

I am surprised oil was barely mentioned and the reason for the 3rd Reich's invasion of the USSR was put down to being mainly about food.

[@harrymills2770]

It's not a very in-depth video.

[@cowboybeboop9420]

Probably because by the end of the war the Germans had discovered synthetic oil and so had far more fuel and energy than at the start of the war.

[@saltydog584]

Germany was producing synthetic oil in 1939. Operation Barbarossa was launched using 1,000s of horses as they did not have the oil needed for a fully mechanised army. By 1944 the Luftwaffe were unable to fly due to a shortage of fuel.

[@user-tc9sk4ei9y]

In fact, oil wasn't a huge factor of german strategy till 1942. They even drew their ambitions to the Volga river only, but not to any major oil deposit region. Nazi way of thinking wasn't particularly innovative in that sense

[@tyronevaldez-kruger5313]

Oil was a factor for Nazi Germany, it was a factor for the US in Iraq and it is now for Russia in Ukraine. Oil is a gift to humanity but mankind's leaders won't say it out loud when they invade a sovereign state. They are politicians not honest Canadian nuns.

[@jonathangasana]

One of the most consequential decisions in human history.

[@ptauagpt]

Adolf was repeatly told by his staff not to invade Russia. Obviously the economic prizes could be good but at a great cost. yes there was a chance be it smaller that Adolf could have basically taken Russia in 1941 to the spring / summer of 1942 but it would have required a swift and somewaht lucky set of circumstances. An earlier time line invasion..lets say about 6 weeks in May rather than June 21 may perhaps have made a difference. Adolf waited for the Crete campaigne to complete before he really invaded Russia.Of course not all the ground was thorougly hardened yet in early May for a thorough movement of the tanks. There was actually 1 day in the invasion in 1941 ( where germany had gained an apex of victory and territory ) that Stalin may have considered a cease fire.( through fear )..but it was that only day and he did not proceed . Of course we have here what if ?

[@yurikadzz]

Not that much. There was no way the nazis could've won the WW2

[@ummoof7069]

​@@ptauagpt doesn't really matter if he could've taken USSR or not The Soviets were coming for the all of it, if his generals weren't against him he would've taken the nation, his war is justified just not by the Rothschilds

[@Random_user-sz7nk]

Its funny, I never really thought of the similarities between America's idea of manifest destiny and Germany's concept of Lebensraum until now.

[@ostwelt]

Hitler was a great fan of cowboy Westerns too.

[@Mark-pb4dn]

And still Europe wants to control Russia's resources

[@planderlinde1969]

That is where Hitler got the idea. The only difference is that the US did it through a combination of purchase, conquest, and migration, with paperwork in Washington to back it up. Hitler just wanted to kill and enslave everything east of the Vistula River.

[@QWERTY-gp8fd]

native americans dont even have their own state.@@planderlinde1969

[@Alte.Kameraden]

Most everything the Nazis did had precedence. Keyword "Most." Mass forever sleep camps designed specifically to end peoples lives, is a different story. USSR for example had gulags but even at it's peaks during WWII death tolls didn't reach the levels of camps run by the Nazis. But this likely is the result of different ideals. USSR were Classist, Nazis were Racist. USSR believed they could turn people into the Proletariat through HARD labor if they were not Proletariat enough, ie selfish etc yada yada. Nazis believed similar, but only to those within their "Race" but those outside their "Race" were bound by blood and couldn't be Socialized into the new system. Which is why Germans who went to the camps were worked, and eventually released similar to the Soviet Gulags.... but if someone who wasn't German, good luck...

[@tancreddehauteville764]

Hitler had a choice: give Stalin what he wanted (which was a lot) in exchange for economic help, which would have made Germany completely dependent on the USSR, or gamble on invading and conquering the USSR. He chose the latter and lost - end of story.

[@redarrowhead2]

Yes it ended with his brains on the walls of his bunker

[@gamertardguardian1299]

New runways and offensive units reported by Hans Uldrich Rudel and many other pilot and soldier recollections of the invasion confirm that the soviets were either trying to scare germany into backing down or actually preparing a massive offensive war against germany (Many claim it was hitler propaganda that it was a preemptive strike, but thats not completely false). Hitler definitely wanted to eventually put an end to Stalin, but not at the time of Barbarossa. Granted, the massive amount of soldiers and land captured within the first year probably made hitler more confident that he could have won such a war.

[@cliffordcasnermillar4976]

I’m willing to bet the bulk of this content came from the book “The Wages of Destruction” by Adam Tooze, about the German economy in WWII. I read it about 2 years ago & I’d absolutely recommend it.

[@chrisvowell2890]

Agreed - a brilliant book that reveals the underlying defects in the German economy that caused the war and then lose it.

[@daveedesanta6318]

@@chrisvowell2890 german economy did not cause it. only fools will read one book and come in to such pathetic conclusions

[@amoryhall1796]

A good book. Has anyone done similar analysis on stalin's slave labor gulag economy?

[@m.streicher8286]

Imagine being a happy little puppy, completely oblivious to the fact that you'll be immortalized on film as hitlers puppy

[@Pieceoreece]

And i'm sure that puppy loved it's owner.

[@P0PG03S]

@@Pieceoreece Surprsingly, the owner also loved it back.

[@garywheeler7039]

@@P0PG03S : unsurprisingly, Hitler tested a suicide capsule on his dog Blondie, shortly before his own suicide. What a narcissist and sociopath.

[@thebrittaniondragon6183]

Oh you mean Blondi (yes that's its real name) Hitler loved animals being a vegetarian as well and something that is sadistically ironic is that he would condemn his generals for eating meat, talked about the cruelty in which the animals where treated/killed and implemented both animal protection laws, as well as laws to properly transport life stock manners in a safe and non distressing manner. I wish I was joking

[@wessexdruid7598]

@@Pieceoreece And look what happened to her.

[@_Wombat]

Thanks for the detailed and informative video. In this day and age, having videos available which are clearly well-researched and presented by experts is a breath of fresh air. Keep it up please :)

[@bas-tn3um]

no finding videos that fit your narrative is hard.

[@Winward87]

Outstanding video!! I’ve been studying WWII for years, so much of this information was already familiar, and yet the presentation alone really helped me make key connections between facts that I hadn’t noticed before. In particular, the comparison between “lebensraum” and 1800s (& early 1900s) American “Manifest Destiny” made German motivations come into perspective in a whole new way. Thank you for the fantastic content IWM!!

[@delusionalplatonist6077]

Hey! You should watch "How the USA inpired the nazis" by a channel called BadEmpanada. It's a highly researched well made video on this connection. You might like it :)

[@buddhamaster322]

Why don't you listen to Hitler explain for himself why he invaded the Soviet Union, instead of a listen to a rotten youtuber who only tells you one side of the story that he read on Wikipedia, and who silences people who try to give you the full picture? When they censor us, its because we are getting close to the TRUTH! Link: mk.christogenea.org/system/files/video/Hitler_explains_his_reasons_for_invading_Soviets..mp4

[@usagi67]

No, because many different aspects were not mentioned. Germans settled in Eastern Europe centuries ago without mass murder. If the raise of food production can be achieved through better agriculture by German farmers, food shortages will not happen.

[@bas-tn3um]

when lebensraum was literally stated as taking land for germans to grow in... youre a clown you didnt study ww2 for years if youre just figuring this out.

[@petergreen5337]

❤Precisely

[@bradyelich2745]

During the war, Britain's farmers were told to double production twice or risk losing their farms. 10,000 farmers were replaced, and one was killed in a shootout. Ruth Goodman has a series called Wartime Farm.

[@hansmohammed5486]

Britain's farmers you mean indians right?

[@endzor]

read George Orwell writing's during ww2 when britain gets bombed

[@africanlipplateandbonenose3223]

@@endzor britain bombed Germany first

[@endzor]

@@africanlipplateandbonenose3223 well first: because Germany attacked Poland and second: I wasn't talking about why we're their bombed, I recommended to read Orwell during these times to see his true vision on the ideology of Soviet Union, Britain, Nazi Germany

[@jonathanbuzzard1376]

Even without winning the Battle of Britain the Nazi's could not have invaded the UK. Firstly they simply didn't have the vessels necessary and secondly take a look at the size of the home fleet compared to what Germany could field. It would have been a massacre for the Germans had they tried. By the way sinking ships from the air in WWII was very difficult.

[@maxwillems368]

Good to see that Adam Tooze is getting more recognition for his work. For those who haven't read it yet, read "Wages of Destruction"!

[@cabana85]

Thats not Adam tooze, who is a hack

[@R2Manny]

Thank you for this informative content, IWM… never forget!

[@dandyjesus]

Hitler was high on war. Once he had started it and the first victories bolstered his resolve he couldn't stop the hounds of war he unleashed. It's the conqueror's curse.

[@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044]

Indeed there is a saying in investments past performance is no guarantee of future success . Without a doubt Germany was decieved by its own initial success the combined arms of blitzkrieg had served them well but most wars are a contest of attrition where resources not tactics prevail. Also war is a curiously addictive endeavour although it's worth noting that Germany didn't engage in a full war economy until January 1943 no doubt it gave Hitler and associates a sense of power and importance that they didn't have 1933-9 and becomes gamblers luck in keep pushing for more. I find alternate reality rather indulgent distraction. However Germany was doing alright although unable to subjugate Britain it had overcome all continental powers it had engaged until it's invasion of the Soviet Union and subsequently declared war on the USA in solidarity with Japan , who knows what if as they say...

[@Adonnus100]

He was quite literally high for the later part of it.

[@kalekkakmdkekjaakwkmdb8506]

He never wanted to go to war with anyone except russia. The whole reason of world war 2 was to invade russia

[@redarrowhead2]

Yes but also high on historical fiction and feelings of superiority mostly because of the French collapse

[@kalekkakmdkekjaakwkmdb8506]

@@ale895 most of the world thought the soviets would still win due to their resources, vastness and history. Also their communal regime. However had the germans fought the soviets alone they probably would have won.

[@eliasmiguelfreire8965]

Wow, just thank you for this very rich content, I already knew most of it, but you've summarized it perfectly.

[@Poliss95]

Every comments section on an IWM video shows me how little many posters know about history. They're living in a fantasy world.

[@williestyle35]

I was going to say how many people here seem informed, but the number of Wehraboos' convince me that you are correct.

[@williamboquist4090]

Thanks for letting us know you're superior. Very helpful. Adds immensely to the discussion.

[@Poliss95]

@@williamboquist4090 Yep. I'm superior to you because I've studied the damn subject and don't spout ridiculous conspiracy theories like a lot of those in the comment section do.

[@Poliss95]

@@williamboquist4090 Here's one of them. "Germany didnt break the munich agreement, czechoslovakia was falling apart and the czechs asked for protection" Complete nonsense of course. Dr Goebbels couldn't have put it better himself.

[@Poliss95]

@@williamboquist4090 Here's another gem. 'Before the first world war Russian Czar and German kaiser wanted to build a land based empire, This upset The financiers of The British maritime empire,They did all they could to drive a wedge between Russia and Germany, This was achieved by the assassination of the arch duke Ferdinand, After the first world war ,Henry Ford finance some of Hitler's activities, in 1916 wall street Banker's finance the boleshivik revolution, And later some of the Bankers finance Hitler's rise to power, after the second world war America became the maritime empire and the soviet union the land based one, the division of the land based empire against the land based one continues today ,And was the main reason for the Ukrainian conflict, Russia china must be keep apart from Germany, And that is what the financiers of the European union want, it is never the people that want war just the bankers and the military industrial complex scam The bought and paid for media And the politicians that schill for them,'

[@davidasher8718]

He was right about one thing, it had to be done in 41 or it wasn't going to get done at all

[@billyb4790]

because of Stalins plans to invade Europe?

[@user-propositionjoe]

Lost me when a graph is shown claiming the British empire had only 7% employed in agriculture. Unless it's supposed to be only England there is no way the British empire had only 7% of it's people in agriculture. Every colony was made of farmers harvesting things for the the English government.

[@Tonyx.yt.]

British India was like 70% farmers back then and had the majority of the Empire population. 7% sounds accurate for UK

[@redarrowhead2]

For the UK proper totally believable

[@TestTest12332]

I just wanted to make two observations. First, Stalin was also rapidly preparing for war, and Soviet Union was getting stronger by the day. If Hitler didn't strike first, then very likely Germany would have been attacked by the Soviet Union, maybe not in 1941 by definitely before 1950. The decision to strike early was made because in 1941 Germany still had the advantage. Second, bad treatment of Eastern European people by Germany was a major mistake dictated by Nazi ideology. Probably THE mistake that cost them the war. A lot of people (Poland, Baltics, Ukraine, Caucasus) HATED Stalin & Russia. Given arms and some autonomy, they could have easily joined the fight against Russia with a lot of motivation and vigour, and turned the tide of war in Germany's favour. Instead these countries and their people were subject to holocaust and war crimes and did not contribute much to German war effort.

[@hansmohammed5486]

It almost seems like you didn't watch the video it literally says that one of the reason for the germans to invade the soviets was to give food to their population but that would mean that the soviet population would had to starve so the germans could eat

[@endzor]

An excerpt from Stalin's speech on February 4, 1931: "We are 50-100 years behind the advanced countries. We have to run this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we will be crushed." During these 10 years, the USSR economy grew at the fastest pace in the world.

[@Tezcax]

They would still lack the food, weapons and oil to supply these new soldiers. The Soviets carried as much as they could before retreating from these areas. Some Caucasus people did join Hitler. Chechenya-Ingushetia rebelled against the USSR and support the Germans but again, they had little in the way of resources.

[@ndalum75]

The extent to which Eastern European mistreatment was caused by ideology, or at least Nazi ideology, is overstated. Hitler's government repeatedly attempted to negotiate, including through intermediaries such as the Red Cross, some sort of agreement with the USSR on POW treatment. The USSR, which would not sign the Geneva convention until 1990, rebuffed these advances, refusing negotiation or arbitration. This was because the Soviet Union considered soldiers who surrendered, under any circumstances, to be oath breakers and traitors, subject to the imprisonment and even theoretical execution of their family members ("their families are to be deprived of all existence", Stalin Order no. 270). Given this scenario, the German government decided to not adhere to such conventions either, at least on the Eastern Front. The reasoning behind why Germany did not support any sort of "Russian Liberation" movement until the very end is more hazy. Mere racial theory was not it, or else the Germans could not have allied with the Slovaks, Bulgars etc. Colonization plans were a part of it, but I don't think were decisive, as Germany had struggled to find enough settlers to colonize even Western Poland from 1939-41, let alone the vastness of Russia. The best argument I have found for it, is essentially that Hitler did admire Stalin, as is evident in numerous of his private statements, and didn't want to close the door to a negotiated settlement by backing an anti-government insurgency. One can imagine that after a theoretical German victory at Kursk, Hitler would have proposed a peace offering to the Soviet Union. That said, I doubt very much that Stalin would have accepted any peace terms by this point.

[@johnnyb2909]

I totally agree. Lets not forget that Stalin spoke to his Soldiers on the Border to Germany days before the Invasion, but its not known what he said to them till this day.

[@richardsimms251]

Terrific video. Thank you.

[@Miamcoline]

Great context!

[@morningstar9233]

Remember kids when it comes to invading the former Soviet Union, just say no.

[@gumdeo]

Don't poke the bear.

[@jean-louislalonde6070]

Just say N(at)O...

[@sergeykorostelev7510]

Yeah, just doubt that you are not more clever and lucky compared to Napoleon and that Austrian painter

[@kerzytibok3211]

Teach your kids not to become right wingers --- they either wanna invade Russia (ie, Hitler) or become best friends and subservient to it (ie, Crooked Donnie)

[@blankeon6613]

Germany would have succeeded if it was just Germany vs the Soviet Union. The American Lend-Lease agreement made the difference.

[@greenling.]

Whats worth mentioning: The agriultural productivity of Germany was not good (this is mentioned in the video) and the Nazi's legistlation in the late 30s (Hereditary Farm Law) made the situation worse. Agricultural self-sufficiency was Hitler's primary concern when he mentioned "Lebensraum" (living space) in "Mein Kampf". He had no own economic theory when he wrote that book and NAZI party had to make one up in late 20s/ eraly 30s when they realized that they wouldn't have chances to be elected without one, but the core ideology was about space for German farmers. This was fuelled by Hitler's (all Germans') experiences in WW1 when massive foot shortages were a dire problem and played a role in losing the war. Apart from that, economocally Hitler and Nazis were never ideologists in terms of economy and Hitler hat little understanding nor patience for such things either - unlike socialism and communism where economy and society are the dominant aspects.

[@christiandauz3742]

Fascist nations are very corrupt

[@sirmungus7113]

Really great video!!

[@oldestgamer]

I read somewhere that Stalin was sniffing around Romania for it's oil fields that Germany possessed at the time, the loss of those oil fields would have been catastrophic for Germany and was the most easterly area Germany tried to save until the very end.

[@user-wj6dt5bq3w]

Correct, Stalin wanted to conquer Bulgaria from the south, he had already gotten a foothold for a spearhead thrust in Northern Romania in Bukovina and Hertza.

[@jcsrst]

If we aren't aware it can happen again...

[@pjotrtje0NL]

Some of us act as if history’s there for amusement, not for learning. Sickening.

[@ianbell5611]

Current death toll in Gaza stands at more than 18600. I'd say it's happening there RIGHT NOW. Then there's Myanmar, Yemen, Sudan and Darfur. Iraq and those still unfound Weapons of mass destruction and the blood shed that was unleashed. For those people who's country is unfortunately situated on a a fault line between the tectonic plates of ideological power It seems that death the destruction of their property and any chance of peaceful life being but a pipedream is their normality..

[@NastyCupid]

Indeed, there are still tensions between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany... Oh wait...

[@Nilithic]

It will definately happen again at some point in history. We live in cycles.

[@Pletonian]

Because he was tired of wining, just like Napoleon

[@Ragtags]

Thank you for the video. Very informative

[@pstiles1]

Nice to see timothy snyder’s ideas breaking through.

[@gabrielrodriguez821]

Agree with the whole video other than to clarify the actual start of barbarossa as it was delayed by the battle of Crete. Which basically means German high command wanted to invade even earlier but Hitler put it off for the Balkens.

[@CalinGilea]

Yes, true. He had to secure his southern flank, especially when Yugoslavia changed its mind and the Italians got bogged down in Albania and Greece, opening up a potential underbelly attack by Britain. However, I don’t think that a May or April attack would have helped Germany. The war games run by Von Paulus and Jodl in autumn of 1940 concluded that the army can get to Moscow with their latest reserves, which actually happened. So Hitler had to attack, because he was on a timer due to his resource disadvantage against the Allies⏱️.

[@davidasher8718]

The thaw was late in Russia in 41 so they couldn't have gone earlier anyhow

[@realhorrorshow8547]

It's often said that the war in the East was Hitler's mistake, but as this video points out war with the USSR was essential to Hitler for ideological and economic reasons. I've often considered that his real mistake was going West. Hitler might well have been better off to simply strike the Soviets as soon as Poland was conquered. Here's my counter-factual: Hitler went either too soon or too late. June 1941 was too late in the year. If he could not have launched Barbarossa sooner - and he probably couldn't - he should have postponed it until Spring '42. Three axes of advance were too many. There should have been two; one to Moscow, the other to the Caucasian oilfields. We know - thanks to hindsight - that Stalin did not joint the panic flight of Soviet officials when the Wehrmacht approached Moscow. A conquest of Moscow could have led to his death or capture and a decapitation of the Soviet state. The plan to seize the Caucasian oilfields - always ambitious - should have been adhered to. No dividing of forces to try to grab a strategically unimportant city just because it was named after Stalin. Of course, all this would depend on having someone other than Hitler in charge. He was the obsessive micro-manager, lacking in strategic ability who wrecked the whole thing. In fact another alternative would be that Germany didn't go to war when it did. Five or even ten years to reform it's agricultural base, expand it's industry, achieve a more thorough mechanisation of it's army and cultivate political friends in Western Europe would all have helped. But Hitler was fifty in 1939 and didn't want to wait.

[@endzor]

it was diplomatic win, when soviets signed non agression pact and turned germany to the west, otherwise uk, france, usa could even possibly help germany once it attacked soviet union instead of france. (poland was proposing an alliance against soviet union to hitler)

[@comrade_commissar3794]

Your notion that Hitler could have taken Moscow is a complete fantasy. Moscow was 10 times the size of Stalingrad, and would have been 10 times the battle. The Soviets were extremely dug in around Moscow, with massive anti-tank ditches, minefields, trenches and bunker networks. There is no way, no how that Hitler would have succeeded in this endeavour in any timeline.

[@onylra6265]

Hitler didn't choose to go west, he gambled that Britain and France would not honour their pledge to support Poland without Soviet support. War with Britain was not planned, and unexpected.

[@realhorrorshow8547]

@@comrade_commissar3794It is, as I said, a counter-factual, a piece of speculation. I don't know how a Nazi assault on Moscow would have played out and neither do you.

[@Blox117]

@@comrade_commissar3794 Lol you literally lost stalingrad, moscow would drop faster than the mogols wiped through russia 700 years ago

[@williamdrijver4141]

Very interesting and informative video. The economic perspective and motivation often seems to get little attention.

[@adrak91]

what was the population density at the end of the war?

[@fritztheblitz1061]

Good evening, thank you for the Video. In German we call the war in the east ein Vernichtungskrieg. You "teach" the darkest point on German history in a very good way - thank you.

[@DanielGarcia-kw4ep]

It's sad that many Germans still feel guilty about something that happened when most of them weren't even born and that guilt causes then to support Israel, who is currently doing their own genocide

[@williestyle35]

I had not known the modern teaching term was "VernichtungsKrieg". Seems appropriate, given Hitler's true aims of "labensraum" and annihilation of the Jewish people, as well as other "untermensch". If we humans do not learn something from our darkest points, we are doomed to repeat them (as I see happening in my own country now).

[@marcalvarez4890]

Hello from the USA. I send you a warm hug!

[@OUigot]

History books omit how Stalin and USSR were bullies during that Pact. USSR was not the "victim" as history books claimed they were. Threatening Europe constantly, and even mobilizing an army to invade Romania to capture the oilfields that Germany desperately needed. That's why Army Group South was slower to advance than North and Center in the opening of Barbarossa, they had to destroy that massive army USSR had on the borders to invade Romania.

[@aAverageFan]

United Kingdom and France were also not a victim in WW2 either

[@OUigot]

@@aAverageFan - Exactly, England and France started the aggression with Germany by declaring war, and Germany made several attempts for peace after they declared war. History books mislead saying it was the other way around.

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

Romania was a fascist anti-communist government by 1940, and arguably even before. As to the USSR "constantly threatening Europe", it was Europe in alliance with Japan and the US that invaded the Soviets in 1920, during the civil war. Most of Europe at the time had large colonial empires all over the globe and spheres of influences where ever man can set foot. Presenting them as passive victims is incredible.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Thank you for such a well explained and calm video discussing the topic!

[@paulschrum4727]

Where can I buy a book cushion like the one the speaker is using at TI 8:31?

[@user-wh1zb6ie3y]

"Norfolk Book Sofa" from Preservation Equipment Ltd in Norfolk (UK) - They have a few different sizes for around £50

[@-John-Doe-]

Just read his book, people. Stop listening to KZbinrs.

[@jeremiahsmith9109]

You understand that Hitler lies right? Like alot. He wrote books and then distributed them to the public to get them on his side. The only way you can get millions of people to get ready to start a Second World War, is by Manipulating their feelings, and lying through your teeth. Reading propaganda for “unbiased truth” is dumb. That’s the complete opposite of what you should do.

[@mr.anderson3288]

“We defeated the wrong enemy”. US Gen. Patton after the defeat of the axis forces

[@dragosstanciu9866]

But an enemy nonetheless.

[@JohnBebek]

Winston Churchill in his memoirs after the war wrote, "I think we slaughtered the wrong pig".

[@ryantaylor1926]

They were foolish to think mad dog Germany wouldn't strike west after beating Russia.

[@tritium1998]

He should have fought for Germany against all the Allied forces?

[@MikeSmith-hu8hv]

I read a book on Barbarossa many years ago annd remember two things One is that Hitler originally planned on invading in the middle of May and had to delay it due to some problems in the Balkans Also, if he decided not to go to Leningrad and instead concentrated his forces elsewhere such as Moscow and the Caucasus region he might have defeated the Soviets in just a few months

[@ahmedkeremsayar]

10:16 the turkish map is wrong you put sevres treaty borders which was never ratified thanks to Ataturk.

[@paulheinrich7645]

I must have missed the part where they explained the reason Germany HAD TO invade Russia when they did.

[@a.grimes4202]

That’s why “had to” is in quotes in my the video title. Hitler saw a “need” to invade the U.S.S.R. for his policy of _Lebensraum_ (“Living space”) for Nazi Germany, when very few others in his inner circle agreed with him.

[@mystikmind2005]

Probably costs ALLOT of money to have that kind of force mobilized just to sit on a boarder. He got massive debts, so, how sustainable is it? He thinks Britain are not a 'natural enemy' but Russia is. So the question is, what else can he do with those forces? Invade Turkey?? Thats an option, gives him access to the middle east, oil, Egypt, and the canal! But it is all strategically vulnerable to Russia, and how much does Hitler trust Russia exactly?? so, yeah.

[@robertewalt7789]

Resources?

[@mystikmind2005]

@@robertewalt7789 Resources would be a reason to delay invading.... Germany was actually importing massive amounts of resources from Russia before they invaded them.

[@closetglobe.IRGUN.NW0]

​@@mystikmind2005I guess they didn't want soviet permission anymore

[@trailingarm63]

That was brilliant, a retelling of history from a slightly different perspective to the one I'm familiar with. I never knew Hitler had a second, unpublished book either. I previously felt oil was the main motivation for USSR invasion but I can see now that this was just one of several major imperatives. Your film was very succinct and very clear, thanks for posting.

[@buddhamaster322]

Why don't you listen to Hitler explain for himself why he invaded the Soviet Union, instead of a listen to a rotten youtuber who only tells you one side of the story that he read on Wikipedia, and who silences people who try to give you the full picture? When they censor us, its because we are getting close to the TRUTH! Link: mk.christogenea.org/system/files/video/Hitler_explains_his_reasons_for_invading_Soviets..mp4

[@buddhamaster322]

Why don't you listen to Hitler explain for himself why he invaded the Soviet Union, instead of a listen to a rotten youtuber who only tells you one side of the story that he read on Wikipedia, and who silences people who try to give you the full picture? When they censor us, its because we are getting close to the TRUTH! Link-> mk.christogenea.org/system/files/video/Hitler_explains_his_reasons_for_invading_Soviets..mp4

[@brodyberry6253]

I have a great idea for a content suggestion. Can you please make some videos on Genghis Khan? I think a lot of people would enjoy learning about his military actions and the mongol empire in general. He definitely did a lot and I think a lot of viewers would be astonished and shocked about how many deaths he caused. You know because for some reason it doesn’t seem like The story of Genghis Khan isn’t told very much nowadays. Which is a shame because it’s a very interesting story from a military aspect and many other aspects.

[@neilmccarthy1839]

What is omitted over and over is the meeting held in Berlin with Molotov, Hitler and von Ribbentrop in November 1940. Molotov arrived and was immediately queried on the CCCP's seizure (June 1940) of No. Bukovina from Romania which they were not entitled to per the August Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. A key rail line went through the area and placed Soviet forces within easy striking distance of Ploesti. Molotov swept that issue aside and instead demanded why German troops were in Finland as well as countering with a new list of 'Soviet assets' being placed in key Baltic and No. Atlantic crossings the Germans had gained through combat as well as extra-territorial in Bulgaria and the Dardanelles. Molotov said he would await an answer and demanded one within 10 days of the conclusion of the talks (13th November). Hitler sensed th3e reds were preparing their own strike and ordered his 'first' before he was hit. There is a very compelling different POV by Viktor Suvorov entitled 'The Chief Culprit' a former Soviet GRU officer.

[@sandrothenecromancer6810]

Stalin was amassing an invasion of germany

[@user-wj6dt5bq3w]

Very true. These average WWII fanboys rarely study diplomatic history. They act like nothing happened between the Germans and Soviets from the time of the conquest of Poland to Barbarossa. That Hitler just magically turned against the Soviets because "crazy". In 1948, the US State Department actually published the transcripts of the November 1940 Molotov-Hitler meetings, so its pathetic that few people online know this history.

[@The_Honcho]

I highly doubt this documentary will mention Document no.103202/06 signed chief of staff kirill meretskov on 1940. Revealed that stalin was preparing to invade western europe on july 1941 in a massive invasion called operatsia groza ("Operation thunderstorm"). It is dated 18 september 1940. Three months before the german "Operation barbarossa" was signed. After georgy zhukov became chief of the general staff in february 1941, the plan was called mp 41 (mobilisatsyonni plan 41). It can be found in the so-called "Osobaya papka" A file which contains about 100.000 top secret documents. "For me there is one thing beyond all argument - Joesph Stalin not only did not exclude the possibility of war with hitler's germany, on the contrary. He considered such a war inevitable.. J. V. Stalin made preparations for war wide and varied preparations - beginning on dates which he himself had selected. Hitler upset his calculations." Admiral n. G. Kuznetsov He had no choice, invade or wait to be invaded.

[@edmundblackaddercoc8522]

A lot of vital information about these things are often omitted on this platform, I wonder why!?

[@ryujin9568]

Those who wrote the history books put as much effort as possible into making it look like WW2 was a battle of pure good against pure evil, the noble heroes of the Allies going out of their way to stop the cartoonishly evil Axis, and any attempt to go against the scripture is heresy, you wouldn't wanna be seen as a Painter sympathiser, would you? WW2 is nearly outside of living memory, and over the last 12 years the word "Yahtzee" has been thrown around so much it's lost its meaning. This has resulted in people starting to openly question the mainstream narrative. I won't deny that the Germans did some terrible things like some others would, but history isn't black and white, and many would rather know the truth. After all, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and the Western world is looking dangerously close to early Weimar at this point. It's only a matter of time before another funny moustache man rises up, and once again, most will willingly follow him, and the powers that be cannot allow that to happen.

[@mpetrison3799]

Meretskov wasn't ever a chief of staff of anything beyond the divisional level, lol.

[@f4ust85]

These are all largely side motives and long-term ideological context. It would be good to address the tactical side of things and research of contemporary Russian historians such as Mark Solonin who documented the possibility of Stalin wanting to strike Germany first after his failed expectations of a long, bloody war on the western front - this is why the USSR was nurturing Hitlers regime since early 30s in the first place, training German military illegally on Soviet polygons and supplying German industry with raw materials, in hope of sparking huge conflict among capitalist western powers which Soviet union could then use for their advantage. To great shock, this western campaign was over in a couple of months. Hitler was well aware of his partnership with the Soviets living on borrowed time and needed to strike as soon as possible, as documented in his letter to Mussolini the day before Barbarossa, where he likens the USSR to a noose around his neck. Mimicking american conquest of the Wild west is very far fetched and virtual, not something that forced Hitler to act right there and then.

[@gwanlee]

Very pertinent points

[@maynardburger]

USSR would have taken a good while longer to really mount any campaign against Germany, though. All while helping supply Germany with more oil and resources during that time. Hitler's biggest mistake was probably not pressing on beating the UK first. Wouldn't have been easy, but more heavy scale attacks and an actual invasion force might well have turned UK sentiment towards suing for peace. This would have essentially meant that the US never gets involved, and without the blockade or any other real threats from the west, he'd have been in much better position to accomplish everything else he wanted.

[@f4ust85]

@@maynardburger Yes and the discussion among certain historians is mostly about that timing: people like Solonin, Suvorov,. Valeri Danilov or Joachim Hoffmann argue that Stalin was considering hitting Germany by late summer while others make it a long-term plan rather than tactical reality. Suvorov claimed that USSR was redeploying troops from a defensive to an offensive posture, preparing thousands of paratroopers, distributing leaflets with German vocabulary, and so on. But that is really a technicality: I think anyone born in the Soviet bloc knows that expanding it was an openly stated goal at that time. I think it should be mentioned in the video as one of the factors, rather than just "Lebensraum".

[@Imaxxd22]

​@@f4ust85You miss one point. USSR was working with Weimar Republic, not Third Reich

[@TerryKnight-hw3pg]

@@maynardburger The failure of the German Air force to defeat the RAF and gain air superiority doomed any plans of a invasion of Britain.

[@joed3325]

The British Empire referred to in the graph ledgers surely means the metropole home islands? Otherwise I find it highly improbable that agriculture only accounts for 10% of the workforce, once British Raj is included.

[@tabelchobg1756]

In Mein Kampf Hitler once said that russians were great nation, but destroyed by the communist revolution, also many slavs and other eastern europeans supported Hitler.

[@CA-jz9bm]

Yeah like Poles and Serbs. Also no in his book he actually never said it. Read chapter 14 again.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

I don't think they ever had a credible endgame for Barbarossa. Maybe they had been fooled by Russia's apparent weakness in the winter war against Finland (seems to me some Western leaders recently made the same mistake over Russia's apparent weakness and failures in the early stages of the Ukraine war). But it all seemed to be hinged on the Soviet union collapsing as German units advanced on Moscow (a bit like the French government did the previous year). When that didn't happen, and with Britain still in the fight, Germany had as good as lost the whole war.

[@redarrowhead2]

The gameplan was that the ussr would collapse quickly under the German ubermensch. That didn’t happen so they lost because they could not win a war of attrition against the ussr. They didn’t have the oil to make it happen even if they somehow had the manpower.

[@mikeutube7888]

The Blitzkrieg was meant to lock up Soviet mobilization efforts. Staking had build north of 25k tanks between 1931 and 1939. Something Hitler hadn’t imagined.

[@kiwitrainguy]

"We only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down"

[@Palimbacchius]

"Russia's apparent weakness and failures in the early stages of the Ukraine war"-of course, rather like Germany's *apparent* weakness and failures in the last stages of WW2.

[@ummoof7069]

Soviets were open on taking the world, that makes you a pretty clear target...

[@paulsehstedt6275]

It's mostly forgotten, that Molotov during the negotiations for the Hitler-Stalin-pact wanted the three Danish islands Bornholm, Anholt and Nørrejylland as protectorates. With these three islands, Germany was encircled and couldn't get it's navy Kriegsmarine out in the Atlantic.

[@Conn30Mtenor]

Hitler didn't care much for the navy. He was no naval strategist and he failed to consider the importance of the Battle of The Atlantic. That failure, as much as the invasion of the Soviet Union doomed the Third Reich.

[@williestyle35]

What Navy?

[@johnnyb2909]

Willie its called Kriegsmarine

[@greenling.]

Haven't heard of that. But how comes that the second thing after conquering of Poland was to occupy Norway by heavy usage (and losses) of the Navy?

[@williestyle35]

@@johnnyb2909 oh the Nazi German Navy, that Hitler wanted to scrap all the surface ships from in 1943! Other than Donitz and the submarine arm, the Kriegsmarine was not going to do anything of any significance in WWII. See the _Blücher_ being sunk by the Oscarsborg fort.

[@snazzysailor]

Good job IWM! Subbed

[@KofeNePiu]

The west never learns - once in every century it goes eastward... with the same result

[@adamesd3699]

Ethnic cleansing, hunger plan, quest for lebensraum…are now all back in the news.

[@gumdeo]

Indeed.

[@jahege]

The map from December 1940 should include Norway as occupied.

[@Mehmetcan93]

10:00, And showed the Republic of Turkey as disintegrated and occupied, but such a thing was out of the question in 1940.

[@rogerrees9845]

Another interesting well presented documentary... Thank you to all concerned.... Roger... Pembrokeshire....

[@Cybonator]

Some have argued that Hitler's mistake was using the same imperial logic of Britain, USA & France but in Europe

[@williestyle35]

That argument only goes to paint a small portion of the portrait of Adolph H. His rabid, murderous, anti semitism and radical racism would not be reflected in saying he was using any type of "imperial logic" or was a "colonizer" of Eastern Europe.

[@greenling.]

@@williestyle35 Well no, but there is a lot truth to it. He even explicitely compared his plans with the situation of the USA and the British Empire. He saw this as a strategic neccessity for the German race to survive in a darwinian struggle of races - mostly against the Jews and Asian races (Soviets) in the East

[@mrkeogh]

By the 1930s, those nations had mostly dropped that "logic" of 19th-century imperialism. It might have worked 50 or 100 years earlier on a different continent.

[@williestyle35]

@@greenling. The "Jews" were barely 1 percent of the pre - war Nazi German population, they were less than no threat. The Soviet Union did not have any workable plans to invade Nazi Germany, Stalin was too busy exiling or executing his own military leaders. The only reason Hitler invaded the Soviet Union is because he had always planned to. He made it clear in Mien Kampf what he thought, and what he wanted to do to any "untermensch" he gained control over.

[@gumdeo]

@@mrkeogh France didn't. They fought long, bloody wars to retain their colonies.

[@Lenny2012S]

Surprisingly, when Germany attacked USSR the largest army ever assembled was looming on the Soviet side of the border. It was much larger than the German army and in some measurements (planes and tanks), 3 times larger. And it was only the tip of the spear, because mobilization of much more soldiers had already started across USSR.

[@stephenhosking7384]

As has been said, Hitler (and his generals!) expected to defeat the Soviet army quickly - and they did! Then they faced *another* Soviet army... and another.

[@Lenny2012S]

@@stephenhosking7384 agree. But there was one paradox. Hitler quickly defeated soviet army, which was 3 times larger than German army and their allies together. German intelligence severely underestimated its size. When Hitler learned about it after 2 - 3 months of successful invasion, he was sincerely shocked. It would be impossible to do if that huge first Soviet army had even minimal desire to fight invading troops. Apparently that army hated Stalin and saw Germany either indifferently or as liberators at first.

[@stephenhosking7384]

@@Lenny2012S >> When Hitler learned about it after 2 - 3 months of successful invasion, he was sincerely shocked. I've learned something new! Thanks.

[@tricky1992000]

If Hitler had maintained the molotov ribbentrop until the following year, and had used the oil supplies from the USSR to secure the Middle east and suez canal. He could then have convinced Turkey to join and the Invasion of Russia would have gone a different way.

[@Poliss95]

The Germans never had any plans to take the Suez Canal. Rommel was disobeying orders when he advanced.

[@user-wj6dt5bq3w]

Would have been difficult to maintain with Stalin demanding the conquest of Bulgaria.

[@JohnSmith-lf4be]

If you want to know why Hitler invaded the USSR you should just read his speech on it.

[@philipnorris6542]

The German invasion of Soviet Russia was bound to happen as they were ideological opposites. They went through the motions of being allies, or partners at least, in the early stages of the war because it suited both of them to at that point; they were planning to clobber each other all along.

[@Chaddy2]

The Soviet Union did not so really plan a war against Nazi Germany. They actually were very surprised as the Nazis broke the pact and invaded the SU. At first they even thought that would just be a mistake.

[@notsosilentmajority1]

According to many historians, Stalin did not believe the Germans had invaded the Soviet Union when he was first told. Stalin thought the information was incorrect.

[@andrejguesswho9837]

It is till today a widespread false belief that Nazism and Communism were "ideological opposites" (far right vs. far left). It is nothing but communist propaganda. Hitler himself said that the difference is marginal and would not even exist without his strong Antisemitism and his Arian-Supremacy-Theory. The cause of the divide between the two was back in the 20ies when Moscow tried to mafia-style direct-control all socialist parties around the globe (Internationale) and Hitler rejected Moscows directives because some policies would damagage german national interests. Nazism was never "right", was never "welcomed" in the established right-wing political field and was in fact a dead enemy until the end of all non-nazi political organisations. The reason the public doesn't know that today is because Nazis accepted the framing of being "right" back in the 30ies to appear more modest in contrast to the radical communists. Another reason is the victorious stalinist propaganda that framed all non-soviet political activities to be "right". And another reason is that the american propaganda, dominated by socialist DemonicRat Party for many decades, symphatized with Socialism and Fascism from the start till today and tries to place the evil Nazi-Brother in the opponents corner, a truly devilish tactic of horrific distortion.

[@NickCager]

@@Chaddy2 Nonsense. The Soviet Union fully expected it at some point. Stalin was fully aware of Mein Kampf where Hitler laid out his plans in full detail. Stalin was buying time with their non-aggression pact in order to rebuild his military leadership who he had purged during the Great Terror.

[@antifacho9294]

@@Chaddy2 not true, you have soviet cartoons from the 20s depecting the fight agains fascism

[@nathanstruble2177]

Bizarrely inspired by the US?? As if Lebensraum wasn't literally just Manifest Destiny in Germany??

[@philipmiller2618]

We are often the architect of our own destruction. Hitler feel into this category. Ideology often trumped reality with Hitler.

[@williestyle35]

That is the best and simplest way I have read it expressed, good comment. ( fell* )

[@redarrowhead2]

Yes turns out revising history such that a mythical super race that you are a part of created everything important would do that to you

[@robertmarsh3588]

Sobering context for the reasons behind such a deliberately brutal war. I sometimes wonder if population pressures and racial tensions will give rise to something similar to this happening in the future.

[@Phobos1483]

where the hell did you learn all this and why would that source be reliable????

[@jaymay7957]

Some significantly different strategies and he could have held large portions of the area he conquered.

[@kerzytibok3211]

It was a fool's folly for Hitler to think he could win and hold a two-front war against the Soviets, Brits, and Americans

[@damianousley8833]

Germany was desperate for a quick victory in Russia to gain oil. Unlike the Japanese that had engineers wIth petroleum production experience to repair and get captured oil wells back online, the Germans were stupidly hopeful that the Soviets would abandon their oilwells and refineries in mainly working condition to advancing German forces. This did not happen at Maikoff as the wells and production facilities were sabotaged to be almost totally useless to the German war effort. The Soviets also imported with allied assistance high octane aviation fuel. Literally, the Gernans ran out of suffucient fuel to support offensive operations and the wartime economy. PETROLEUM FUEL STOCKS were their greatist ongoing headache.

[@ssoqboss]

Not quite. Germans could trade with Russians to take anything they want. They did actually. Oil question only was raised afterwards, when they already attacked Russian but failed and had to take war of attrition with country which was their supplier.

[@damianousley8833]

@ssoqboss The main reason Russia was invaded was resources. Hitler broke the non aggression pact when he invaded, and all trade stopped immediately. Up till then the Soviets had always delived on orders in good time. The Germans drove on Moscow initially and failed in winter 1941/42, thinking they could could take out the Communist state by doing so. The German military was never really geared up for a long war and the naval embargo the British maintained in place bleed German industry of essential raw materials, which they then seized from the occupied countries until there was more stock of them. Only when it was realised it was going to be a long conflict did they strike at the Soviet oilfields in 1942, and failed at this target as well. General Winter was Russia's most cruellest weapon. I wonder how many Germans literally froze to death during the winter fighting.

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

I think you seriously underestimate number of dead Soviet POW in German hands. Pretty much all of POWs captured in 1941 were dead by 1942. So when some people in Germany thought to use them in force labour it was hardly anyone left capable to work. So, number os much bigger then 2mln.

[@kidschannel_15]

It’s not Germany who started the WW2, it was the deliberate declaration of war by British and French which triggered the WW2

[@spitheory5921]

Almost like germany kept pushing their luck

[@antonbatura8385]

Just look at Soviet troop concentration in relation to the Romanian oil fields, and you have your answer to this silly question.

[@user-tc9sk4ei9y]

Yeah, do that. The total number of troops in USSR by 1939 - 1,6 million men, Germany - 2,7 million men. That's not counting the german allies, obviously, as USSR had no allies except for military powerhouse Mongolia, but it had an ongoing conflict with Japan. USSR literally tried to catch up with Germany in terms of numbers before the war (given the fact it had to keep a large portion of it's army in the far east, unlike germans who could easily maneuver troops from Poland to France thanks to european infrastructure

[@antonbatura8385]

@@user-tc9sk4ei9y bro, you should start using Google or something, I dunno. 😂

[@adriancarmona7416]

Amazing realization to see how hitler's conquest in the east was based on a similar foundation as America's manifest destiny expansion to the west! Another reason hitler had to invade was because a war between hitler and stalin was inevitable so hitler chose to strike first because the red army was no match at the time, especially after their performance in finland.

[@kerzytibok3211]

Stalin was gearing up the Soviet Union for a massive invasion of Germany --- Hitler knew about this and had to act quickly

[@christiandauz3742]

Would Manifest Destiny have been slower if 18th century US had 1930s tech?

[@adriancarmona7416]

@@christiandauz3742 yes I believe so. Assuming that the natives also had 1930s tech. If only the settlers had tech then no it would actually speed it up

[@usagi67]

USSR planned also to invade Germany….

[@adriancarmona7416]

@@usagi67 correct, a lot of historians suggest that a war between hitler and Stalin was inevitable so if Germany didn't invade then the soviet union would have

[@aaronpaul9188]

Heres something that isnt mentioned at all in this video: The soviet union was also an expansionist power. They had taken over the baltics, invaded finland, and were only checked from going into the heart of europe by poland in the 20s. Soviet documents prewar have shown that they were preparing for an offensive war. German and the soviet union were ideologically opposed and the soviets wanted to lead world communism. So even if germany fell to communism, war seemed likely. So hitler had a choice: fight the soviets now or later. Well germany was at its strongest and unlikely to get much stronger, while the soviets were still reeling from the purges and badly disorganized. They would only get stronger as they recovered and industrialized further. Thus barbarossa was the perfect time for the germans to invade. Obviously, it didnt work out, both due to poor planning and fanatical soviet resistance. But unless hitler got a peace treaty with the british there was no better time to invade the soviet union.

[@jacquesdemolay4516]

Lebensraum was not as much of a concern as theyd like you to believe. He even said he would have never written that if he had known he would become chancellor

[@0815Catgus]

What do you expect from a channel called "the imperial war museum"

[@stevepelham9010]

Looking in to history that Hitler seemed to have a lot of options. Other leaders as Mussolini and Franco tried to convince Hitler in to not step to far out but be as very satisfyed with Europe. Oil made an reason but not that significant as remember Hitler conquered most of Europe very rapidly without much of an fight and he stod in very good terms with the muslim world, oil. He might have been insane, driven by an unclear obsession about the East and also the Middle East where from he was delivered spiritual mind sets by one of his closest friends the grand Mufti of Jerusalem Sheikh Abdul Hossein Amini.

[@planderlinde1969]

Oil was arguably the biggest reason as to why he went into the Soviet Union. The battle of Brittain and the tank battles in Africa were draining the Germans fuel supply. If Hitler wanted to watch his war machine break down due to lack of fuel, and food he would have to do something to solve the problem. The Soviet Union was the answer. Ukraine being the breadbasket of Europe and the Caucuses being the 2nd largest oil producing region in the world at the time.

[@stevepelham9010]

@@planderlinde1969 It turned out to bee so because of Hitlers wrong thinking. If he had been as satisfyed with Europe, setteled down and implemented his socio-economics wich by the way rules into this day (EU) then oil had been a non problem. Oil is worth nothing if there are no buyers! Would a setteled calmed down Reich/Europe been denied oil? No way.

[@planderlinde1969]

@@stevepelham9010 If we ignore Hitlers ideological goals in this war because in many ways Hitler perceived the war as a type of "holy crusade" I don't see a settled down Reich being on a good footing. 1. The British weren't going to surrender and the war in North Africa was draining Germans oil reserves in the massive tank and air battles. Keep in mind the British Empire and the USA were lead oil producers and the US was giving supplies to the British so that disqualifies the Germans getting oil from outside Europe and the Kreigsmarine had no way of protecting german shipping. 2. Their was no guarantee that the Soviets wouldn't attack the 3rd Reich. Hitler and Stalin hated each other eventually their alliance would have broken down. 3. The Germans could have gotten some oil from Romania and Hungary and they did. However it was only enough to wage war not win it.

[@kalekkakmdkekjaakwkmdb8506]

⁠@@stevepelham9010you are failing to understand that he never wanted europe. The WHOLE and ENTIRE reason of ww2 WAS to go east into the soviets, he could never exploit european countries resources it just wouldnt work long term for germany.

[@steenkigerrider5340]

"The two world 'super powers', Britain and the United States" By 1940 Britain had already ceased to be a so-called super power for nearly two decades, only not everybody had yet come to that realization.

[@edmundhaukelidseater538]

Thats just so wrong

[@DizzyK1D]

@@edmundhaukelidseater538How’s that wrong? Seems pretty accurate to me

[@stephenmoerlein8470]

Operation Barbarossa may have succeeded had Hitler not been delayed by rescuing Mussolini's failed campaigns in Africa, Greece and the Balkans. This not only delayed the start of the invasion, but also depleted needed manpower.

[@discordiancommunism]

Well summed up and presented - while Germany was doing and planning all this, their ally Japan had a very similar mass-death approach to China and East Asia.

[@TheFaveteLinguis]

Soviet Union did not prepare to attack first. Soviet stated that Nazi Germany - is a pinnacle of western imperial capitalist development. Therefore, they were doomed to start another war for imperial domination. Imperial (and quite evil in their own right btw) countries like France and Britain tried to push USSR and Germany to fight each other. USSR saw what Japan does in China and concluded that they will be next on the menu and tried to buy some time. Doesn't necessarily mean that ussr wasn't bad, but we all try to shift the blame to soviets whenever possible.

[@DeepTitanic]

I mean it's quite clear that the Germans where intent of the destruction of the USSR from the beginning. People just aren't willing to listen after decades of Anti Communism.

[@troyott2334]

You Tube why are you erasing my comments?????????????

[@BronzeBullBalls]

I think that for the USSR and Nazi Germany to coexist peacefully for any amount of time is ridiculous. If Hitler had not attacked, the Soviets were coming eventually. Stalin just wanted more time to develop and improve his own Red Army after the several botches that demonstrated he was behind in this department. Could Germany allow the USSR a few years or more to not only match them in quality, but when they already had the manpower advantage?

[@GordonjSmith1]

Very informing. Many things I was not aware of. Which is why education is important is it not?

[@dr.victorvs]

Thanks for putting the "had to" in quotes. There's nothing as lazy and unimaginative (and frankly, apologistic) as inevitable history arguments. I'm fine with "had to" in quotes because it expresses that it's adopting the viewpoint as an axiom and making an analysis only of the contingencies.

[@captainhurricane5705]

They 'had to' because it was Hitler's raison d'etre, no more than that.

[@gumdeo]

Much like the Japanese decision to strike South in 1941 and grab more oil.

[@Av8rdatasme]

I appreciate your emphasis on and detailed economic presentation. Resource access and control are always factors, and usually the primary factors, when a nation decides to go to war. Respectfully, I believe you missed the primary factor that drove the timing of the invasion (JUNE 1941). According to Suvorov, a KGB officer who defected, Stalin had mobilized the economy and activated his reserves with the intent to invade Germany. The date identified was July 6, 1941. German intelligence identified the preparations for what they were and, with shorter lines of communication, was able to strike first. He covers this in two books: Icebreaker and Chief Culprit. It’s controversial, but the argument he presents, and the research he provides, makes for a compelling argument.

[@Poliss95]

How on earth would he know? He wasn't born until 1947. Controversial? You mean not backed up by any evidence?

[@Av8rdatasme]

As a result of his position ( Soviet intelligence), his clearance provided access to Soviet archives. This allowed him to see forces disposition, orders relayed to field commanders, communiques between Politburo members and military command, and material production. Read either of his books with an open mind and arrive at your own conclusions. It is widely acknowledged that victors write the history. Being victorious isn’t synonymous with being more honest, this particularly applies to Stalin, one of the few historical tyrants whose body count matches or exceeds that of the equally totalitarian, vicious and evil Hitler.

[@TheLexiconKing]

part of the reason Germany was able to make up so much ground so quick was due to the offensive posture of the soviets . There was no 'poor old joe being betrayed '.

[@jaminhogan]

The hunger plan was implemented in Greece and caused unbelievable devastation.

[@koskok2965]

I'm Greek and my grandparents and other relatives have told me about the impact of this plan during the German occupation, with tears running down their cheeks or even actual emotional breakdowns sometimes. People literally sold houses and even mansions for a loaf of bread, a barrel of oil, etc (I've got a first hand account from one of my grandmothers whose mother did this). Some mothers were forced to choose which child to let die because they couldn't feed them all. Starving people attempting to steal so much as a loaf of bread from German supply trucks got their arms chopped off. Villages within which a thief/rebel was or had been staying, were executed almost in their entirety as retaliation, pregnant women and babymothers included, if the delinquent was not ratted out by the community. Women and even underage girls got raped regularly by drunk Germans at night, with those of them resisting or anyone trying to defend them ending up beaten to a pulp or shot on the spot. Even though we weren't really mentioned as being part of the "untermensch" in Hitler's works and memoirs, it very much felt like we were considered as such. The hatred Greece garnered against the Germans during the occupation was so insane, it stuck well beyond the end of the war and still remains with the older generation to this day. Also, a really bizarre psot-war habit stemming from the extreme famine in those times, was the obsession of Greek families with food stocking. One of my grandfathers went full schizo whenever the fridge wasn't stuffed to the max with meat, vegetables, fruit and pretty much whatever else on earth you can imagine, in ridiculous quantities. We're talking top quality stuff as well, and his family wasn't even remotely wealthy. Yet with countless crimes against humanity on record (and from many many more countries besides Greece), you still see apologists trying to justify such policies, because "GeRmAnY eXpErIeNcEd FoOd ShOrTaGe, WhAt eLsE cOuLd tHeY Do?". As though exterminating a people through starvation while treating them far worse than animals can be justified in any capacity...

[@ddseir1443]

An eternal question and debate. If we take the original theory, Hitler would «make right» the «wrongs» made by the WW1 treaty, get «vital space» which he considered justifiable, «protect german population outside Germany’s border» and make a greater coalition with a wider germanic nation which included Austria and, potentially, Holland. That was the idea, So one might have expected that having secured a large part of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria and a significant part of France including Alsace and Lorraine (the «germanic» areas), plus any willing allies on the south(Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary) he had more than enough without a continental power posing a threat against all that. Was he afraid that Soviet Union was a threat for the future? Did he get overexcited by seeing the soviets fail in Finland? Was it both? Maybe he expecred a massive support from ethnic groups or a general anti soviet uprising? I really don’t know. Another historic question is: Even if you conquer the USSR, exactly how are you going to keep it. Greece with its partisans needed up to 10 divisions to occupy. Could Germany and its allies afford 100 divisions to occupy the USSR with guerilla warfare, sabotages and all that? And it’s not only men, it’s equipment, supplies, traanport, logistics, hell at least thats a lesson Hitler should have learned from Napoleon. The preBarbarossa Reich seemed to have everything. But greed and arrogance can blur your logic I guess.

[@0MoTheG]

What these British shows conveniently forget: The british empire had slave labor and resources pouring into Britain per ship until U boats stopped it and starved the UK.

[@granitehewer]

Britain abolished slavery in 1807, officially ended in The West Indies in 1838

[@petermuster3183]

Why did Britain colonize almost 25% of the globe at the expense of millions of people in India, Africa or Asia? Why did the US expand so quickly westwards and conquered half a continent at the expense of native Americans who were pushed into reservations? To secure necessary resources and raw materials and in order to control vital geographic positions. Even Russia expanded quickly in the 18th and 19th century, trying to secure better western borders. In the 1930s, the US and Britain had already established their empire. Japan, Germany or Italy arrived late to the game.

[@Joker-no1uh]

Probably because the people they were doing it to were European/white. I'm guessing if they were a different race, it probably wouldn't have been a problem. As long as it didn't disrupt another's empire. Then again Germany and Italy already had African and Asian territory. Japan had Korea and parts of China.

[@TheArklyte]

Didn't stop Italy from causing WWI just because it wanted Lybia. But you don't seem to blame them for millions dead in that conflict, eh?

[@ianbell5611]

SIMPLE GREED The same as all the other colonial powers France, Spain, Italy Germany. The Netherlands and of course the USA.. 😊 Germany was a colonial power prior to WW1

[@TheArklyte]

@@ianbell5611 let's not forget russian Great Game with UK over possession of Iran and Afghanistan. Or participation in partitions of China. Yes, truly one of the worst western colonial imperialist powers. Truly sickening.

[@williestyle35]

So?

[@user-jd2vz4my1w]

More than a few of Hitler's generals wanted an orderly withdrawal in November 1941 back to Kiev, Kharkov and Minsk to sit out the winter and build up the supply lines but he would have none of it. Actually, Hitler and Stalin were both bumbling amateurs causing disaster for their troops although Stalin finally realized that he should delegate power to his generals such as Zhukov.

[@user-tc9sk4ei9y]

Don't forget Britain has so much less farmers than germans thanks to the import of the food (especially from colonies, see famine in India), not it's agricultural superiority

[@TheIsemgrim]

oil, its as simple as that. the summer of 41 was the last date he could do any offensive and he needed to capture the oilfields in a few weeks would he have any chance of succes. TIKhistory made a really good video about it.

[@K_-_-_-_K]

The bolsheviks overthrew the tsar in 1917... That same force was coming for Germany and one of hitlers primary aims was to prevent it. From Mein Kampf.

[@williestyle35]

Tik was not completely correct. Oil *became* of vital strategic importance, *after* Nazi Germany invaded East. Just as he claims Nazis are socialists, lol. The invasion of the Soviet Union was always a cornerstone of Hitler's "ideas". The ability to gain "labensraum" as well as eliminate the Jewish people and the Slavs was at the core of Barbarossa.

[@tylerdurden4080]

@@williestyle35 I'll trust TIK over your assessment. Germany needed oil more than anything else.

[@williestyle35]

@@tylerdurden4080 go ahead and trust a non professional KZbin channel, over the research and learning of real professional historians like Richard Overy, Stephen Kotkin, and writing like Timothy Snyder's '_Bloodlands_' - those are my sources that I synthesized my comment from.

[@figofigo7908]

Hitler Anti communism was extreme

[@williestyle35]

Because it all came back to Hitler's anti semitism being so "extreme".

[@figofigo7908]

@@williestyle35 truth

[@woohobars]

Man I shouldve read the title first before the thumbnail

[@jayce3991]

Germany needed the resources. They believed if Russia was taken they could outlast and repel the allies and Russia showed a weakness that was taken advantage of but they bought enough time to adapt and improve/hide their weaknesses.

[@BodybuildingNews]

It was a defensive maneuver

[@tritium1998]

You could say that about the Soviets in Berlin after the German invasion.

[@TheodoreBrecht]

You refer to the Nazi-Soviet pact as an alliance, but you don't refer to any of the pacts Germany made with England, France or much of Europe as "alliances". Curious!

[@nobbynobbs8182]

Their mutual invasion of Poland and them agreeing to carve up Europe between made them de facto allies. Both were genocidal, imperialist and totalitarian dictatorships responsible for starting WW2. Unfortunately, unlike Russia, Germany learned from its past atrocities and crimes against humanity. Now history is repeating itself again

[@RadicalLeftRevival]

@@nobbynobbs8182 Firstly, they didn't "mutually invade" Poland. Secondly, if we're going by the rhetoric of "carving up" Europe, then what was the Munich agreement? Thirdly, both England and France ( and the U.S.) are genocidal, imperialist, totalitarian bourgeois dictatorships that intentionally isolated the Soviet Union, refused alliances with them and appeased the whims of Germany. The West did this with the hopes of avoiding war with the Nazis while taking out the threat of communism.

[@plveuk813]

​@@nobbynobbs8182 If America invaded Germany in 1941, do you think the USSR would help defend Hitler?

[@nobbynobbs8182]

@@plveuk813 Stalin wouldn't care a lot if the US is neutral to him and if it doesn't interfere with his plans of subjugating eastern Europe. Furthermore, the USSR was still stuck in their invasion of Finland so they couldn't help if they wanted too

[@richmondnunoo3049]

History is being edited to suit an agenda!!

[@francishubertovasquez2139]

When a crocodile sensed another crocodile both of them thinked only one of them shall survive to carry out each of their greedy plan. Their mindset against each other is who is to strike first.

[@williampaz2092]

Picture the “Non-Aggression Pact” between the USSR and Nazi Germany as a lovely, bejeweled scabbard over a sharp sword. Both Hitler and Stalin are holding it, but Hitler is holding the scabbard while Stalin is holding the hilt. Hitler can only remove the scabbard (start the war) but if Hitler does that, Stalin will be the one wielding the sword.