Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "[Barbarossa] The Major Errors and Blunders - Or why Barbarossa Failed" video.

Operation Barbarossa could have ended in disasters the first weeks if the German Airforce wasn't so lucky that they could win total control of the airspace on day 1. The German inferiority in numbers were great regardless if we talk about manpower, tanks or planes. But worst of all was the lack of artillery, which was small compared to other nations, and the Germans started the war outnumbred in artillery 12:1 and 20:1 later in the war. So the only reason why Germany could press forward was the intensive bombings by the Luftwaffe, that destroyed lots of Russian tanks while they were sitting on the railway. Luftwaffe made many sorties per day, and had so many potential targets to bomb that they had to abandon many of them as they soon ran out of bombs to drop, because of the underestimation of the numbers of the red army. Germany wasn't ready for this war, and even if they did know that Russian railways had wider tracks, they had forgot to plan for building a new railway network, since German trains were smaller than Russian trains and needed water and refueling stations in a shorter distance from one-another. And the some books claim that Germany lost 2000 men per day in operation Barbarossa, but I think the numbers are higher. Anyways, only in the battle of Moscow alone did Germany lose 130.000 men - thats even more than the 100.000 men Germany lost in the wars 1939-40 against France, UK, Luxemburg, Denmark, Holland, Poland and Norway combined. And furthermore, the men lost were to a high degree NCOs, and men out of German elite Divisions such as Totenkopf and Großdeutschland. And when Stalins winter offensive came, Germany would also lose enormous amounts of their heavy equipment. And only the over-extention and bad coordination of these attacks, as well as the failure at Kharkov in may 1942 made it possible for Germany to dominate the eastern front in 1942 as they did.
31
Then how come that less than half of the Russian tanks were operational? How come that most Russian Divisions lacked manpower and weaponry if they were planning to attack the best Army in Europe at that time? And especially when they the year before had lost a war against the poorest country in Europe, and now according to you was ready to take on a ruthless man controlling an economic bloc roughly the size of EU. You claim that the plan was made in haste, but Hitlers planners was notified already in September, and other countries was informed and asked if they wanted to join the anti-bolsjevik crusade. And past military aggressions of a country and the preference for an offensive doctrine are essentially non-arguments.
20
"Stronger and and better concealed the French front. " No it wasn't. Stop making up lies about history. Finland was a massive failure and humiliation for the Red Army. If a weak poor shitty country with nothing in plenty besides swamps and mosquitos could defeat a military/industrial gigiant, then an attack on Germany would have been suicidal. "BT tanks which was designed to fight in Europe not Russia..... Amphibious tanks and the largest airborne force I think some of the high numbers was 5 million but probably close 500,000 cant use that for offense you also missed a critical analysis." When you copy a good imported American tank design, its not strange that the tanks you produce are more suitable to Europe than to a poor 2nd world country. And having a massive army isn't the same thing as having aggressive intentions, and likewise doesn't military experimentations in offensive weapons mean you are going to use those weapons. Countries develop new weapons and tactics all the time, because things that worked well in the last war, doesn't necessarily work well in the future wars. Mounted knights became unfashionable when gunpower came, and battleships dissapeared when planes and uboats came. And building amphibious tanks isn't anymore strange than Kaiser Wilhelm II deciding to build the largest fleet of battleships in the world, despite the geography says Germany isn't a real naval power. "Why would an defensive nation eat 3 nations, eat half of poland, take parts of Romania, and Finland and destroy a Japanese army." Russia wanted to retake land lost in world war 1 (just like Germany). Stalin was bully who only cowardly attacked small countries. Attacking Germany + the Axis powers + occupied Europe, when the army have failed terribly at Finland, when the defensive lines are unfinished, when officer corps have been slaughtered, when dissent in the country is widespread, when tanks and airplanes need repairations and spare parts, when the international community always have been hostile towards USSR... all just seem foolish and suicidal.
9
"No army in world beside the USSR has ever launched a offensive war in negative 40 degree weather against one of the most fortified regions on Earth against prepared enemy and won but Russia has." Stalin was confident in his troops. They had developt blitzkrieg tactics along with the Germans, and they had numerical superiority and much tanks, guns and planes against the poor finns that could afford to build none of it. Yet, still he failed to conquer Finland. The skillful defence was a too hard nut to crack, and the cold winter wasn't optimal for Stalins tanks and planes. Of course Stalin could have taken Finland if he wanted to, but the price for victory would have been too high compared to the reward of taking over the poorest country in Europe. "Another note is that USSR kept the maps of Russian division position secret till near the fall of the Soviet Union before the German invasion. I can only wonder why?" Yeah, like if a Russian attack on Germany was only days or weeks away, then why didn't they reinforce their Divisions to full strenght so they atleast had the ability to make so organized resitence against enemy units? And why leave half of your countries tanks unusable before you take on the best army in the world? Especially if you are a Russian and had your mighty Army crushed in the first world war. If I was a Russian military planner I would of course want to keep an eye out where my neigbours have positioned their troops so I could make a good plan to defeat them if a war breaks out. Of course I wouldn't want a war to happen, I just think it would be stupid to be unprepared in case of something happening. The west allies made plans how to fight a war against the Soviet Union after the war, but doesn't necessarily means that the west was aggressive and intended to start a war. And neighter did War Plan Red ever happen.
7
Stalingrad meant the loss of the momentum of the German army...1942 was the year when Germany was supposed to have given such a hard punch on the allies that they wouldn't recover and Germany could then direct her forces to deal with the Americans when they finally was ready for war. As we all know did Germany fail completly with that and lost the battle of the Atlantic, they tought the capture of Tobruk had been so devestating that they never bothered to attack Malta and then they lost the battle of El-Alamein, and then Germany lost all her accomplishments in 1942 with the disaster at Stalingrad. Germany fought on, but the Kursk offensive failed. It wasnt the catastrophy for the German tank arm as documentaries says, but it was a severe diplomatic backlash and Hitlers allies began negotiating and end to the war, and Spain withdrew from the war if I remember correctly. And Germany began losing air superiority in the east by now, and the consequences hit them hard as their army had a relativly little artillery compared to other armies and now couldn't use air support like they did in the earlier war years. The losses of experienced troops was replaced young boys with less experience. Meanwhile did the allies become better at fighting the war. The Russians had learned from past mistakes, their air force have copied tactics from the Germans, their massed attacks with infantry now had become more effective when morale didn't collapse ase easily when they had much tank support when Russian factories finally had began producing tanks at a higher rate than they were lost. Lend lease help had also began making the Russian army more mobile with trucks. So the quality of the German Army constantly sank, and the power in their attacks gradually declined and became less and less effective. So with the lack of oil, air superiority and much else did the front finally break and collapse
5
Its one thing to bully a poor country like Finland or Romania, and its another thing to attack an industrialized superpower with the most experienced and well organized armies in the world. Pretending its the same thing is just dumb. "Tell me why tell me and explain why every German commander on the eastern front thought the positioning of Russian forces was odd if they were supposed to be in defensive preparations" Any source? I mean if I was a german war criminal general I would also try to blame the russians for the war and pretend that I acted in good faith, and that I wasn't telling myself lies and being naive about my own country's aggressive behaviour and choose to believe the more pleasant propaganda lies about a planned soviet invasion. "and why they all went on the attack once hostilities broke out" By attacking at a broad front you create confusion about where you deal the main blow, and force your enemy to scatter their small forces over a large area. The soviet massattacks were like Germany's broad front push in the west in may 1940. You force the enemy back, and you buy more time to prepare your defence of your country and get more time to mobilize your resources. And also, a good way to get the upper hand over an enemy is to gain the iniative, and that is only possible by playing aggressive. Making counter-attacks is a great way of waging war, since you could cut off enemy pincer movements, flank the enemy while he is overextended, and attack him while he havn't dug in or prepered himself.
5
Hitler began talking about Barbarossa in September 1940, if not even earlier. So Hitler did obviously want this war for some time. Furthermore it laughable that Russia would had attack Germany any time soon. If they would, why then would Russian units usally lack full strenght when the Germans attacked? And why was half of the Russian tank arm not in a shape of battle, with half of the tanks lacking spare parts, or being in need of repairs and lack supplies for combat?
4
One could make a good argument for both cases. Germany had got severly beaten in Stalingrad even before any significant lend-lease help had arrived. So after the defeat it would have been likely that Germany would have lost the war even without any western help. But on the other hand was the Russian economy streched to its utter limit and about to collapse when the battle of Stalingrad raged. Had the Germans handled this situation well so it ended in a victory, things could have been very hard for the Russians, with lack of resources, exhausted stockpiles and a dilemma of putting manpower into agriculture, mining, industry or into the armed forces. Only the military victories that brought reconquests of occupied territories and the huge imports of lend lease help, could keep the Russians strong. If they wouldn't been able to liberate Ukrain and get more manpower to their army, and free up workers by replacing them with American imports, it would have been hard to substain the high rate of losses the red army suffered.
3
Most PanzerIII tanks didn't get the long 50mm until 1942, because the ordinance office ignored Hitlers orders of an upgrade.
2
Germany needed food, oil, steel and aluminium for a pro-longed war, and just sitting and doing nothing would give allies the upper hand as they outproduce Germany. And falling back and making the front shorter would have saved up German troops for other uses, but on the other hand would the enemy be able to do the same, so no real advantages would have been gained by falling back. During the first months alone of Operation Barbarossa did the German army crush over 150 Russian Divisions, and yet had intellligence observed that the Russians did possess atleast 150 more Divisions. So the decision to take Southern Russia instead of Moscow did make sense, since crushing the industrial war potential of an enemy could have brought the Russians to their knees just as in World War 1. It would also provide Germany with raw materials, industrial capacity, food, territory to launch bombers on the Ural mountains, crushing the Black Sea Fleet and thereby securing the Black Sea chrome trade with Turkey... as well as bringing in Political Presitige and threatening the middle east with German troops, air attacks and support for rebel groups.
2
Lend lease shipments were too small to make any difference before 1943. And before then Russia had defeated Germany on their own at Moscow 41 and Stalingrad 42.
2
The lend-lease help was unimportantly small until 1943. It would play an important role in the late war, but in 1941 it wasn't important.
2
Originally it was against USSR, but when America boycoted Germany in 1936 and started to give lend-lease to Hitlers enemies he tought that America could go to hell. But Hitler himself lacked a large Navy to take on the Americans, so he was happy to get Japan on his side. And some historians say that the push against Moscow in 1941 was a desperate attempt to make it seem like the war in Russia would be over soon, so Japan would feel comfy to start a war with America. From a Japanease perspective was the Attack on America only foolish and totally lacking rationality since Japan had 0% chance of winning a war against the American gigiant. The reasons were only feelings. Japan had free trade forced upon them in 1853 by western powers. They felt inferior back then to the westerners with superior weapns innovations and industry, and firstly bought into the racist rethoric that only the white man could have a modern state, and that made the Japanease depressed. But they were determined to try to get a modern army, so imported technologies and tried to finance all expenditures by industrialization. So they became one industrial power, not the greatest one in the global league, but the greatest one in the Asian league. So then they started to imitate western powers in other ways and started to colonize their neighbours such as Korea and they got involved in a conflict with China. But despite all great achievements and western admiration of Japans progress, the Asian race was still looked down upon, and America had restricted their immigration, and western countries refused to treat them like an equal as with western countries. So all this frustration, in combination with shinto warrior ideals and crazy imperalistic nationalism, plus militarism and Americas trade boycot of Japan triggered a Japanease reaction that became the attack on Pearl Harbour. The hope was to destroy the American navy completly, and then go south and take Indoneasia and grab some of the most resource rich areas in the world. And instead currency reserves for buying raw material imports being the limiting factor for the industrial production, the only limiting factor would become the amount of plundered resources the transport ships could carry.
2
German secret service tend to suck for some reason. Their handling of the German Navy in world war 1 was almost as catastrophic.
1
Some were, some were not.
1
Without German support, the Japanease would have chicken out of the game and asked America for peace within a few weeks, The decision to bomb Pearl Harbour was made when the Germans were standing outside Moscow and looked like they gonna have a fast win so they would be able to help Japan.
1
I would have waited to attack Russia til 1943 so all Germanys large-scale factories with ford-like massproduction would have been ready. I would have put women into work. I would have stockpiled ammunition in enormous amounts so they wouldn't run out after 2 weeks. I would take logistics more seriously and make plans how to upgrade the Russian railway system to become suitable for German trains. I would make a program to standardize military equipment, especially trucks. I would expand the Artilliery arm. I would make an early capture of Russian oil fields a priority over the capture of Moscow.
1
And in the western theater 1941-42 I would have sent my airforce to the mediatarean to take control over the sea. And then I would bomb the shit out of Malta and captured it to secure the supply lines to Africa. The rest seems unimportant to me. Maybe I would have stationed some bombers on Crete to give air support to rebel groups in the middle east. But I wouldn't try to get too much involved in any costly African Adventure, I would just want to secure the seas and make sure that Italy is safe and that the continent is in Axis hands so I could focus on Russia undisturbed.
1
@karlkirchweger4427 You probably talk about changing the width of the tracks. I do however not talk about that. I talk about the needs to create entire new stations, new coal refill stations, new stations for sand and water and all other things needed for keeping the trains going. The Wehrmacht had not thought about this gigantic problem before the invasion. So just making the racks less wide would not be enough to solve the railway problem for the Germans. You needed to build an entirely new infrastructure system in the middle of a war.
1
Germany started their program of building large scale factories for massproduction in 1938 and most of the factories consumed workers and concrete until they finally stood ready for use in 1942-43. But then was the war already lost. So could Germany have fully mobilized for war earlier with the same type of total mobilization as America did? Nope. They didn't have the factories that enabled massproduction and high productivity. And more troops would mean less workers in the factories and construction workers on the atlantic wall.
1
The book "Ostront" by Charles Winchester mentions German bombing raids on Russian industries in the Ural mountains right before the Stalingrad battle took place. When that battle begun, the airforce had to change their focus for ground support for the troops for obvious reasons.
1
@jameshannagan4256 The aid in 1943 was important. My views on lend lease is also different from 7 years ago.
1
Genocidal policies had a negative impact on the German war effort, yes. But would it be possible not to be hated by the Russian people when you must steal their food when Germanys food consumption excedes their food production? And would it been possible to treat all russian POWs well when there wasn't enough food for them or men to spare guarding them?
1
Well thats what I thought, I wouldn't like the German liberators either if they stole my food so my family starved under the winter. And surely could Russian POWs have been treated much better than they were historically, nevertheless I wonder to what extent good treatment would have been possible with the limited resources at hand?
1
I would say the contrary, that Germany had bad ability to take care of the prisoners of war in 1941 compared to let say 1944, partly because of the higher amounts capture in 41, and partly because Germany hadn't prepared for a war to the same extent in 41 as in 44. Germany never planned for taking so many prisoners as they did in 1941. No one could even ever dreamed of it. The prisoners had to sleep out in the open, and Germany didn't even have enough food to feed their own people, And the unexpected scale of the battles fought in 1941 sucked up men, and the high losses were impossible to replace as fast as needed, so Germany didn't have enough men to take care of their prisoners, since all men were at the front. Anyways, thats just the impression I have gotten upon things. Maybe I am wrong :)
1
And Japan only produced 60k Aircrafts in the war, while America produced 100k in 1943 alone. And American designs were better, so instead of having their more and more obsolete planes shot down, the Japanease began using kamikaze attacks in the end of the war.
1