Thing is that red army was woefully lacking in tons of aspects needed for such attempts in 1941. Concentration of 16th,19th,20th, 21st,22nd,24th and 28th army could only mean planed completion of those reserve units,and those forces were mainly placed east of Dnieper between Smolensk and Kiev.They were nowhere near full strength for even defensive operations, let alone offensives,even when they got entangled with Germans in July of 1941 on the approaches to Smolensk.In 1941 red army had about 200,000 trucks compared to over 600,000 of them in the German invasion forces,artillery was heavily lacking in ammunition,thanks to cronies like Kulik and others.Majority of red army air force were outdated aircraft,and pilot's training was absimal at best.Tank crews weren't instructed on simple repairs.Officer's were severely lacking in numbers for such a massive force,...In short,Stalin could have gone with some rattling of weapons, but he knew that red army wasn't ready for such an undertaking that year.

@@kaletovhangar Rubbish, the Red Army was the best armed army in the World, more tanks than the rest of the World.

@@kaletovhangar You are right. Red Army was not even ready for a defensive war. To understand the real problems of building the Soviet army and the situation of 1941, I recommend the book by the authors Ulanov, Shein "Order in tank troops? Where Stalin's tanks disappeared." Although it is unlikely that it has been translated into English.

@@mudra5114 These 20 thousand tanks were complete nonsense. The number of tanks says nothing about the quality of the army. To understand the real problems of building the Soviet army and the situation of 1941, I recommend the book by the authors Ulanov, Shein "Order in tank troops? Where Stalin's tanks disappeared." Unfortunately, the Red Army became the best army in the world only in 1944.

@@alexandernovikov5963 I will have a look. But the Soviet Union was getting it's military ready way before Operation Barbarossa. There was a build up of Soviet troops at the borders of Hungary, Romania, Germany etc.. Hitler was afraid that if the Soviets took over Romania, Germany would gave no oil and would be kaput and helpless.

I extremely disagree

@@RYBATUGA Which one is the most interesting according to you?

@@historylegends I like medieval history better. Particularly, the Reconquista. However, I'm interested in WW2 as well. That's why I subscribed to your channel. Personally I'm just not that much of a fan of modern history compared to medieval history.

I also disagree. My personal favourite is the era of the napoleonic wars.

History Legends Animated mines ww1

Maybe Hitler claiming that Communists were actually Bolsheivik Zionist Jews out to destroy humanity, that all lefties should be killed for being homosexual cultural marxists and his hatred of Slavic people who he planned to enslave and massacre had something to do with that? Or maybe it was Ernst Röhm who was jeallous of Stalin...

It was never an option for either side.

With the bolshevik you know who's running Soviet Russia and with their explicit aim of taking their revolution to the entire world there was never a glimmer of hope that the two countries would ever be allies. The National part of the National Socialist party was an explicit policy of letting nations determine their own policies. The notion of a land hungry evil German empire was cut from whole cloth by the propagandists and the people who own the media and the banks. Hitler's actual crime was that he kicked the Rothschild bankers out of Germany in 1933. Ron Unz at Unz. c o m has great info on this and many other topics.

Communism was global based, so the USSR was going to invade eventually. Poland should have just gave up the Denzig corridor, and start building up defence against the USSR, instead they sought out a "protectatore" treaty from a nation that was over 1,000 km away🤦‍♂️

source?

@@karelwolf998 Jacob Kronika

@@karelwolf998 The US State Department printed the transcripts of all the Nazi-Soviet meetings, its in the 1948 book "Nazi-Soviet Relations".

What the hell? Can you give me the source? I want to know more.

Common sense. The logical continuation of any historical social revolution is exportation from the core center. Look at France from 1792 to 1813. Besides, to give you some context. Right after the Great War and during the early 20's, there were socialist riots and uprisings all over Europe, in some places very strong, in others relatively weak. In Hungary, for example, a Soviet republic had been declared, and one of Red Army's more tangible aims during the invasion of Poland was to achieve a land corridor to Soviet Hungary (which failed and hence Hungary was defeated and occupied by Entente forces).

@@ercoleborgiano Insightful points.

I would like to see an alternate history series on a Communist-Capitalist War instead of World War II as we know it.

Ever heard of the Western & Japanese intervention 1918-2025 in Russian civil war?

Nope, cus the Red Army would have been far better than Wehrmacht by that point

@@SteveOmnipotent Yeah you don't understand communist doctrine.

Rezun points out in Icebreaker that the thousands of wooden gliders would not have stood up to tons of snow, and the glue wouldn't have held together after months of rain. Stalin had thousands of gliders finished in early 1941 to be used by paratrooper assaults behind German lines that same year

they could have, given both being after all socialists . except everyone often forgot. the revolution eats her children , always. and so does the results of revolution always tries to eliminate each other.

The National Socialists of Germany hated Communists. Hitler's rise to power was in part due to the fear of Communism spreading.

That would’ve never happened. It was an all out free for all for Europe in the 30’s and 40’s. They were never allies. They were both just waiting for their chance to invade the other, Germany had no other option but to strike first. Britain and the US liberated Europe first, but it was everyone’s goal

That could never happen! They signed NON AGGRESSION pact, not alliance treaty! Just like PM of GB and France before signed personally with Hitler in Munich “Munich agreement”. Hitler openly (in mien campf) outlined his plans about conquering lend on the East for “liebenschraum” for germans and openly claimed his hatred for “jewish leadership” of Soviet union, and for “underhuman” slavic people, whose future prospects he saw in serving german ultimate race!

Just saying if.

Wait really?! Where’s your sources, where did you find this out?

@@freckleheckler6311 Kremlin Archives. I haven't actually read the archives myself. However Viktor Suvorov says the archives say this. He has a book as well as interviews on KZfaq. I have also heard it from others who say they have read this in the archives. I think Stalin planned to attack based on corroborating information. Stalin and Communists in general always talked about bringing communism to the whole world and it would need to be done by force. After Russia took eastern Poland, the Soviet Union invaded Romania and occupied Eastern Moldova, Northern Bukovina and Hertsa Region. Stalin attacked Finland that winter but only managed to occupy part of the country. Then invaded Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia the following summer. Placement of new Russian airfields on their western border in 1940-41 seem to be for offensive, not defensive use. Movement of Russian troops forward out of defensive position. Training of many paratrooper units and other offensive units not good for defense. In 1939 Stalin was supposed to invade Poland the same day as Germany, but after Germany attacked Poland, Stalin said oops we are not ready for two more weeks. England and France likely would have stayed out of defending Poland if Russia had also invaded that day. They more likely wouldn't have declared war on Germany. I believe Stalin wanted England and France to fight Germany. Hoping a repeat of WWI trench warfare stalemate would bleed the western countries of their men. This would have allow Stalin to walk over Europe. When France fell in only weeks, Stalin modified his plans, but didn't discard them.

@@freckleheckler6311 This former KGB guy wrote 5 books I think in total. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rb-DrJthvNLRh40.html

@@freckleheckler6311 There are people who disagree with this. I don't agree with the statement "Stalin started WWII", but I do believe Stalin helped instigate WWII.

​@@BrettonFergusonAnglo-French secret treaties with Poland said they'd defend Poland only if invaded by Germany.

Means a lot!!

French and*

From russia with love - huma huma

Working on it haha

Thats what the video he says, however there are still more arguments which show that an invasion by the ussr wouldnt happen in 41, and most possibly also not 42. The video doesnt do a good job on showing the valid critizism against the idea that the ussr wanted to attack

@@jasperstaudinger8668 Originally, the theory is from an ex-KGB spy called Suvorov, but he simply stated anecdotes. I purposefully used Meltyukhov as source because he used archives released in the 1990s that support most of Suvorov's claims. They disagree on two points and I covered them.

Yes correct, this is what Meltyukhov found out using Soviet archives released in the 1990s

@@historylegends Historians have debated whether Stalin was planning an invasion of German territory in the summer of 1941. The debate began in the late-1980s when Viktor Suvorov published a journal article and later the book Icebreaker in which he claimed that Stalin had seen the outbreak of war in Western Europe as an opportunity to spread communist revolutions throughout the continent, and that the Soviet military was being deployed for an imminent attack at the time of the German invasion.[161] This view had also been advanced by former German generals following the war.[162] Suvorov's thesis was fully or partially accepted by a limited number of historians, including Valeri Danilov, Joachim Hoffmann, Mikhail Meltyukhov, and Vladimir Nevezhin, and attracted public attention in Germany, Israel, and Russia.[163][164] It has been strongly rejected by most historians,[165][166] and Icebreaker is generally considered to be an "anti-Soviet tract" in Western countries.[167] David Glantz and Gabriel Gorodetsky wrote books to rebut Suvorov's arguments.[168] The majority of historians believe that Stalin was seeking to avoid war in 1941, as he believed that his military was not ready to fight the German forces.[169] Order of battle en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#Soviet_preparations

@@historylegends While most agree that Stalin made extensive preparations for an eventual war and that he exploited the military conflict in Europe to his advantage, the assertions that Stalin planned to attack Nazi Germany in the summer of 1941, and that Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike by Hitler, are generally discounted Glantz, David M., Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of War, Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1998, ISBN 0-7006-0879-6 p. 4.

As one Soviet general put it--we won enough territory to bury all our dead in. It was the definition of pyrrhic victory.

it was still a delayed coordinated attack, they were allies after signing the pact

@@kronniichiwa9909 Silly, go read about the: Four-Power Pact (1933), Anglo-German Naval Agreement (1935), Anglo-German Non-Aggression Pact (1938), Piłsudski-Hitler Pact (1934)

@@kronniichiwa9909 Britian, Poland, & France. were also allies then. if that's how you think non aggression pacts work

What a garbage! Same as its autor -- Rezun.

Germany and the USSR did not attack Poland simultaneously, but they indeed did decide between each other how they were going to divide Poland. The Wehrmacht had strict guidelines not to cross over to the Soviet sphere. The two armies met at the new border that they established.

And yet they lost ☠️💀 27M Lol

Yes 100%

hehe I remember you

History Legends Animated. ayyyyyy🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻

Rezun, in The Chief Culprit, says the point of breaking through and eliminating the Mannerheim Line was to be able to quickly seize the nickel mine where Germany got almost all of its supply, and to be able to stop iron ore from going through the Gulf of Bothnia from Sweden to Germany.

> the purpose of the negotiations and then the war with Finland was to move the border further from Leningrad [...] USSR, and now Putin's Russia, always provided "good" explanations for their aggressions. As Hitler and Mussolini did.

> England and France signed a non-aggression pact first. Before the Soviet union Only Poland had a formal non-aggression pact with Germany during the 1930s. The United Kingdom and France did not have such treaties with Germany, although the UK did engage in an "Anglo-German Naval Agreement."

It was the western capitalists who financed the bolshevik revolution... And no, Hess proposal was not accepted,he was incarcerated for life.

🤣🤣🤣

they could won easily if uk accepted the peace

hehe excellent, happy to se you here

what the fuck XD that's impossible, american propaganda is completely detached

@@krzysztofbroda5376 I found it. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p8yoqrqIltyonJs.html

It is true Soviet Union was a puppet state of the Bankers

@@YUSKHAN Absolutely, why would the most radical communist nation on earth associate with the most radical capitalistic nations on earth, it makes absolutely no sense unless they had the same bosses. Pretty insane when you think of it, money was/is stronger than any ideology, it defies all logic, all truth and everything that makes/made us human, and proud to be. On the other hand, when you see that there is a battle for the truth anywhere in the world and that this time it is for a great cause and the people involved are known anti-establishment just remember... ...you've been had, AGAIN he he! Those who represent any form of threat to the way money controls everyone and everything today, big or small, real or imagined, those people are dealt with fast and extremely efficiently, that's how Rockefeller built his empire, first try to buy them but if you can't, kill them "and please, leave your emotions outside, you're gonna get us all killed!" Okay, you want a little meat? Answer this: Why, in detail, were Hitler, Saddam and Khaddafi falsely made to be the most evil human beings ever, why were their countries reduced to rubble and why were so many innocent civilians butchered in ways no clear thinking human can accept as true, or even possible, why? I'll give you a hint... ...sorry, I changed my mind!

@@rosesprog1722 capitalism and communism allied because they had a common German enemy. You are raving.

Yes he is

This video was in 2021

@@poka26ev2 how is this better. Ok, today some more people have understood what Russia is about.

@@AK-qy5iw Its a theory, a debunked theory.... The Red Army was in no position to attack Germany in 1941, maybe 1942 but that's doubtful too.

Ever heard of RAND Corporation?

Just because it was planned doesn’t necessarily mean it was going to happen. Countries make all sorts of plans for various things that are unlikely to happen. It’s still possible that Stalin planned to invade Germany, but Groza being planned before Barbarossa doesn’t necessarily mean that.

True, but Hitler also previewed a plan to invade Russia on July 31, 1940 at the Berghof. A member of his personal staff, Herbert Dohring, observed maps of Russia laid out on the table and there were markings for invasion thrusts already written on the maps, apparently made by Hitler and his generals.

@@capncake8837 Just because Operation Sea Lion, the invasion of Britain, was planned doesn't necessarily mean it was going to happen either, but every Brit believes in this invasion as certain.

How the f is the guy who turned russia from a peasent nation into a superpower is a monster?

​@@SteveOmnipotentmaybe because he murdered several times the number of civilians that were ever even claimed to have died in the holocaust

@@gratefulguy4130 He didn't even kill anyone, according to official NKVD docs, only 550,000 were killed, except if you are gonna blame him for arresting criminals like robbers and thieves

@@SteveOmnipotent "according to NKVD docs"... lol! Where do I start? That according to SS & other German docs, there were never any mass executions of any kind? Or should I point out that tens of millions died due to intentional starvation? Or I could point out that almost that number of people who were formerly from Eastern countries, who fought for the Allies in WWII and their families were directly murdered by the Soviets. Just from that group alone.. There has never been any group in human history that has even come close to committing the same number of war crimes and crimes against humanity as the Soviets did. Of course, I'm sure you'll try to claim that an academic system that bends itself backward to paint the Soviets and communism in general in a positive light, one that was always perfectly willing to try to help cover up their crimes is somehow spreading "anti-Soviet propaganda" lol. As if facts and evidence are what propaganda is, while blind assertions based on emotion (communist bread & butter) are somehow more reflective of reality...

@@gratefulguy4130 "tens of Millions died due to intentional starvation" Are you sure about what you claim? Because that number would be more suited for the Allies, who starved millions of Indians. And those NKVD documents weren't meant to be publicly released. Even Nikita Khrushchev, who hated Stalin , said that Stalin was responsible for 670,000 deaths. And this was stated by Khrushchev, so the numbers could be way lower. Your narrative is driven by stories, not facts. Most of the soldiers who collaborated with the Germans, were sent back to the front lines, there were almost no executions. And the gulag mortality rate at even the worst, didn't cross 6%. And most of the people who were sent to gulags were criminals

you are right as soviet infantry divisions were way better equiped to fight the germans in 1943 than in 1941 they possibly if not likely did plan an offensive but not at the start of the 40s but thats to think they didnt improve the divisions cause of the war but the lack of equipment to do so i personally dont know why they didnt improve it but a war was innevitable stalin wanted to stall as much as possible which does makes this theory possible

Ge.o.gra.phy. Finland is the land of a thousand lakes (more like 180,000 lakes). It is the prefect geography for defence as you can essentially guide your enemy into heavily fortified chokepoints. On the contrary, the land between Russia and Germany is steppe perfect for huge offensive operations. The Soviet military in 1941 was geared for that kind of war.

Delusional

This is his voice

beautiful

you poor fool.

I’m not saying that the Nazis were good, but the West, the Nazis, and the Communists were all killing their own people at an alarming rate. It was all just a power grab for Europe. But it was all just an answer to Bolshevism trying to take over the world

I can smell the copium oozing out of this comment.

@@ningen7736 seriously 🥴 it’s actually pathetic

Then why did the Soviets increase a mere 3 divisions to 22 in eastern Poland?

Tiks a fucking joke. Once did video on how we shouldn't question official narratives😂😂😂

@@willleon9165 TIK is always questioning the official narrative. He’s favourite saying is “but is this really the case”, as he dissects the so called “truth”

@@georgekaragiannakis6637 oh yes it's okay to question something's but not other subjects with him😂😂😂

@@willleon9165 well either you misunderstood him or you just want to stay with the brainwashing still available in public education.