*Timestamps* I don’t think you should skip ahead, but here you go anyway - 00:00 Hook 00:20 Introduction 01:35 Context 02:35 Viktor Suvorov’s Thesis 06:20 Keitel at Face Value 17:02 Keitel under the Critical Eye 36:15 Questioning Suvorov 43:50 Summary and Conclusion *Links* Please consider supporting me on Patreon and makes these videos as good as they can be www.patreon.com/TIKhistory A great follow up to this video is “5 tips to improve your critical thinking”. Link: kzitem.info/news/bejne/xX-qu3t8cXmVh6w My previous video on Critical Thinking here - kzitem.info/news/bejne/wH-PtqOXaaKgi4Y Link to Soviet “War-Winning” Tanks in 1941? The Role of Tanks on the Eastern Front WW2 kzitem.info/news/bejne/paF6z42rkJ6YiW0 Link to my “The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL” video kzitem.info/news/bejne/zIylm31msYCDm5w *Notes* I know the irony of telling people to question everything is that you’ll question the very advice I’m giving to that says to question everything. But it’s true, you should even be questioning what I’m telling you. You should even be questioning what I’m saying. Do your own research and find these things out for yourself. SPOILER! STOP READING NOW IF YOU HAVEN’T WATCHED THE VIDEO. No know because of technicalities some people will say what I said about the yellow circle isn’t true. So here’s the technicalities I missed out of the explanation. It’s actually your eyes/retina that see things in blue, green and red. In fact, these are all the primary colours in the color spectrum (that we can see), and are known as the “Additive Colours”. Using certain quantities of red, green and blue light, you can create all of the colors in the visible spectrum, including white light. So, the reason the RGB colour model (RGB= Red Green and Blue) is that used in your electronic devices is because that’s all the colours that are needed. For more information on this subject, see this TED-Ed video kzitem.info/news/bejne/zW6VzI6GgZOkl6Q *Selected Bibliography/Sources* Gorlitz, W. “The Memoirs of Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel: Chief of the German High Command 1938-1945.” First Cooper Square Press edition, 2000. Macdonald, A. “The Nuremberg Trials: The Nazis Brought to Justice.” Arcturus Publishing Ltd, Kindle, 2015. Mawdsley, E. “Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War 1941-1945.” Second Edition, Kindle, University of Oxford. Glantz, D. When Titan’s Clashed. University Press of Kansas, 2015. Kavalerchik, B. The Price of Victory: The Red Army’s Casualties in the Great Patriotic War. Pen & Sword Military, 2017. Liedtke, G. Enduring the Whirlwind: The German Army and the Russo-German War 1941-1943. Helion & Company LTD, 2016. Suvorov, V. “Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?” PL UK Publishing, Kindle Edition, 2012. Such a long video, and I didn’t even include a Wilhelm scream... Thanks for watching!
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
I do not :)
@Trexmaster12
6 жыл бұрын
Do a follow-up: www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
GM4ThePeople - I will come back to this topic in the future, however I actually was quoting from Icebreaker. I couldn't quote the pages because I'm using the Kindle Edition. Sources are listen in the pinned comment above. I haven't yet read all of Icebreaker because the purpose of this video was just to get people thinking critically, and to tackle specifically what Keitel wrote. It was not to tackle Suvorov's thesis in it's entirety. I don't have Chief Culprit, but that said, from what I have read so far, I'm not convinced. I'm not against the idea of giving Suvorov a chance, nor do I discourage others to read his views. In fact, when I do return to this topic, I will give both sides of the argument an equal shot (like I did in this video) so that everyone can form their own opinion. But I will say that you're wrong in saying that my questioning Keitel in this video did not constitute critical thinking. Yes it did. You're only saying that because this casts doubt on what Suvorov is saying. This video is showing people that accepting things at face value is not a good way of looking at history, and accepting Suvorov's thesis is easy to do when you haven't done sufficient research, as I've shown in this video.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
Since you're provided a recommendation for Surovov's works, I would also recommend the book "Stumbling Colossus" by David Glantz, which was written as a definitive answer to the claims made by Suvorov and others. Historian Robert Citino has stated that we're in the "David Glantz era" of WW2 history, such is the authority and respect Glantz commands in this area of study.
@Trexmaster12
6 жыл бұрын
Did Glantz read any other of Suvorov's books? They're in Russian, not in English sadly.
@T.S.Birkby
6 жыл бұрын
“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking” - Patton
@agdgdgwngo
5 жыл бұрын
Keitel " I suspected the guy wanted to punch me, and when I punched him, my suspicions were confirmed when he punched right back"
@Sylinnilys
4 жыл бұрын
Lol. Well put.
@ComradeOgilvy1984
4 жыл бұрын
Also: "The Russians could not have had so many forces guarding their border simply because they feared it was too difficult to defend themselves across such a broad area. We know this because we kicked their asses from north to south and counted up a ridiculous number of troops we captured, the ones that got cut to pieces failing to protect their broad border."
@a.f.w.froschkonig2978
4 жыл бұрын
Would you deny the agressive soviet mood (with a shocking lack of flexibility in my understanding) that Molotov expressed in Berlin during the Nov 1940 negociations ? In my spontaneous perception when reading the protocol Hitler performed as a brillant psychiatrist - without success. Like a bulldozer with the engine already running Molotov claimed more pieces of eastern countries that were allied with Germany. Referring to the Kommissar--Befehl the history of the Finnish Winter War is absolutely explaining why this order went out. That is a fact too that the Soviets did unprovokedly attack Finland first and what role the bolshevik Commissars exactly played in this desaster. So why not learn from others experiences and draw own conclusions ? Like others before and after them the Nazis were not obliged to behave like Jesus People. Looking at the six days war or the US aggressions against arab nations and Vietnam the discussion is hairsplitting. How long and what Germany should have waited for even though knowing all about the murderous and proven expansionist character of the neighbouring stalinist regime ?
@ComradeOgilvy1984
4 жыл бұрын
@@a.f.w.froschkonig2978 Russia had long historical ties to the Balkans, one of the contributing factors to the start of WW1, so it was not outlandish unforeseen action on Stalin's part to claim interests therein. Hitler had an economic house of cards, where he could not enjoy the full economic potential of captured territories for lack of oil, etc, due to the British blockade. From Hitler's POV, no long term peace was possible without being ceded both significant food supplies and oil, too. Even if Molotov was soft as a kitten, it was not really going to be good enough for Hitler, because Rumanian oil was insufficient.
@a.f.w.froschkonig2978
4 жыл бұрын
@@ComradeOgilvy1984 Working together was Hitlers suggestion - in vain. And working together is the solution today.
@sergioattonito1867
4 жыл бұрын
I don't have read Keitel's memoirs, so I'mjust making an educated guess inspired by what I've read in other places: perhaps when he says that after invanding Russia he knew that Hitler was right about Russian intentions, he means that seeing what they found in the field was a sure evidence that the russian army was postured to attack. I have seen a lecture by Suvorov on KZitem, Keitel isn't cited at all, the main factual point for his thesis is the deployment of the Red Army
@JUAN_OLIVIER
4 жыл бұрын
Just a note to the entire critical thinking part of your video, the "but is this really the case" and Keitel having a motive to lie is a double edge sword. You could easily apply that same thinking to British Imperialists and Russian Comis, they also had ampel motive to lie to make themselves look like the good guys.
@William_NS
3 жыл бұрын
This guy gets it
@fierylightning3422
10 ай бұрын
if you watch his other videos he actually does that. he applies that to soviets, British and Americans as well
@Leipaa
3 жыл бұрын
Leaving aside the condescending lecture about the need to "think critically", there isn't any substantive explanation of why there was a huge Soviet army at the border. The argument that it was purely defensive in nature seems undercut by the fact that it was positioned right on the border and totally unprepared to defend in depth. There was just one graph presented showing total army personnel. I was hoping for a more fact-based assessment. Of course Keitel's arguments were a potential Nuremberg trials defense, so they can't be accepted at face value. However, the converse is that Allied historiography has an incentive to dismiss Soviet offensive plans, so a true "critical" analysis would being more facts than rhetorical flourishes to bear on the question.
@willleahy6958
3 жыл бұрын
Although I don't subscribe to the thesis that the Soviets were preparing to strike westwards, the numbers of prisoners taken by the Germans indicates a large build-up of forces. Just saying.
@kutuzovm3215
3 жыл бұрын
Because Russia has a historical distrust of Europe and a natural geographic reason for having said opinion. In 1939, the USSR committed an invasion that was entirely wrong, invading Finland. Of course, we needed to do so because we just needed a few extra km to push our border back away from Leningrad. It was essential to protect leningrad, which even with the successful victory in Finland, still suffered a terrible blockade. The Fins whooped our asses, but being an adaptative army, we quickly turned the war around and Finland eventually signed the territory over. In the USSR around the late 1930s everybody knew Germany was going to attack sooner or later, all of Europe practically knew. Not to mention we've been invaded by France, Poland, Sweden, and even the USA during the civil war. I mean it makes sense, like I said earlier regarding geographic obligation, just take a look at a map of Europe. Russia has completely blocked of Europe's potential for growth and expansion eastward for near a thousand years. From north to south, we blocked europe in from ever expanding, from growing. Stripped them of what today is worth 75 TRILLION dollars of natural resources. Stripped them of the very land they need to continue their European races, languages, culture and more - by sheer magnitude of geography. Hence why the europeans often practiced brutal colonialism and imperialism, expanding to africa and latin america. I think every Russian fundamentally understands that protecting that border line is a genetic obligation, and it is of the upmost importance for the country's survival .. and that was BEFORE ww2, today it's on a whole nother level
@willleahy6958
3 жыл бұрын
@@kutuzovm3215 I completely understand the Russian need to protect her western borders and the Baltic and Black Sea approaches (although unless you control the Bosphoros it's only unnecessarily annoying people to control the Crimea[ And, I know , Kruschev gave the Crimea away to the Ukraine, but Russia guaranteed Ukraine's borders when they gave up nuclear weapons after the break up of the USSR]). But it's not the 14th century. The Teutonic Knights no longer ride. Germany and France are both at peace and have passed beyond the need to protect a revolution from the interference of counter-revolutionary despotism, as Napoleon did in 1812, or to practice the insane racist terror as the Germans did so recently. Protecting anything as 'a genetic obligation' implies a worrying correlation with ideas about race that I thought were settled in 1945. If Russia has a great destiny, and any country as rich in land, resources and educated people should be, it will be as a free nation, without despotism, and freed from the pre-modern shackles of superstition.
@Leipaa
3 жыл бұрын
@@kutuzovm3215 I don't disagree with anything you said about Russia's strategic needs. There are good reasons why Stalin would want the border to be heavily armed. However, in 1941 the border was REALLY heavily armed - I said 4 million in the comment above, it might have been a bit lower, but still they were pretty much at numerical parity with the largest invasion force in history. And despite this they were totally unprepared to defend as June 1941 showed. If they weren't there to defend, what were they doing?
@willleahy6958
3 жыл бұрын
@@Leipaa My own suspicion is that a lot of them were there to help "educate" Poles and Ruthenians in the advantages of Scientific Socialism :)
@nematolvajkergetok5104
3 жыл бұрын
One notable person who fully subscribed to Suvorov's theory is General Ferenc Végh, the former Commander-in-Chief of the Hungarian Defence Forces in the 1990's. He wrote a detailed article in the Hungarian military periodical 'Haditechnika' about the merits of Suvorov's theories, judging his ideas by his many years as an armour general and military academy professor. He found the theory perfectly plausible, and concluded that it corresponds to available information on both Soviet and German unit strengths, capabilities, locations and every other circumstance.
@MikeM-r8i
8 ай бұрын
Numerous historians say Stalin was planning to attack Hitler: Mikhail Meltyukhov, Mark Solonin, Boris Sokolov, Joachim Hoffmann, Constantine Pleshakov, and Heinz Magenheimer.
@AK-qy5iw
7 ай бұрын
How is it even "a theory"? Why are we in 2024 acting as if we dont know were every soviet unit was located in 22.06.41and what was its strenght? There were 25 000 tanks, 10 000 armoured cars, 20 000 planes on the border when Wehrmacht attacked with 3400 tanks and 2300 planes.
@leomarkaable1
5 ай бұрын
I think Suvorovs ideas are logical given the political theories of the Ussr, the forward placement of Soviet forces, the abandonment of the Stalin Line, the design of Soviet BT tanks, even the kit of Soviet infantry. Suvorovs researches are extensive. I frankly don't understand TIK is talking about. Stalin had no intention of letting hitler invade. He was planning a massive western campaign. Hitler simply beat him to the punch. The huge losses the Soviets experienced are e proof of the forward placement of Ussr forces. Hitler found out at stalingrad what tenacity Russia had.
@AK-qy5iw
5 ай бұрын
@@leomarkaable1 they might have been "Suvorov's ideas" at some point in the 1980-ies. In 1941 every German general and soldier knew that. So did soviet officers. They were written in the declaration of war. These Suvorov's ideas were expressed plainly in Hitler's speech to his nation. Its just wonderful how we have been lied to for 70 years that these simple facts of 1941 had to turn into "Suvorov's ideas" of the 1980-ies. It is embarassing to us as humans.
@slawawacker
4 ай бұрын
@@AK-qy5iw In 1941, the Soviet Union only had outdated weapons. They had no ammunition or fuel. Germany and its allies had 4.5 million soldiers while the Soviet Union had only 2.6 million soldiers. Stalin was not able to defeat Germany in 1941, Hitler knew that, that's why he invaded the Soviet Union.
@tonytiger2914
2 жыл бұрын
How about telling your viewers about the Soviets attacking Romania and the other Baltic States after they allied themselves to Germany.
@alexarmstrong2019
11 ай бұрын
Germany literally green lit the Soviets to do this. The entire Basis of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was creating spheres of influence. Germany agreed to give them a free hand in these cases. It was also vice-versa where the Soviets did not object to German expansion. This is a very shortsighted and uneducated comment.
@RamsesII_le_Grand
11 ай бұрын
@@alexarmstrong2019Yeah right, I suppose that also Germany gave the green light to the invasion of Poland by the soviet union in 1920, or the invasion of Manchuria, or the invasion of Finland...
@alexarmstrong2019
11 ай бұрын
@@RamsesII_le_Grand completely different things, apples and oranges. The pact specified areas of influence. And it was only signed in 1939 just prior to the invasion of Poland. Hitler was led to believe the UK and France wouldn’t stand by Poland. Thus, his main concern was the Soviets interfering.
@vicschauberger2737
9 ай бұрын
....and Finland .
@graycap44
6 жыл бұрын
Suvorov is the alias for Vladimir Rezun who, when a captain in the GRU, defected to the UK in the late 1970s.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
This is true. Didn't get a chance to say that in the video
@graycap44
6 жыл бұрын
Look what has happened to the ex-GRU officer in Salisbury a few days ago.
@МашЭргг
6 жыл бұрын
Rhesus kann ganz nach Russland zurückkehren. er wird nicht bedroht. er lügt die ganze Zeit. selbst bei der UdSSR verurteilte ihn niemand in absentia zum Tode. es ist eine andere Sache, dass die Leute ihm nicht gefallen. er weiß es. er ist rot. angeeignet Nachnamen wirklich großen Feldmarschall. es ist in Russland unnötig . und ohne scheiß reicht es aus.
@iqry11
6 жыл бұрын
Suvorov is a liar as all Nazi were including Keitel
@arun-it9gr
6 жыл бұрын
Disgusting that a second rate traitor should choose the name of one of the undefeated generals in history for his nom de plume (guerre?) and that the rest of the world continues to refer to him by that name.
@aldariontelcontar
3 жыл бұрын
Partisans are *not* civilians.
@welshy4638
6 жыл бұрын
Subbed to you after your excellent video the MAIN reason Germany lost WW2. This is one of the biggest problems of the 21st century, the vast majority and it's inability to think critically and, instead just austically screech sound bites from Twiitter.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
Yes, I agree. There are people out there that do think critically, but you're right that more people need to start doing so.
@MrNiceGuyHistory
3 жыл бұрын
Critical thinking has been deemed racist white supremacy by the left.
@koj2698
3 жыл бұрын
@@MrNiceGuyHistory white supremacy itself is also a collectivist idea and does not get a free pass on brushing off all the reasoning in favour of slogans and smearing.
@MrNiceGuyHistory
3 жыл бұрын
@@koj2698 Actual white supremacy is just as bad of a collectivist idea as any other. They are a pretty small fringe group with almost no power. White supremacy isn't everything or everyone that the far left disagrees with as they have often labeled. They have watered down the term so much it doesn't have much meaning anymore.
@JohnSmith-dq7sr
6 жыл бұрын
I really enjoy your work, it's like being at the University having a lecturer, who cares about the subject makes it much more enjoyable.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
I don't care what anybody says - having a good lecturer or teacher is vital. And I may be a little controversial here, but I don't think a lot of history teachers/lecturers are good. Too much tweed, not enough charisma. And I think this needs to change because history is seen as a boring topic to many, and this really comes down to the people who have been teaching it. I was lucky that I had two very good history teachers in college (UK). They strengthened my passion for the subject. But most of the lecturers I had at university were poor. One we actually complained about because he was reading off Wikipedia.
@kloschuessel773
4 жыл бұрын
Condrea Mihai yeah his logic in this video is very flawed. You can poke holes in it quite often. Also: its misleading bcs it appears as if keitel is the only one making these claims. Even tho it was the official story at the time.
@GuessIIIwho
6 жыл бұрын
Ah, man...I'm SO glad you transcribed so nicely what i try to explain to people who shove "facts" and "theories" to my face when discussing about History. "Are you certain it was like that? What are your sources?" "It's common knowledge, come on!" Your inflexibility towards "general knowledge", and questionning everything is a refreshing wind in the historical studies.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
Yeah, a lot of people make statements that simply don't hold up when you question them. People comment every day on my Market Garden videos saying "A single lane for 16 miles with your enemy all around you. Great plan!" (this is an actual quote from one of them, and he got it wrong, it was 60 miles). They don't like it when I point out that it wasn't the road that was the issue, it was the bridges, since one of them wasn't captured on day 1, which is where the tanks got stuck. The usual response is for them to go very quiet, or argue back saying "you're just in love with Montgomery", which is also equally as false.
@GuessIIIwho
6 жыл бұрын
Some errors are okayish to have, i myself would probably get it wrong on distances & such. But your point on "not taking the face value" is invaluable. How many guys bought it like that, not thinking: "hey shouldn't i question the fact the entire work is based on superficial quoting?". Also, really amazing job overall on your videos, to depict a bit more the battles & actual fighting on the Eastern front. Finally understood and could explain the comparaison of tank numbers & losses during Barbarossa, to people shoving me "look soviets r so human waving their tanks, german tonks veri gud best superior german engineering". (Referring to various videos you made on the Eastern Front) Anyway, keep up the great work!
@nikolajwinther5955
6 жыл бұрын
the *stakes* are high. I'm not sure what a high Steak is. But it sounds delicious.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
Doh! I guess you could call that a mis-steak
@timbushell8640
6 жыл бұрын
Er, no : ))))) academic standards of critical thinking includes spelling : ))))))
@princeofcupspoc9073
6 жыл бұрын
"I am a medium rare in a world where the stakes are high." You Brits should get that one.
@GFRzeszutek
6 жыл бұрын
Cannibis fed beef, hmmmm. what would I use for a steak sauce?
@UpperZenith
6 жыл бұрын
We need a critical spelling and proper grammar video
@olivialambert4124
6 жыл бұрын
I'm a huge fan of this video. I'm far too lazy to look at historical sources, but as a Physicist I'm an utterly massive advocate for critical and logical thought. I think we could all be better people if we stopped to criticise ourselves from an objective view, and doing so to other people and things we not only build those skills but get a more balanced view of the world.
@zachmccaleb7281
Жыл бұрын
Ikr :)
@Byrial
Жыл бұрын
Yes, put yourself in the situation of germans on the eastern front. If partisans represented an existential threat, would you kill them ? We dont have to answare this question but i can understand why so called civilians (but armed and working with the army) were killed. And the allies are also guilty of killing tons of germans unnecessarily. Attacking Dachau after the germans had surrendered was only and act of hatred from the allies, it was NOT a military target. "The best propagandha is the truth" - Goebbles.
@ericvantassell6809
4 жыл бұрын
keitel having an incentive to lie doesn't prove he did
@HDreamer
4 жыл бұрын
True, but it tells you that one should look for other sources than him, to decide whether he lied or not and not just believe what he wrote. Which is the point of the video.
@ludaMerlin69
4 жыл бұрын
Now that's some critical thinking!
@thethirdman225
3 жыл бұрын
But he did anyway.
@charlesmuneri
2 жыл бұрын
Critical critical thinking 🤔
@jessehaenen5915
2 жыл бұрын
Thats why he proved that he did lie
@ppsh43
6 жыл бұрын
One should always be suspicious of memoirs particularly from leaders. The writer is publishing these things usually with an axe to grind: either taking credit for successes or deflecting blame for defeats. What is frequently done is blaming the dead as they are unable to defend themselves.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
Precisely! Great comment
@TammoKorsai
6 жыл бұрын
Quite so! It makes me wonder how many German officers offloaded the responsibility of their bad strategic decisions onto Hitler.
@destubae3271
3 жыл бұрын
@@TammoKorsai After Hitler died, he became even the punching bag of NSDAP members
@imatreebelieveme6094
2 жыл бұрын
@@destubae3271 And it worked in the west. Basically only the nazi leadership was purged, the rest of the fascists got to stay in their comfortable posts.
@budscroggins2632
2 жыл бұрын
I was thinking the same..and keitel's recollections remind me of Gen. Longstreet's post civil war memoirs.
@curbs100
6 жыл бұрын
so, what i think your trying to say is, han shot first?
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
That's not true! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE
@CunySark
6 жыл бұрын
I think you mean Hans shot first.
@nerminerminerminermi
6 жыл бұрын
Steve Wall they also took baltics and moldova before... they also wanted romania
@nerminerminerminermi
6 жыл бұрын
@Anna Hagen not true... "Kampfplatz Deutschland" from an Polish historian proves it, its sources are moscow archives next to other sovietrussian sources ;)
@nerminerminerminermi
6 жыл бұрын
@Anna Hagen they planned to do it, thats the point! You finally got it now?
@feanorn8409
4 жыл бұрын
Well, in this case the second Molotov-Ribbentrop meeting got to be mentioned. Stalins demands there were unacceptable. He demanded the whole of Scandinavia and most of the Balkans as Soviet Sphere of influence. Thats another reason why war between the Axis and the SU became a thing.
@thethirdman225
3 жыл бұрын
It's called an ambit claim.
@NorthCitySider
2 жыл бұрын
I cannot find a source on that. And even if it is true, it's irrelevant because Stalin did nothing to assert power in those areas. The MR pact was followed to a T by the Soviets.
@burtonkephart6239
2 жыл бұрын
@@NorthCitySider “Stalin did nothing to assert power in those areas”??? How about invading Finland ( aka part of Scandinavia )!!! He also took over part of Romania as well!!!!
@NorthCitySider
2 жыл бұрын
@@burtonkephart6239 Finland was a part of the agreed Soviet sphere of influence and it is not the whole of Scandinavia as the OP was implying. Actually it's debatable if it's even Scandinavia(which is traditionally just Norway, Sweden, and Denmark) at all but that's a different topic. Same thing with Moldova-it was agreed to be in the Soviet sphere. Look at this map: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#Revelation
@MikeM-r8i
7 ай бұрын
@@NorthCitySider You can't find a source on Molotov's visit to Berlin in November 1940? The US State Department published the transcripts of his meetings with Hitler and Ribbentrop, its in the 1948 book "Nazi-Soviet Relations 1939-1941". Its also discussed in McMeekin's new book "Stalin's War".
@kyjo72682
6 жыл бұрын
How come there was more German soldiers than Soviet soldiers on the border when the war started - even if Keitel says Soviets always had more? He also said they attacked some time prior to the expected Soviet attack. So if Soviets really were gearing up for attack and the Germans figured that out what would a logical course of action be? To gear up even faster and throw everything you have at the border before it's too late, to catch the enemy in the midst of preparations. To achieve temporary superiority on the field before the Soviet army gets fully mobilized.. I'm not saying this is how it was, just pointing out what Keitel wrote makes sense and is not illogical, as you're trying to make it out to be. The only question that really matters is - were the Soviets really gearing up? In my opinion it's quite possible, even if the attack wasn't imminent and they were caught off guard. They were two grabby power-hungry empires who would eventually come to clash with each other at one point or another..
@dennispfeifer7788
5 жыл бұрын
Yes. I agree with you. A clash was coming and both Hitler and Stalin knew it...TIK seems to avoid this conclusion.
@yesyesyesyes1600
4 жыл бұрын
I agree with your analysis. Even the proof of Keitel's lie is not a proof that the Soviet Union was NOT hungry for Central Europe. DDR, TCHOCHOSLOVAKIA, HUNGARY were all part of Warsaw pact - but not because they wanted to. They were forced to. Prague Spring and Hungarian crisis back up my argument.
@michbarkc
3 жыл бұрын
Germany (bad geography) and Russia (justified fear of invasion) will always be geopolitical rivals while the British and French play both sides. I suspect the difference in the 1940s is that both the Wehrmacht and Red Army had doctrinally committed themselves to the offensive as a result of the development of armored fighting vehicles and military aircraft, two technologies that promote speed and envelopment over the static defenses which dominated the western front of wwi.
@migohable
6 жыл бұрын
I just checked the like/dislike ratio of a lecture by Suvorov - 9.16, whereas this video has like/dislike ratio 12.3 (slightly more, but comparable). Hence youtubers find the two videos more or less equally convincing. This video focuses primary sources whereas Suvorov shows pictures and makes jokes. It makes me sad to see how much more effort and professionalism you have to put to present an unpopular truth. Keep up the good work TIK. In the end, only the truth matters.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
I think I've seen that same video. Is it the one where he's comparing Hitler's and Stalin's mustaches? My IQ dropped after just a few minutes of watching that video. I felt embarrassed for him. But then, simple people like simple pictures and jokes. They're the same people who think history is boring, so maybe in terms of reaching many people Suvorov is doing it right, and I'm doing this wrong :(
@VasileIuga
6 жыл бұрын
The truth is that USSR attacked Poland too, attacked other nations too forcing them in the Nazi camp, that USSR killed millions, and was uplifted to the status of allied during the war and after, while others wore the escape goat for all WW2. Her offspring Rusia wages colonial wars from 1991in Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia for the sake of „minorities=colonists”, while she had subdued the Caucasian Muslims ”minority” and has only a party in charge who tends to kill all before him. In the end the truth matters, but Suvorov is right in many aspects, even if is wrong in terms of many aspects too. Well, jokes wore illegal in USSR and now in Sweden, I guess is kind of new to you. Also the research should be more intense, I will want orders by week from the USSR to debunk the whole theory or speculation, call it as you want. :)
@migohable
6 жыл бұрын
+Vasile Iuga The main point is not that Suvorov is right about "some" things, facts that are obvious and no one denies, but that his main thesis is wrong. Every academic, either western or Russian, rejects Suvorov's ideas. He is not a professional historian and his methodology is amateur. The aim of this video (I think) is not to label who was good and bad in the second world war, but to expose Suvorov's ideas for what they are - garbage.
@VasileIuga
6 жыл бұрын
This video proves in some manner that Suvorov claimed hard to prove facts(like the India story) and that USSR posed no threat in 1941! OK, not a new thing and I can admit. But where are the orders from USSR? Should we only trust the numbers by years, should we only stop at 1941? I think a preemtive strike should concern all the period Germany would have to fight UK and France while USSR was there to gear for world revolution in peace. Also we should check the troops movement from the time Hitler attacked France to 1941. We assume USSR massed as a response, but what if Hitler massed more as a response too? Did the Soviet army on the border had no possibility to invade Germany, if, let's say Germany was stuck in France or went for Africa or UK in the first stage? Also the author should understand that he is not from the area of Suvorov, that's why he cannot grasp what Keitel meant by attacks on Bulgaria and Romania. He was not talking about the treaty, but provocation inside the border and on border(we see this every day in Donnets), the land grab of Herţa, the deportations from Romania and the genocide from Romania. And Keitel deserved the UN medal if he executed by his hand the comisars, not to be accused of ”inhumane” orders. Those wore terrorists similar to ISIS, so I guess Obama should be executed for ordering drone strikes on ISIS. The bias is strong because USSR was the champion of the west for many years, while being more than Germany in terms of crimes and imperialism. I agree, his claims, of Suvorov, are not a theory, but a speculation. But still a speculation avoided by many well regarded historians who is better than nothing. I would like to see more historians taking the place of amateurs who risk poisoning, but I guess being allied with the biggest killer is not a good thing to portray as a respected historian. Well, since both won the war, rejecting is easy, but the main argument is not about Barbarosa, is about who started WW2. USSR was in Poland too, a bit latter, but it was.
@MrChiangching
6 жыл бұрын
Exactly, Stalin was really a coward, he was going to invade Europe at some point, he was waiting for the right moment.
@jamiengo2343
6 жыл бұрын
I thought Suvorov was that famous Russian General that campaigned in Italy during the early Napoleonic Wars
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
That's Alexander Suvorov I think. This is Viktor Suvorov, the author of "Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War".
@ФедяКрюков-в6ь
6 жыл бұрын
Great Jamie that was a true Suvorov, this is a fake one)
@jamiengo2343
6 жыл бұрын
Федя Крюков what did Suvorov actually do?
@ФедяКрюков-в6ь
6 жыл бұрын
Great Jamie General Alexander Suvorov, you mean? He was an exemplar of a russian officer as how russian themselves imagine it - stoic, always determined, always resourceful, who is always on a frontline leading troops. He did some revolutinary changes in russian military doctrine taking it from prussian-like static line tactics to manuverable assault-oriented one. He is famed as a general who never lost a single battle, sometime even as a military genius compared to Napoleon himself (although far less ambitious and loyal till the end as a russian officer is supposed to be). And he always cared about soldier's well-being and proper traning, so he became a folk-hero, who was reverred in tsar, soviet and modern times alike. Some of the most well-known operations under general Suvorov command are successful siege of Ismail fortress of Ottoman empire having less troops than turks did inside it and famous alpine crossing which saved his army during overall fruitless austro-russian campaign against Napoleon. And Vladimir Rezun just defected GRU in 70s, run to UK and started to write politically-biased books under 'Viktor Suvorov' pseudonym.
@JosipRadnik1
6 жыл бұрын
The bullet is a fool - the bayonet carries wisdom!
@Hubidubi18
6 жыл бұрын
just a question, why did the soviets build so many airstrips near the boarder, that the germans then used after the soviets got over run. + The fact that the Soviet airforce got racked in the first days of the war is no wonder since the first strikes of the war where agains the Soviet Airforce that was on the ground. I got Pictures of my Grandfather, that shows 3-4 Airfields with alot (100+) Aircrafts destroyed on the ground. +The Soviet Airforce at that time was Badly equiped if you compare the i16s agains the Bf109 of that time. The Soviets got the Mig 3 Lagg 3 later and trained there Pilots to counter the Bf109E (Emil) but the Germans changed to the BF109F at the same time thats why they got beaten again.... And i think you are looking at it a bit wrong, espacaliy when you blame Keitel a bit to much and i dont think he wanted to get out of it. With your agumentaions you say every soldier is a murderer and should be shot because the was involved in a Battleplan and didnt go agains the order. Plus the Oil should have come from the Afrika front, only later that was considert that they wanted to secure the Oil supplys from Russa. There is a Book you maybe want to take a look at ISBN 3-902475-26-9 its a Book from Franz Uhle-Wettler called "Höhe- und Wendepunkte Deutscher Militärgeschichte"
@iqry11
6 жыл бұрын
USSR borders had to be well protected against german agressors
@polakarnegolis
5 жыл бұрын
@@iqry11 It's been 7 months since you wrote this but it got me laughing so hard that I have to reply. You don't locate airstrips right at the border in any case apart from attacking with certainity of fast progress into the enemy territory. Planes are pretty fast so they can reach the frontline very quickly without an unnecessary risk of whole airforce being destroyed by artillery or enemy bombers as happened in Barbarossa. Additionally, deploying forces in the way Soviets did in somewhat risky in defence. I have to admit it's perfect when it comes to encircling the german Army Group Center but it can be easily surrounded as well (I wonder what happend in the first weeks of the war...). Also not having any defensive plans is highly suspicious when you wanted to be well protected. I could also mention the 7:1 ratio of number of tanks (in favor of the Red Army of Course), no mine fields in front of soviet lines and for example anti-concrete shelles in the northen soviet armies (They were prepared for Germans moving their prussian bunkers forward? If we assume they were defending I think it's the most logical assumption).
@jjquinn295
5 жыл бұрын
@@polakarnegolis Or you have a doctrine that involves meeting the enemy force then counter attacking into the rear right away, necessitating extra range on you airforce. You know like deep battle as described by the Soviet general in the interwar period and executed at kursk.
@polakarnegolis
5 жыл бұрын
@@jjquinn295 Do you really believe in what you've said? What is the point in extra range if your airplanes are destroyed before the take-off and those which survived can't start because of all the wrecks blocking the runway.
@jjquinn295
5 жыл бұрын
@@polakarnegolis Normally you don't ignore your intelligence and have you airforce take off before they get destroyed. But yes forward deploying your airforce to be in position to strike back the enemy is a thing. The US did it against the Soviets for 50 years, was that because they were about to invade? In which case 50 years is a long time to plan. Or because putting air assets in forward bases put them in a position to counter attack hard and fast?
@ak47training
4 жыл бұрын
Hi TIK Awesome channel! I've watched many of your videos about WW2 by now and it seems there is one important detail that seems to be eluding your sources, and this video about Keitel's "Soviets were going to attack us" looks to be the most appropriate place to mention it. According to Alexey Isaev (your source on Battle of Dubno, and he also holds Suvorov in very low regard by the way) in his "Unknown 1941. The prevented blitzkrieg", Red Army Air Force was crushed in the first days of the war not due to it being in bad condition / underequipped / understaffed, but due to Air Force being deployed on the forward bases, on airfields most close to the border, and therefore very vulnerable to sudden air raids by Luftwaffe, as well as capture attempts by infantry. For instance, the sources I've found (internal Red Army reports dated 8th of July 1941) cite "50% of airplanes of Baltic army group lost to bombs while on the airfield due to criminal inaction and negligence of commanders", and other modern sources cite "Out of 1200 airplanes lost in the first day of the war among all Soviet troops between Baltic and Black seas, 800 were lost while on the ground". Also, Soviet pilots, even while being caught off-guard, performed 6000 flights and shot down 200 German airplanes in the same first day. So they definitely have had fuel, ammunition, training, equipment, etcetera. What follows is the logical question of "Why was RAAF positioned so close to the border"? And the reasonable answer to this is "You position your planes on forward bases when you want your air support to cover enemy territory and go on offense", as opposed to "If you want to defend your borders from incoming aggression, you position your airforce deeper inside your territory, so it can counterattack opposing armored columns advancing into your territory and the airfields are safer from air raids and ground attacks". The very deployment of RAAF on June 22 speaks of Soviet's offensive plans. This is a very strong evidence not covered in any of your videos I've watched. Yes, they were caught off-guard by Germans; But Isaev, overall, implies the conclusion that Stalin and his advisors were no fools and recognized how vital for Germany would be Caucasus oil fields and that German attack on USSR was all but inevitable, so Kremlin had been planning "preemptive strike" themselves, likely during the 1941 summer as well, but Reichstag outpaced them. To throw another wrench at the "Germany attacked too early" people - maybe if they didn't attack by July 1941, WWII would've ended in 1941 with decisive communist Ura through the Eastern Europe up to Carpathian oil deposits :D
@v1ctor2012
2 жыл бұрын
very good detail, he forgot to mention that the Soviet airfields were too close to the border with Germany and that during the first days thousands of prisoners were made because they were surrounded by the speed of the German attack, what were those soldiers doing so close to the border With a large amount of weapons and material? What did Germany gain by attacking a large supplier of materials and oil? What would Hitler gain by declaring war on a possible powerful ally in the east? Hitler was not a fool, he risked everything by entering into Operation Barbarossa
@supasf
Жыл бұрын
Would love to see tik respond to this but its highly unlikely. I like his videos but he clearly has a bias in some of them and this video is an example of that. A lot of the counters he made against Keitel's points were also rather weak. For example (this is but one, there are numerous i could bring up), he cites the German invasion of France and Norway as wars of aggression when they clearly were not. France declared war on Germany and not the other way around. I suppose you could say the invasion of Poland was a war of aggression but not the invasion of France. France willinglt declared war on germany and fired the first shots. Calling the German invasion of France "a war of aggression" is simply ridiculous. As for the case of Norway, Britain had breached Norway's neutrality first and that was the reason Germany HAD to invade Norway for strategic reasons. Even tik acknowledges this fact in other videos.
@alehhandro1
2 жыл бұрын
Hi TIK, with all due respect to you and the work you have been doing (and I do watch a lot of your videos), you have presented Victor Suvorov’s theory in a greatly reduced and simplified manner. You have picked the one point out of many that suited your argumentation the best. Sorry, but it makes it not an exercise in critical thinking but rather an exercise in sophism. I would love to hear your critique of Suvorov’s theory in its entirety that encompasses the history of Bolshevik foreign policy thinking and maneuvering, Soviet military theory and practice going back to the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, as well as political, economic and military environment in the world between the 2 World Wars. That would be a great topic for a series of videos after you’ve finished Battlestorm Stalingrad. But again, if you dig deeper into the prewar years you might find out that Suvorov, his verbose style aside, may be correct in his assessment.
@TlsMS93
Жыл бұрын
Only for Germans to have found booklets in the USSR containing questions and answers in Russian-German about places that don't even exist in the USSR is nothing for TIK. The Soviets later found something similar in German hands and used it as proof of plans for aggression, they had the same. lol
@Horesmi
6 жыл бұрын
Great video. ... BUT IIIIIS THIS REALLY THE CASE?
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
I knew someone would say that... but was that really the case? Or am I manipulating the information I present to you to make you think that I would say that I knew that someone would say that?
@thomaspick4123
5 жыл бұрын
Yes. See KZitem clip. Mark Weber- Why Hitler Invaded the Soviet Union. It details the Ice Breaker Book by the Russian general. We have Hitler to thank that Christianity survived in Europe. Otherwise, all Europe would have been Communist. Also hear: Whistleblower Benjamin Freelander- Willard Hotel speech 1961.
@petar.banovac
5 жыл бұрын
@@thomaspick4123 That's simply not the case. Stalin would not invade the whole Europe, because if he wanted to, he could have done it in 1945. Do you really think that Anglo-American presence in Europe was enough to stop the Red army from going further west? Soviets crushed roughly 80% of Germany's military power from 1942 until 1945 and Red Army was, by the end of the war, the most powerful army in the World. And religion survived communism anyway - even ex-communist countries have restored their religious backgrounds. Typical anti-Slavic chauvinist narrative.
@zacharymohammadi
5 жыл бұрын
Top 10 questions science may never be able to answer
@matthewhase150
5 жыл бұрын
@@petar.banovac Not true, the USSR was a complete mess following the war, facing an uprising in Ukraine, with guerrilla warfare in Poland and the Baltic territories. Additionally, their industry was in a disastrous state. They had 15,000,000+ pairs of boots offered to them by the Canadians and Americans. Over 21,000 planes, 500,000 trucks, 12,000 tanks, and one-third of their shipping fleet were manufactured in the U.S., Great Britain, and Canada, all as mutual military assistance and the Lend-Lease program. It is estimated that the Soviets lost around 31-32% of all their fixed capital from all industries, and most of their industrial centers were beyond the Urals, very distant from the front. Stalin's Scorched Earth policy got the job done against the Wehrmacht, but at the expense of his own labour force and agricultural industry. Additionally, you are critically underestimating the supremacy of Western air power. True, the Soviets had better tanks and equivalent artillery, but plane and pilot quality, and more importantly, quantity, was sorely lacking behind GB and the USA (you might forget that 75% of the air war in Europe was between Germany and the Western Allies), and air superiority was decidedly the most important factor in another war. All this in addition to the assertion that the Soviets might have lost significantly more men than their official records note. The figure of 8.7 million by Krivosheev which is sponsored by the Russian Ministry of Defence has been challenged by numerous independent researchers and even its parent organization, the Central Defense Ministry Archives, which lists approximately 14.27 million deceased Red Army personnel, including 13.3 million standard-ranking soldiers (I do not know the military command structure of the USSR at the time of the Great Patriotic War) and 970,000 officers. Makhmut Gareev, the former deputy chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR and current president of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences estimates Red Army dead at 13.6 million. Edit: The USA was the only nation immediately following the war with nuclear capability.
@gareththompson2708
6 жыл бұрын
I find it is impractical to question everything at all times. I use a somewhat less energy intensive process. I just use the best information I have at any given time. I make a point of not becoming too attached to any particular narrative or bit of knowledge, and as I encounter new information I re-evaluate which information is my best information (I also make a point of putting myself on positions to encounter lots of new information). With this process I don't have to expend exorbitant amounts of mental resources questioning EVERYTHING, but can still trust that my beliefs will become more accurate as time goes on and I encounter more information (learning how exactly to sort which information is your best information is just one more skill that improves over time using this method, but there are formal logical criteria that can be studied more directly such as Occam's razor). While this process leaves me vulnerable to believing false information for finite periods of time it is self correcting, and I find that most of my misconceptions do eventually end up being corrected so long as expose myself to enough information and never cling too tightly to my misconceptions. The key is to never become so attached to any belief/narrative/bit of information that you can't give it up when better information presents itself.
@jeremygreenwood1021
11 ай бұрын
I am reading Icebreaker at the moment, I'm about a third of the way through. I have read a fair bit about the eastern front recently and enjoyed your presentations in particular. Therefore I have not taken up Suvorov as a naive follower of conspiracy theories, I have taken it up as a contradictory view and though some of it appears dubious his overall thesis is highly convincing. You have demolished Keitel, but so far not Suvorov. According to Suvorov's thesis Hitler was either a genius or just very lucky. Keitel was entirely justified and rational in taking out the partisans and commissars. Where I am at in the book is where the Red Army is massed in western Ukraine, along with the Danube river boats, in preparation to take the Romanian oilfields and destroy the German economy and ground their army, while their northern forces prepare to launch a pre-emptive strike on Germany very similar to Putin's failed attack on Kiev. To other viewers: no I am not a Nazi. To you: if you convince me of Suvorov's failings I shall be delighted, keep up the good work.
@mitchrichards1532
9 ай бұрын
I suggest you read David Glantz rebuttal of "Icebreaker", its called "Stumbling Colossus". The depth and detail in that book completely demolishes Suvorov in such a way that there isn't a second thought once you've read it.
@MikeM-r8i
4 ай бұрын
@@mitchrichards1532 I suggest you learn that the field of this study is BIGGER than Glantz. Read Mikhail Meltyukhov, Mark Solonin, Boris Sokolov, Heinz Magenheimer, and Constantine Pleshakov.
@danielfalcone7172
3 жыл бұрын
USSR wasn t neither prepared to invade Finland and she did it. How can you deny the Soviets weren t planning and ready to invade the Reich? Suvorov investigated secret soviet archives, and he found the proves it was certain. On the other hand, I agree with TIK about Germany s needs to invade URSS because the oil.
@raf321
2 жыл бұрын
After much further reading, I believe it possible, going on likely, to think that Stalin would have felt himself in a proper position to attack Nazi Germany in early 1942. I concur that in 1941 Stalin was just beginning re-constituting his overall command structure, and in the midst of vastly augmenting the numbers/equipment of Red Army. Suvorov's subsequent book "The Chief Culprit" addresses many criticisms of his previous book "Icebreaker", and is fairly persuasive, IMHO. I respect your knowledge, but I suggest this topic needs to be revisited in light of new knowledge.
@nekitamokanaldrljavi
6 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the vids, recently discovered them and became a huge fan. I haven't read Suvorov, but from what I have heard, he not only relies on Keitel, but also on huge numbers of Soviet technique and some records from Stavka meetings, as well as preserved parts of that Stalin's 1941. speech. Allegedly he discovered some Soviet documents after archives opened in 1991. which prove this, especially regarding the numbers of Soviet technique and manpower. Do you know something about this? And please keep up the good work, mate, thank you!
@ETIL_
6 жыл бұрын
The keyword here is "Allegedly". Unless Suvorov has presented these documents that supposedly fully prove his theory somewhere, then its highly likely that its all another bogus claim of his.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
If Viktor Suvorov approached those sources anything like the way he's approached Keitel's memoirs, then I expect he's taken what was said out of context. I will probably do more on Mr Suvorov in the future, but I've been told Glantz's book "Stumbling Colossus" was written as a definitive answer to the claims made in Suvorov's "Icebreaker". I haven't read Stumbling Colossus yet (but have just purchased a copy), but I think you'll get your answer there. In the future, I do hope to answer it properly too.
@askeladden7930
6 жыл бұрын
I'm so glad I found this channel! Great video as always dude! :-)
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
Thank you sir!
@garethrs
4 жыл бұрын
This is the best, and most important, thing I have ever seen on KZitem.
@MACADEMIAC
4 жыл бұрын
Very good video. Just a few points: 1. Keitel's statement about Hitler ordering divisions to the East in the summer of 1940 can be understood as a defensive move, given the Soviet Union's expansionist moves against the Baltics and Bessarabia shortly before. 2. Perhaps the strongest argument against Barbarossa as a pre-emptive operation is that the operations plan itself does not speak of this, but orders detailed preparations for the subjugation of the Soviet Union. Clearly therefore it was a war of aggression which was ingrained in the Nazi ideology.
@alexfromboston8303
Жыл бұрын
Your first point is not logical. The Germans were not surprised by the Soviet moves against the Baltic states and the Bessarabia region of Romania since those regions were identified as being in the Soviet sphere of influence in the secret protocols of the German Soviet non-aggression pact.
@AK-qy5iw
7 ай бұрын
"Nazi ideology" is a typical to its time nationalist ideology. They intended to gather all German lands and build an reich for 1000 years.. They were friends with other nationalists over the Europe. Like H himself said later, "every day of this war steals a day from me of building Germany". SU ideology on the other hand was an ideology of the World Revolution, they talked openly and sang songs about how in the future there will be 30-40 soviet socialist republics. That was the whole meaning of the existance of the SU. This war would never have happened if Stalin didnt start preparing on his attack on Europe. War with his only strong ally the SU was the last thing G needed while already in a war they had no chance winning in the west.
@billyosullivan3192
10 күн бұрын
@@AK-qy5iwHitler gave the orders to start planning invading the USSR in October 1940 and only Ribbentrop opposed it. Everyone else in nazi leadership was for it, in fact they thought conquering the USSR would help beat the uk
@Calbeck
5 жыл бұрын
"The Soviets were not building up for an offensive war..." But is this really the case? The USSR had invaded Poland in 1920, with the public objective of moving on to "liberate the workers" in both Germany and France afterwards. Communist uprisings had already briefly taken power in parts of Germany even before then. Stalin's seizure of the Baltic states, as well as Finnish and Romanian territory, demonstrated his lack of interest in a defensive foreign policy. The fact that much of those seizures were the result of being just as expansionistic as Nazi Germany doesn't change that... in fact, it only affirms the reality that there were two powerful, mutually-antagonistic neighboring nations which each wanted to do away with the other. While it is true that a Soviet attack was not IMMINENT, Soviet political doctrine at no time since the Bolshevik takeover envisaged anything other than the eventuality of a Communist Europe, and it had repeatedly used military force to annex and subjugate its neighbors to that end. These were also wars of aggression, particularly so in the case of Finland (for which the USSR was ejected from the League of Nations). In TIK's other videos, it is clearly demonstrated that the Soviet military was massively expanding, reorganizing, and modernizing, a process which the German invasion interrupted. The idea that the USSR intended to peaceably co-exist with Nazi Germany has as much grounding in fact as the notion that German expansionism would have stopped with the annexation of Danzig. Nor, it should be noted, does the German decision to invade prior to running out of oil by Autumn 1941 amount to an argument that the Soviets never planned to invade Germany. It merely means that the German need for oil took precedence over waiting for the Soviets to attack first. Oh, and one thing more: the Nuremburg Trials actually DID take the doctrine of "superior orders" into account - but only as a mitigating factor, not a pure defense. Obeying a lawful order is not a crime, nor is obeying an order one cannot reasonably be expected to know is unlawful. That said, Keitel was nailed by the court not only for admitting to knowingly carrying out unlawful orders, but for promulgating several himself.
@ZvSz
4 жыл бұрын
@algogy There are some map of Poland first is before Polish Commonwelth has been patitioned pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rozbiory_Polski#/media/Plik:Partitions_of_Poland.png and second before Poland has lost Kiev pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rzeczpospolita_Obojga_Narod%C3%B3w#/media/Plik:Rzeczpospolita_Obojga_Narod%C3%B3w_1635.svg Lenin has canceled Partitions so all of this lands should returned to Poland. And Belarus was a part of Great Dutchy of Lithuenia.
@bianc5596
4 жыл бұрын
Well, it was Poland who invaded USSR in 1920...
@jayperez495
4 жыл бұрын
@@bianc5596 source?
@DD-lm1gv
3 жыл бұрын
To say that the Bolshevik regime was the same as Stalin's regime is not understanding Soviet history. After the Bolsheviks tried and failed to spread global communism after the revolution, they did not push for global invasions under Stalin pre-ww2. This is because Stalin purged the party and took the CCCP down a path completely separate from what Trotsky, Lenin etc wanted. Most conflicts pre-ww2 when Stalin was in charge were in the east except for the invasion of Finland. Stalin had the mindset of setting up a dark version of the Russian Empire which Finland and Poland were once were part of. This Soviet aggression during and after WW2 were attempts by the CCCP to create buffer zones preventing further attacks out of Europe. Napoleon and the WW1 invasions were devastating for Russia, and Stalin wanted a secure empire. Was it wrong to subjugate free peoples under the horrible banner of communism? Absolutely. However, to try and compare what Stalin did to Hitlers stated plans is wilful ignorance. Hitler stated he wanted to create a 1000 year Reich, exterminate most of the Slavic population and use them on their lands as slave labour. Hitler was openly aggressive pre-Barbarossa and was doing what he wrote about. Hitler did in fact attack first and was carrying out his stated plans against Slavs with massive civilian purges. After WW2 Stalin did not give back the lands the Soviets took citing historically that Europe had always invaded Russia. Alexander I freed Europe from Napoleon, marching into Paris and gave all the land back. Stalin said he'd not make that mistake. He did not want to free many of the countries that had just invaded, for them "to make trouble again." You might disagree with Stalin's thinking but you must understand it. Stalin and the original Bolsheviks were two different animals. Stalin was not looking at Germany to invade it and spread global communism in the 1930s. Perhaps the CCCP would have at some later date or under a different leader, but in the 1930's the Soviet army was in a horrible state as much of the leadership was executed because of Stalin's paranoia. Claiming Stalin was going to invade without any evidence is feeding the Nazi propaganda machine.
@DanishDutchDude
6 жыл бұрын
Ah, another TIK video. And it appears I'm early again. Well atleast my evening will be entertaining.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
Wow that was quick of you! I'm just happy you didn't say "First" :D hope you enjoy the video
@DanishDutchDude
6 жыл бұрын
Well Mister Golden Eagle already said first some odd 5 seconds later. So I guess he's falsifying history as you explained in some far flung video a while back. But yea I stumbled upon your channel a while back and think it's one of the better history channels out there so I turned notifications on and always click ASAP as soon as I see that KZitem pop up.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
Awesome :) well, just so you know for future reference, I'm aiming to publish videos at 5pm GMT every Monday. In fact, this has just reminded me to update the About section on my channel to say this!
@spudwesth
6 жыл бұрын
Another excellent video.
@stephenbesley3177
6 жыл бұрын
I've not read any Suvorov and on this account I'm not in any rush to. The Nazis had every intention of attacking the Soviet Union at some point and anyone who bothered to follow Nazi doctrine; read Hitlers Mein Kampf or followed the Spanish Civil War knew full well that there was going to a big showdown between Fascism and Communism.
@GuyFierisShirt
Жыл бұрын
And Stalin made movies, speeches, to attack Germany. Literal feature films of victorious Red Army troops marching through Berlin in 1939.
@w0tna781
6 жыл бұрын
Excellent work, as always!
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
Thank's Wotan! More to follow :)
@polakarnegolis
5 жыл бұрын
I don't understand why you assume Suvorov's thesis = Keitel's memoir. It's been a while since I've read "Icebraker" but from what I recall, Suvorov just pointed out that the execution of Keitel and Jodl is suspicious. It's not even close to his main arguments or his thesis. For the most part Suvorov does exactly what you encourage us to do, think critically. He analyses orders, press articles, memoirs, diaries etc. and draws conclusions. And the conclusion is clear: Soviets were preparing to attack Germany.
@RDR12344
5 жыл бұрын
Nazis are bad they wanted to kill all the russians being a apologist is not good
@Barre76
5 жыл бұрын
@@RDR12344 Compared to Stalin and his muderous NKVD that where good ? Think critically much ?
@polakarnegolis
5 жыл бұрын
@@RDR12344 Of course! And Stalin was the good uncle who was giving bread to poor children? I'm not even going to answer this bullshit properly...
@scottstambaugh8473
4 ай бұрын
What doesn't make sense, assuming the USSR was worried only about defense, is the disposition of their troops. Any competent commander would have had Soviet air forces placed out of striking distance of the German air forces. Any competent commander would have what amounted to a picket line along the border, with the mass of troops back from the front and able to counter attack once Germany was committed to attack and her dispositions were known. No sane commander would have had the mass of troops along the border like the Soviets did, with their air forces close and vulnerable to a first strike. But then again it was the USSR: Incompetence in all spheres was kind of their calling card.
@ErickVeldhuis
3 ай бұрын
Spot on! And remember Eichmanns trial in Israel and that he was put behind glass (so they could shut off the intercom when needed)? Eichmann's biggest crime was that he was the best friend of the jews/zionists by drafting up the Transfer Agreement that helped zionists develop Palestine/Israel. He had to get out of the way bc the world was not supposed to know that Hitler played such an important role in the establisment of Israel. In an analogue fashion Keitel had to get out of the way bc he could prove that the Soviet Jewish state was the agressor. The corrupted Neuremberg trials with 2400/3000 jewish personel were meant to shrub history.
@peha9942
Жыл бұрын
What about the recordings of Hitlers private talk with Mannerheim?
@adventureinc1568
6 жыл бұрын
I don't have anything witty or dumb to say, great video.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
So long as you go away questioning everything and trying to figure things out for yourself, then I'm happy.
@rpm1796
5 жыл бұрын
LOL
@karlikuris
Жыл бұрын
I was hoping for a nice objective debuking video, but you left out most of Suvorov`s arguments. Unconvinced
@roberthan2037
6 жыл бұрын
Normally I don't nitpick, but since TIK's videos are so pro, here's one thing I noticed: Austria is not colored the same as the Third Reich. The fact is, Austria, Hitler's homeland, willingly became a part of Nazi Germany thru Anschluss in 1938, one year before WW2 started in Europe. As such, Austria should be painted the same color as Germany itself and East Prussia.
@vladpetric7493
2 жыл бұрын
I already know how to separate your well researched and well constructed arguments about WWII from your economic ideologizing, thank you very much.
@chriswysocki8816
4 жыл бұрын
Buddy, I've watched this (your) video, I've read Suvorov's book, and I also read the transcripts of some of the diplomatic dialog between Stalin/Molotov/Hitler/Ribbentrop (have you?) So, as I am listening to your video, and getting to your conclusion, I am asking myself a question: is this really the case? 1. You have omitted discussing most of Suvorov's reasoning. He actually details a lot of evidence about that amassing Russian army and their offensive, not defensive, nature. Now, you make a passing remark that you could easily just debunk them all but I wanna see you try. 2. You only focus on Suvorov's weakest point, which is him quoting Keitel. But debunking the weakest piece of evidence, and not addressing other pieces of evidence does not disprove the theory. It only marginally increases doubt. 3. You are incorrect about Stalin's spoils: he took more of Romania than was agreed in the criminal master agreement Russia and Germany made before the war started. He took Bukovina. 4. Your conclusions are what seems to be the standard opinion from KZitem historians on the matter of Barbarossa being aggression (not preemptive). You offer no real evidence; you just very marginally increase doubt. But think critically: what's the evidence that refutes Stalin's aggressive potential?????? I see tons of evidence of Stalin's imperialist takeover of lands all around, why so sure he wouldn't also want to swallow Germany?? 5. Your analysis is nonsensical when one realizes that we are talking about major strategical military decisions. And here I have my biggest beef with shallow analysis like yours. If Stalin wasn't going to attack, if this was driven merely by Hitler's paranoia ...... is paranoia or madness really your most likely explanation?? ......... How about we assume something a lot more probable. Hitler was not insane; he was methodical and rational, albeit evil. So why did he open himself up to west and east front by attacking Russia? It is much more likely to me that the answer is: because being rational, he had to, preemptively. Not because he manically wanted to.
@nukclear2741
4 жыл бұрын
thej762000 according to glantz, Zhukov convinced Stalin that Hitler was going to attack, and was granted permission to make a preemptive strike. The strike was to be set in July. This was however, a preemptive strike, to hit the Germans before they hit first.
@СергейРублев-т7я
4 жыл бұрын
USSR never had 1 million paratroopers. These are false numbers and facts that Suvorov creates.
@yaboyflvckor456
3 жыл бұрын
@@СергейРублев-т7я they had... + polish
@СергейРублев-т7я
3 жыл бұрын
@@yaboyflvckor456 Suvorov confuses professional military personnel with civilians who use parachute jumps as a hobby. Also, parachutists can be used both in the offensive and in defense. Suvorov deceives people when he says that there are offensive weapons.
@virtual07
3 жыл бұрын
Did @TIK reply to your criticism?
@geraldjohnson9945
6 жыл бұрын
I love all your videos. I think a winter war documentary would be great if you ever thought of doing that.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
I have thought about doing one (or more) on the Winter War. However, it won't be until after Stalingrad at the earliest. Struggling enough as it is now to find the time to get stuff done (working a more-than full time job), so can't really commit to something new right now.
@harbringerf9416
6 жыл бұрын
I'm pretty sure war between Germany and the Soviet union was inevitable. But not for the reasons most think. The Nazi party formed and opposed communists in Germany. Hitler promised lebensraum, this conflicted with the desires of the Soviet union. All in all war was inevitable just not because the Soviets were building up.
@Koelebig
6 жыл бұрын
I think it still does make sense to call it a preemptive strike. Note that Hitler distrusted Soviet intentions concerning the Romanian oil fields, without which Germany wouldn't be able to even think of going to or even continuing the war. In such a case it's better to attack the Soviet Union when it's weak and you still have the opportunity/oil reserves to do so, then to wait when it has built up its forces (which it still did) and be left at the mercy of the Soviets. In the case of such an arms race the Soviet Union would be able to mobilize more men in the long run anyway, which would make the situation even more dire. Long story short, the fate of Germany (and at that time by default Europe - minus Britain) would be in the hands of the Soviet Union and Hitler wasn't having any of that, hence Barbarossa.
@harbringerf9416
6 жыл бұрын
Koelebig that's no longer a pre-emptive strike but a surprise attack.
@Koelebig
6 жыл бұрын
One doesn't exclude the other. I think it's still a preemptive strike to whatever Hitler suspected the USSR of planning to do and a 'now or never' situation, in which Germany still had the initiative for a limited time period, rather than be defensive and be at the mercy of the Soviets.
@davidhimmelsbach557
6 жыл бұрын
@Koelebig Stalin was willing to sell Hitler two or three times as much oil as previously -- just to buy him off in the Summer of 41. The negotiations were under way June 22, 1941 -- and HAD been under way for some time. The Nazis were able to explain away their panzer concentrations along the Polish partition line as being in context: they were there to pressure Stalin into making more concessions. Stalin totally bought that interpretation. THAT'S WHY he was so stunned June 22, 1941. He'd told his negotiating team to give away the store -- do ANYTHING to keep Hitler sated. The CRAZY idea that Hitler's fuel situation was going the wrong way is TOTALLY WRONG. Stalin was going to ENTIRELY solve Hitler's fuel crisis. For starters, Stalin had lost his oil sales to France. He couldn't even get his oil out through the Mediterranean See. [ A primer: the Baku oil was developed by John D Rockefeller way, way back when. It, the oil, was exported by way of pipelines that went from the Caspian to the Black Sea. ( The terminals were in Georgia. ) IF -- and it's a BIG IF -- Hitler could restore the Baku fields, it would make perfect sense for him to draw Soviet oil out the exact same way. As we can all appreciate, there was no way that Stalin was going to let any of the oil infrastructure stay intact for the Nazis. The ONLY shot the Nazis had was by way of a parachute drop. His paras would have to jump at night and get the drop on the Soviet detonation teams. That's why Crete was such a pivotal battle. Indeed, Hitler needed a parachute CORPS by this time. Such a formation was also exactly what he couldn't fuel. Airborne formations are avgas pigs. It takes about 15,000 gallons to train each paratrooper... and that's if you're a fuel miser. Lest we forget: Ploesti oil is crappy oil. It is no where near as easy to refine as Soviet oil... or American oil. Even Iranian and Venezuelan oil was still light and sweet at this point in time. ( The heavy oils extracted today didn't get tapped until decades after WWII. ) Crappy crude oil translates into crappy octane numbers or serious losses in the refinery stream -- plus major capital expenditures. The Germans were really behind the eight-ball. Since coal-to-liquids produced mostly middle distillate, it's astounding that Guderian ever built up the panzer force with gasoline engines. Germany had the world's best Diesel technology -- and heavy tanks were already expensive as Hell. A Diesel engine would DOUBLE its fuel economy. Nazi Germany was an economic Clown Show: cruel, despotic, but still a total mess. Stalin permitted Hitler to get a LOT further along with his empire than he ever could've done on his own. Soviet oil produced the bulk of the Luftwaffe's avgas. All that was necessary was distillation. ( This was also true for Texas crude. ) All other German sources of liquid fuels required INTENSE refinery processing, so much so, that Nazi Germany could never compete.
@stuartbanks2593
6 жыл бұрын
Political leaders of democracy and dictatorships are disinterested in the welfare of the citizens in their nation unless it maintains or threatens their power or status in office.
@klavsgrinbergs2524
6 жыл бұрын
I dont get why do you get so small amount of views. Your videos are perfect. Thank you.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
So long as I enjoy creating them and you're enjoying watching them, the views don't matter :)
@deemond5289
2 жыл бұрын
I put your playlists on at night, often wake up to them. Glad you made more, saves me making my own. Keep up, it's your job :)
@gemt1338
4 жыл бұрын
hey TIK big fan, wouldn't the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939 constitute a "strong foreboding" 26:54 do you have any other videos that might answer this question??
@PeterWolfe2012
5 жыл бұрын
Thinking critically is why I want to know why Stalin ordered all the defenses to be dismantled and all those who had built them to be killed if he wasn't planning to attack. Ilya Grigo Starinov barely avoided being killed because of it. It isn't just Suvarov and Keitel who tell us.
@PeterWolfe2012
5 жыл бұрын
I was just rereading "Over the Abyss" by Starinov. The stupidity of Stalin regarding the repeated disbanding, reforming, disbanding again, reforming again, disbanding again again, reforming again again, etc of the partisan formations still beggars the mind.
@rtg5881
Жыл бұрын
45:50 i object to that. Most things are a conspiracy. I conspire at least once a week with a family member of mine to go grocery shopping. That is a conspiracy. Conspriacy does not mean "shadowy stuff nobody will believe" it means 2 or more people agreeing to work together on a common project. Sure, most of the time it simply doesnt matter because it is not a criminal conspiracy and maybe criminal conspiracies are less likely to be out in the open (unless it is state governments, then it is out in the open)
@jkilla9934
3 жыл бұрын
29:35 How many Russian planes were destroyed on the first day? A few thousand? Because they lost about 21k up to December 1941. Saying that the Russian air force got wiped out in a day is not correct.
@user-po8ce6tu1x
2 жыл бұрын
Why didn't you mention the emergence of large, armed and ready military teams when it comes to the start of the operation, not only the counterattack, but the attack directly to the terrifying heart of Germany? Barbarossa is a planned and detailed operation, with the distribution of forces, the methods of supply, the securing of ammunition, and the preparation of huge numbers that cannot be hidden. The Soviets never knew well the arrival of the Germans and were ready for it. Is it logical and reasonable to take place counter-operations to the Germans, who came in full force in a short time?? Why also did they not engage in a decisive clash with the armies of the North? They contented themselves with surrounding them and headed directly to Berlin.
@geraldgriffin8220
5 жыл бұрын
Perhaps we should also ask the who ,what,when,where and why of Suvorov .. What motivation could he have ? There is the fact that the Soviets were not in a defensive position but in a forward ,aggressive position according to Suvorov who as a Russian, has no reason to defend Germany..
@pdsnpsnldlqnop3330
6 жыл бұрын
Very good episode, worth a re-watch, there is stuff here to learn. Applies to anything really, the history being discussed is not of interest, it is the critical thinking tips that make this episode worth watching more than once.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
Thank you Shaw, I tried to make the video accessable to non-history people too. And if you, or anyone else reading this, are non-history people, THIS is what history is about. It's all a constant exercise in critical thinking. In a way, historians are like prosecutors in a court room. Gather the evidence, form a conclusion, crush the opposition.
@222rich
6 жыл бұрын
very good video. however, in a court room i haven't seen any critical thinking & none or any "evidence" just speaking from personal experience!
@antonyarakkal7203
Жыл бұрын
If the Preemptive Strike was true, how was the Soviet Union caught so far off guard by the German invasion. Let's be honest with ourselves, everyone knew both Stalin and Hitler wanted to conquer Europe. There was no question about that, however Stalin was caught off guard by the German attack.
@TheNapchop
3 жыл бұрын
Your argument about Germany having more troops doesn't add up when you consider Rommel's force in North Africa. The occupation forces on Crete and throughout the European territories (Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia etc.) You need to consider available troops compared to Soviet troop concentrations in Ukraine and the Balticsand in general to decide if Hitler's concerns were justified. It's not the first time you have done this and I believe it's something you need to be aware of.
@brunomancuso7798
2 жыл бұрын
The soviets have 4.901.800 soldiers in all the Soviet Union, but ony 2.743.000 are in Ukranie and Belarus, The Axis have 3.957.910 in the border with the URSS ( 3.050.000 Germans, 470.000 finns, 325.000 Romanians, 44.000 Hungarians). Rommel and his afrika Korps have ony 3 division this is no more than 50.000 men. source : When the titans clashed revised and expanded edition, David Glanz, Page 265, table "comparativee Strengths of Combat Forces, Soviet-German Front, 1941-1945.
@brunomancuso7798
2 жыл бұрын
Sorry my bad English
@TheNapchop
2 жыл бұрын
@@brunomancuso7798 those figures are from the beginning of the conflict and don't include forces mobilised after. You mentioned only Rommel but Germany had occupation forces in many European countries and defensive forces stretching from Norway to southern France and across the mediterainian. How many German troops surrendered in Tunisia? How many killed before the surrender? How many divisions defending Italy, Crete and Greece?
@brunomancuso7798
2 жыл бұрын
@@TheNapchop yes this are figures of the beginnig of the war but are proof that the URSS dont strart the war, germany was the agresor. Of course the soviets outnumber the Axis after the first months and this is one of the main reason of his victory, I ony said.that this is a defensive war.
@vanished3306
3 жыл бұрын
I learned a lot about critical thinking as a healthcare professional where a physical assessment was just a small step in making a diagnosis and developing a comprehensive treatment plan. I agree 100% about asking questions and questioning multiple resources. For me, what had the biggest impact on critical thinking is taking information in context. Without context the results are always skewed, no matter how much information has been gathered. IMO, the yellow circle was not the best example because in the context of viewing the circle on an electronic device we are in fact seeing yellow. Critical thinking should not confused with over thinking, because there are rabbit holes that don’t need exploration. Anyway…I love this channel, always clear and concise information.
@jimmydesouza4375
2 жыл бұрын
What is your opinion on the Mannerheim recording? I have seen a translation of it which says Hitler himself says that Molotov game him the unmistakable impression that he would return to Stalin from the peace talks and urge Stalin to invade, particularly through impossible demands. Unfortunately I don't speak German so have no idea what Hitler is actually saying.
@tpxchallenger
4 жыл бұрын
Suvorov's Inside The Soviet Army is a must read for anyone interested in the cold war. It doesn't contain any grand theories but it is a detailed insight into a junior officer's life in the 1970s Soviet Army loaded with technical minutiae on training, equipment, organization etc. If you find a copy definitely buy it.
@somewhere6
5 жыл бұрын
I have watched a number of your videos. So far, I have liked them because of their detail but this one is truly lame. In fact, I suspect it is deliberately deceptive. It appears you are using Keitel as a way to try and setup Suvorov and place doubt in the casual viewer's mind about his general thesis in Icebreaker. You know that some people will think that way after viewing this. However, you know that what Keitel said was in no way an important part of anything Suvorov wrote. It was casually thrown in at the start of chapter 31 as an ironic juxtaposition to his discussion of high level Soviet sources such as Kuznetsov and others who said much the same thing (i.e. that Stalin was planning to attack Germany). Keitel is not mentioned anywhere else in Icebreaker. He does not go into any depth at all about Keitel because Keitel is not necessary or substantial to his argument. You, on the other hand, try to pretend that he does matter when you are know otherwise. You are too well read and clever enough to not know otherwise. I guess one should change "clever" to "sly". I believe the critical eye is more appropriately trained on you at this point.
@praxben
4 ай бұрын
I think Tik is very biased here. He just seems to hate revisionism.
@MikeM-r8i
4 ай бұрын
@@praxben TIK wants to worship Glantz and stay "kosher" with youtube. These are his motives to trash Suvorov.
@sizif717
4 жыл бұрын
I just imagine that every general in history that has let an invasion campaign over foreign territory was put against a trail afterwords.
@davids2742
3 жыл бұрын
mark solonin tells you what happened in the start of the war. stalin was preparing for war since beginning of 30s. but hitler did the same just started preparing later.
@MikeM-r8i
4 ай бұрын
TIK doesn't read Solonin, he wants to confine the debate to Suvorov vs. his court historian hero Glantz.
@stuartbanks2593
6 жыл бұрын
Critical reasoning of all available information and maintaining a concise and accurate, contemporaneous record of who, what and where took the decision making responsibility for a command with a timeline of urgency to act, review and need to change those command decisions is critical for apportionment of blame, competency for continued status in office and assurance of making the best decision to ensure a successful result and outcome.
@charlesmaeger6162
Жыл бұрын
On December 18, 1940 Hitler issued Fuhrer Directive 21, an order for the invasion of the Soviet Union.
@richardscales9560
6 жыл бұрын
I might have missed this, is there anything from Soviet archives covering this period?
@DMOTAMNB
4 жыл бұрын
Yes. A lot of it supports Suvorovs theories. The soviet's analyzed German territories for ideal tank routes and prepared vocabulary-cards for their soldiers to help in communication with German prisoners and civilians. Putin closed the Archives tho. They are going the Italian or Turkish route - if we pretend we never did it, it'll become the accepted truth eventually.
@MikeM-r8i
4 ай бұрын
Read Mark Solonin, numerous Soviet attack plans were drawn up in 1940-1941.
@chriswysocki8816
4 жыл бұрын
I'll put it even more succinctly. You say "Suvorov's hopes you will not read other materials"..... Well, on the other hand, you hope that the listener does not read the entire Ice Breaker book LOL
@alanpennie8013
4 жыл бұрын
I'd hope people would not waste their time on this worthless book, unless they're professionally interested in the psychology of Soviet defectors
@MikeM-r8i
4 ай бұрын
@@alanpennie8013 Too bad for you that there's a half dozen or more historians who also say Stalin was planning to attack Europe. Get to work reading those instead of pleading ignorance.
@hansharz8321
6 жыл бұрын
Much more credence than Suvorov to the preemptive strike thesis gives the suspicously undiscussed file "S32" from one of Marshall Mannerheims top spies. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erkki_Hautam%C3%A4ki The book Erkki Hautamäki wrote in 2005 in Finnish was only translated into Swedish, not even into English until this day. The Swedish version of Erkki Hautamäki’s book was examined by scientists at the University of Uppsala, Sweden. The book's introduction was co-written by Colonel, M.A. Erkki Nordberg. Until his retirement in 2006, Nordberg served as the Chief of the Department of Education at the Main Headquarters of the Finnish Defense Forces. Professor Kent Zetterberg, a teacher at the Royal Swedish Academy of War Sciences, was the second writer. One of the main points in this work is that there was in fact a secret pact between Churchill and Stalin in Oct. 1939. Also explains why England did not stick to its pact with Poland when Soviet Russia invaded Poland. Only shortcoming is that there is only a copy available of the S32 file. Explosive stuff.
@MikeM-r8i
7 ай бұрын
TIK doesn't read anything but Glantz, he's pathetic on this subject.
@phann860
Жыл бұрын
Critical thinking? A good presentation but I would be interested in your figures as Stalin was not only building up his forces but also invading the Baltic republics, attacked Finland, split Poland with Germany, took parts of Romania and Hungary and so ensured that Germany and the Soviet "Union" had a common border, why was the "Molotov line" dismantled? I think it is at at least debatable that the Soviets were in fact preparing for an attack but were surprised in an attack disposition which led to heavy losses. I suggest your "faux" court room interlude was a typical stunt to put your point through.
@William_NS
3 жыл бұрын
Does this "question everything" and critical thinking advice apply to the holocaust? Or how about the actions of the allies? Or does it only apply to the Germans? Because it seems with your presentations of history, "critical thinking" only applies to the Germans.
@revolution1423
3 жыл бұрын
Of course for TIK it only applies to the Germans.
@SurfTrekTonics
5 жыл бұрын
From sources I have looked at Stalin's overall plan was to let Britain and France wear down Germany and invade Nazi territories around 1943-44 when his 5 year rearmament was completed and Germany had been weakened from the western front. When Stalin witnessed the Wehrmacht defeat France in a few weeks his attitude changed greatly towards rethinking that plan of action.
@davidhimmelsbach557
4 жыл бұрын
@Surf... Plainly Stalin thought in terms of WWI and immobile warfare. This line of non-thought is one of the key points in Death Ride by John Mosier. Stalin actually never shifted gears into the 1940s. It took Zukov and others to get ANY deep operations going. (Uranus)
@vanmust
5 жыл бұрын
Even so the amount of casualties inflicted by the Germans at the beginning of Barbarossa proves that Soviets ( like the Germans) had troops scheduled for offensive war not defensive
@mitchrichards1532
5 жыл бұрын
nope.... That is incredibly simpleton and way off the mark. Try reading David Glantz' "Stumbling Colossus".
@vanmust
5 жыл бұрын
@@mitchrichards1532 even worse...with Stalin on a witch hunt of the soviet high command there were no serious defensive plans against modern (for the day) warfare...not that the offensive ones worked any better (Finland) and glantz,s opinions are known to not be documented so I won,t bother
@mitchrichards1532
5 жыл бұрын
Keep a closed mind...good job.
@cwolf8841
Жыл бұрын
One one hand, Hitler hated Bolsheviks as much as he hated Jews. Then he desperately needed Soviet oil and grain. The Germans had superior tanks, guns, airplanes, training, and doctrine. Historically, the propaganda move was always to blame the victim. Meanwhile Stalin was largely busy fighting his own internal political battles plus minimizing his Army by putting loyal political agents in every unit with the authority to murder Army leaders. Stalin studied Hitler’s writings obsessively ….. and he concluded Hitler would be insane to open a second front. He dismissed warning after warning about a German attack because he thought folks were trying to manipulate him to enter the war. Therefore one general facing the hangman’s noose isn’t a disinterested observer.
@yossarianmnichols9641
Жыл бұрын
I enjoy your delivery. Very good script and elocution.
@rusoviettovarich9221
5 жыл бұрын
The narrator has not read Suvorov's follow-up 'The Chief Culprit'. He makes no mention of the laundry list Molotov presented 12th Nov. 1940 and repeated again
@mitchrichards1532
5 жыл бұрын
Suvorov... The guy who claims there were 1 million Soviet paratroopers and fails to mention that the Soviets had a handful of drop aircraft and no plans or means to produce any. The guy who claims the BT tanks were designed to take advantage of the Autobahn, when there was no Autobahn.. lol Perhaps look at how the Red Army prepared ALL of its offensives in WWII? That is mass concentrations very close to the point of attack, backed by huge logistical stockpiles and thousands of trucks. Look at the Red Army of 22 June 1941 compared to every major Soviet offensive before or after that date and...one of these kids doesn't look like the others.
@MikeM-r8i
4 ай бұрын
@@mitchrichards1532 I suggest you learn that the field of this study is BIGGER than Suvorov or Glantz. Read Mikhail Meltyukhov, Mark Solonin, Boris Sokolov, Heinz Magenheimer, and Constantine Pleshakov.
@mitchrichards1532
4 ай бұрын
@@MikeM-r8i I'm very familiar with the topic and have done the research, have enough credentials of my own to write on the topic. This is why I find the idea that the Soviets were going to attack in 1941 to be utterly stu pid. It wasn't in the cards.
@MikeM-r8i
4 ай бұрын
@@mitchrichards1532 Nonsense. You haven't read the historians I mentioned: Mikhail Meltyukhov, Mark Solonin, Boris Sokolov, Heinz Magenheimer, and Constantine Pleshakov. Sokolov is one of Glantz's own colleagues and staunchly disagrees with Glantz.
@mitchrichards1532
4 ай бұрын
@@MikeM-r8i What exactly is there to disagree with when looking at Red Army strength, dispositions, and force readiness is Summer of 1941? I'm talking specifics by unit, by personnel and equipment. I know how long it takes to train personnel, train a unit, equip, deploy, and what it takes to sustain a unit in the field. A thorough investigation of the Red Army in 1941 reveals beyond any doubt whatsoever that they were not going to attack in 1941. I will debate anyone face to face on that... Anyone. I have 30 years in the military, studied Russian doctrine, have an MA in WWII military history, etc. I trained Ukrainians last year... I'm a professional, not an amateur. Just putting that out there to avoid low level banter on the topic.
@rickytorres8566
6 жыл бұрын
Keitel's "only following orders" reasoning is bull shit. As a soldier I am obligated to follow any and all LAWFUL orders, it is my duty to refuse to follow unlawful orders and report them to my chain of command. That being said maybe the Wehrmacht didn't have this policy but still it's obvious that Keitel cared more about his career than the lives of civilians. PS. Great video, I hate the defending Europe argument a lot of Third Reich enthusiasts like to sate.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
Thanks Ricky, I'm so glad that someone currently in the military is agreeing on that point. Had someone in the comment section saying that I was wrong.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
Yes, because none of Hitler's generals ever got sacked and stayed alive.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
Without evidence your opinion is just that, an opinion. You need to provide evidence that supports this idea that "every general realized" because right now what you're saying is that Hitler went around throwing generals into Gestapo prison cells all the time. That wasn't the case, at least not until post-July-Plot 1944.
@CroGamer002
6 жыл бұрын
Ricky Torres i remeber there was a research done that up until final months of war, no German soldier nor officer was punished nor penalized out of promotion from refusing to take part of war crimes.
@rickytorres8566
6 жыл бұрын
Croatsky Well in the last months of the war Germany was scrapping the bottom of the barrel when it came to manpower. So I don't think they had the luxury to be throwing away experienced NCO's and Junior Officers.
@Sheehan1
6 жыл бұрын
How the hell have I only discovered your channel now?!
@Belryuminus
6 жыл бұрын
Hey, great video. Discovered your channel recently and appreciate it a lot. As a former journalist and a becoming historian i'm very sensitive to the subject you're bringing here. Would be great to explain, as a "plus", how to distinguish the critical thinking that is a truely precious skill, and the "everything-is-a-lie-we-all-live-among-the-worst-conspirations-ever" attitude that is unfortunately quite developping lately.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
That would be a great, but difficult video to do. I'll consider it :)
@brydenholley1904
6 жыл бұрын
What a great video! Critical thinking is so evidently lacking in our world, on so many things. People are like sheep. Sheeple. It's great to see someone questioning the standard assumptions. Thanks for sharing.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
You're welcome, I'm glad you found this useful :)
@maxcady4208
4 жыл бұрын
i read icebreaker a long time ago. what seems very solid in the book was the analysis of soviet intentions to attack someone in eastern europe. the soviets were massing offensive troops (e.g. like paratroopers) and material (e.g. tanks that can cross deep rivers) at the border while taking down defensive measures likes barbed wire and trenches with pillboxes. there was no preparation to fight a defensive war and every intention to invade. if you accept this premise it is logical to conclude that the target of the coming invasion would have been nazi germany, as the soviet's immediate neighbors had already been invaded/conquered. whether keitel was telling the truth or not almost doesn't matter to that point. it matters as to hitler's state of mind. even if keitel was lying through his teeth two things can be true at once - hitler wanted to attack the soviet union without knowing that stalin was preparing to attack germany and stalin wanted to attack germany without knowing that hitler was about to attack. two scoundrels double crossing each other but one beat the other to the punch.
@gregorstamejcic2355
6 жыл бұрын
Really good stuff... Helps with understanding today's realities a lot too. This specific example also opens a huge can of worms about the morality of preemptive strikes. According to Nüremberg tribunal, the supreme crime is that of aggression, containing all the evil that follows (which led Noam Chomsky to remark that every US president since the WW2 at least should be hung, if we followed this principle). Iraq, Crimea, Israel... a lot of evil is being done by people just defending themselves.
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
I've had people say to me that "history has happened, why care?" But the reality is that the lessons of history need to be learned, because things are happening today that have parallels in history, and we've not learned from those lessons. As you've shown, it's good to question things :)
@ФедяКрюков-в6ь
6 жыл бұрын
Gregor Stamejčič agression is a crime, self-defence isn't. But this logic holds 'worms' too.
@yuslaven89
6 жыл бұрын
I want to add Yugoslavia to that list. Nato attacked to prevent humanitarian catastrophe of Kosovo Albanians in march 1999. Result? Half a milion Albanians were forced to leave their homes. Around 5ooo civilians died. And just after the end of war, same 2oo k Serbs had to leave Kosovo. All of this happened DURING and AFTER NATO intervention.
@gregorstamejcic2355
6 жыл бұрын
I agree, of course. But Germany invaded Poland in self-defense, Israel is besieging Gaza in name of self-defense, Yugoslav army invaded Slovenia and Croatia in order to defend from foreign aggression, Napoleon was defending the french revolution, american cavalry was protecting settlers from red indians and so on, and so on. What i'm saying is that a lot of people used self defense as an excuse for aggressive expansion throughout history, and it continues on until this day.
@gregorstamejcic2355
6 жыл бұрын
Yugoslavia and so many others, indeed. Personally, i believe Clinton had to bomb Serbia in order to shift public focus from the fact that Monica Lewinsky blew him, cynical as it is. Nato bombing of Serbia in '99 is indeed a war crime in my book. But, mind you, if it would have happened even five years earlier, i wouldn't mind as much - serbian leadership drove my homeland apart and is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead people, after all. In the name of self-defense, naturally...
@bobredman2057
5 жыл бұрын
"Suvorow hasn't done enough research" The Narrator here has obviously not read Suvorov's book. The "Icebreaker" is only the first of a series of books which are conveniently summed up in "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II.," Naval Institute Press. Keitel is not mentioned in it with one word. This video presentation is a demonstration of the Narrator's lack of critical thinking. Suvorov, a Russian defector and a former officer in Soviet Intelligence, does not defend Hitler, but presents a mass of evidence to show that both Hitler and Stalin were preparing to attack. Stalin, however, could afford to wait a little longer than Hitler could.
@markarich159
5 жыл бұрын
I have to agree , this is one of the most idiotic vids TIK has ever made. Stalin admitted in a military academy graduation speech that his plan was to wait until Germany and England wore each other down and then steamroll across Western Europe. The Soviets had a massive, although technically inferior, armed force. Their air force was larger than all the other air forces on planet earth combined. Had Russia industrialized a decade earlier than they did, their forces would have been unstoppable. Hitler played his cards perfectly in the lead up and opening of barbarossa- had germany focused on the Southern russian sector exclusively - Ukraine, the Caucasus and blocking traffic up the Volga- rather than heading for Moscow, the Soviets would have been starved out, tapped out of oil, and given up. American Justice Robert Jackson (the US rep on the nuremberg court) made it quite obvious the whole nuremberg trial was a hoaxed showpiece meant to reinforce the victorious allies wartime propaganda. I’ve heard of Suvorov, but never read Icebreaker. Considering his unimpeachable Soviet creds and the fact he had no axe to grind with the third reich, I would tend to believe his account rather than the standard OSS/MI6 ww2 propaganda.
@RDR12344
5 жыл бұрын
@@markarich159 Nazis are bad they wanted to kill all the russians being a apologist is not good
@martingaim
5 жыл бұрын
Nice one, man. I (for example) never read that book but came to the exact same conclusion using my senses. I also dropped a comment above and I'm also gonna stop watching this guy's videos. (I tell you people) In short - this guy is scared of the german war machine. There should be a word (term) for this kind of conditions and since this guy is british, the term is "inferiority complex". It's a shame tho, at first he seemed adequate.
@markarich159
5 жыл бұрын
J man Huh? Russians (soviets/ bolsheviks) wanted, and did; kill many, many, many more people than Hitler ever dreamed of. Good and bad are relative to the viewpoint you have been inculcated with since birth. Try to look past the dogmatic and myopic propaganda you have been fed and see history from an objective and neutral position - you’ll see good and bad are very relative terms.
@markarich159
5 жыл бұрын
Martin Heim I agree - he has some really good content, but in general he has an extremely Anglophilic bent(of course he is British so I can’t really blame him for siding with the country he grew up in). However, if you’re passing yourself off as a historian, you should try to be as neutral and objective as possible. No participant in either of the World Wars was holier than any other - each did their fair share of dastardly deeds. Unfortunately for the Germans, they lost in both cases. So since the winners write the history books, they get to choose the “proper” narrative.
@davidevazzari7297
5 жыл бұрын
Hi TIK. I think in order to understand Suvorov‘s thesis in its completeness you need to start from the events before 1941. Suvorov’s point is not just whether or not USSR wanted to attack Germany. Suvorov strongly accuses Stalin because Stalin intentionally helped Germany in the events of 1939 to start the war with England and France Suvorov blames Stalin for the death of millions of Russians because Stalin had in fact the opportunity to stop the war already in 1939. However he allied with Germany and this, in Suvorov’s opinion, was because an opportunistic calculation of the Soviet dictator
@RDR12344
5 жыл бұрын
Nazis killed all the Russians being a apologist is not good
@InternetDarkLord
4 жыл бұрын
Actually, as you have already pointed out, Hitler and his generals often disagreed, even in the Soviet Union, so "superior orders" does not even make sense. They could and did disagree with Hitler. "The Arms of Krupp" by Manchester makes the same point.
@EmilNicolaiePerhinschi
6 жыл бұрын
thank you for the bibliography
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
My pleasure
@MikeM-r8i
4 ай бұрын
@@TheImperatorKnight Catch up with the rest of us: Read Solonin, Magenheimer, Meltyukhov, and Pleshakov.
@edinuhic7703
6 жыл бұрын
Keep up the good work,love it!!!❤
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
And I love your comment, thank you!
@bujinkanatori
6 жыл бұрын
Germans believed that soviets were building an army against Germans. My grandfather was on deep contact with the Germans during the war. He was the communication officer of Finland.
@albert2395
2 жыл бұрын
Wasn't the red army set up for attack, that is why they, the Germans did so well, once they broke through the first line. And why didn't Britain and France declare war on the Soviet Union, once they invaded Poland too?
@maxpower3990
Жыл бұрын
Why would they fight both Germany and the Soviet Union at the same time? Britain and France decided to focus on the closer and bigger threat first, which was Germany. The reason the Germans broke through so easily was that the Soviet troops were not in the preplanned defensive line inside the Soviet Union. They were in western Poland and the Baltic states.
@albert2395
Жыл бұрын
@Max Power I don't agree with your statement. The Russian Commies were getting ready to attack Germany, that is why they had huge losses in the first year. That's my take on things, anyway.
@morriganmhor5078
Жыл бұрын
I am not a military historian but as far as I remember, Keitel´s memoirs are only a tiny bit of Suvorov´s thesis. According to him, SSSR was massively strengthening its military forces through the late thirties, but Germany (though it did have plans going to the east) was planning this about 6 years later?
@morriganmhor5078
Жыл бұрын
And also, there are data on tanks. Even in 1941 most of the German tanks were light Panzer I and II, strengthened by the Czech Lt-38 (t) and a few hundred light medium Panzer IIIs. But even in December 1940 soviets did have more than 700 short-barrelled T-34 and tenths of KV-1s.
@sergiomur5444
6 жыл бұрын
Congrats, this video should go viral... I hope...
@TheImperatorKnight
6 жыл бұрын
I hope so too, but if not, it's good to know you thought so highly of my video. Thank you
@69vrana
6 жыл бұрын
With all due respect - since you claim (as an honest man should), that following orders for soldier does not constitute a valid and just excuse for his actions while following those orders (Keitel trying to save his life in this case), I should remind you that Nuernberg trials were set up to put German order followers on the stand. I saw nothing comparable for allied order followers, and some actions should warrant such a court (systematic bombing of civilian population, destroying food production, etc.) Maybe we should just start calling murder a murder, no matter who, under who's orders commit it.
@69vrana
6 жыл бұрын
I was trying to point out the fact that any sort of a leader (if you choose to call corporate employees pretending to be public servants by that term) would be unable to commit any sort of crime, if people under his/her command would know the difference between right and wrong. Applies to all sides, to every man and woman. Of course, as we let our morals go down the drain, as humanity, may I add, we end up in situations where drastic times call for drastic measures. Since we are discussing WW2, there was a chain of events that led up to this catastrophe for mankind (in more ways that one would except), and millions died because people failed to understand that giving away power to the politicians, and their true masters in banking heavens, will not solve problems between nations, races, minorities, etc. There is a reason why fraternizing is forbidden during wartime - people that are trying to kill each other, following some orders, may realize they have much more in common with people they are supposed to fight, than with people whose orders they are following.
@dentistguba
6 жыл бұрын
No one asked british bomber command why they set whole cities ablaze.
@69vrana
6 жыл бұрын
My whole point being that, if we are equal under the law, not statues, but law, law should be applied to each, with exactly the same demands and consequences. From the common soldier to the war profiteers.
@0ldb1ll
2 жыл бұрын
In order to solve every mystery it is necessary to work out the motive. What is Suvarov's motive?
@MikeM-r8i
4 ай бұрын
What is TIK's motive? To worship Glantz and stay "kosher" with youtube. He has a far bigger motive than Suvorov.
@Senor0Droolcup
5 жыл бұрын
As a trial lawyer I love this video to bits. It is actually a very very good example of how to give an effective closing argument.
@TheImperatorKnight
5 жыл бұрын
Glad you enjoyed the video!
@Neves1789
6 жыл бұрын
Awesome video TIK!
@dokasaku1233
6 жыл бұрын
survorov is a great guy. i love to read his books
@thesovietspy1748
6 жыл бұрын
"But would you believe him if he was a yellow circle?"
@russellstone9056
7 ай бұрын
Censor channel. Propaganda.
@tilmerkan3882
6 жыл бұрын
I completly agree with you. Very often there is a withdrawing on the "free opinion", which they misinterpret as a right to be free from opposition. If someone talks, he/she is never free from opposition, because you claim a space in this process that builds the public opinion and creates what we call "Deutungshoheit" (havnt found a direct translation... but it's like reign on the point of view a society shares in a specific topic). Some ideas: 1) Find a funny, but very short way, to react on haters (everything else is a waste of time - but we are not allowed to give them the ground). There are already loads of them. 2) Find a word for people, who are very emotional and just want to be right, no matter how thin their line of argument is, because they are frustrated for not playing any role in the creation of public opinion, which in fact, they do, because of quantity (not quality). There are just so many people on the Internet, who are frustrated. 3) You can put YOUR argument to the next level and say "we can never be 100 percent sure about anything" (even the stuff we directly witnessed) so it is okay to just talk about "stuff" and never claim any leadership in opinion. This way you act as a role model - and keep the emotions down. In fact, even in this video you could have made a very relaxed point in withdrawing from any emotions - because nobody here is a big enough multiplier in opinion, to have any effect. Haters want to start emotional discussions. And actually we havn't figuered out, how to cope with them. Because ignoring doesn't work, either.
@krastsjanis
4 ай бұрын
This guy should read the whole book before investigating and discussing only one tiny fact from the book. Germany did not invade and occupy Baltic states or attacked Finland or Romania. It was Soviet Union. Stalin had many times said the the Communism needs to be spread to West by all possible means. Soviets invaded Poland after WW1 and then again together with Hitler in 1939. Soviets wanted to attack the Germany when it was fighting with Britain it was a perfect timing for Stalin as he already predicted the capitalist West would fight each other.
@williamgreeson8387
Ай бұрын
He's a gatekeeper.....
@theoberfaust
6 жыл бұрын
This was intelligent until the “Yellow Circle” came out. The whole argument (video) is your Idea of critical thinking, which is just to discredit Keitel based on his circumstance. You are not actually thinking critically about what Keitel and Suvorov are saying, you are attacking their opinions based on circumstance. The point made regarding the Oil is valid, except for one thing. You are saying Hitler needs the Oil to attack the country that they are attacking. If they could trust the country wasn’t going to attack , then they don’t actually need the Oil, right? ......if you question everything from all angles, you will always come up with multiple answers that will fit the narrative which you want to portray. This is a fairly hollow argument
@jamestang1227
6 жыл бұрын
You do realise the Nazi economy was running a massive deficit and the Soviet Union isn't just going to give all it's oil. The Nazis couldn't even run their military on the oil they had and they are still technically at war with the British remember? U-boats need to run on something. And plus, Hitler's ideological motivations of lebensraum were another factor, outlined in Mein Kampf, that pushed him to want a war with the USSR.
@SycoticReaperMk
4 жыл бұрын
lol communism is cancer and its pretty obvious germany was going to lose so they went all in on a bumrush, only thing that saved ussr was america lend lease
Пікірлер: 2,6 М.