Hey guys, HITLER WAS A BOX kzread.info/dash/bejne/hKx2sc5-qs-wiZc.html Also, I had major issues editing this video, so there’s some glaring editing mistakes within it even though I spent quite a while trying to fix them in post. Taking steps to sort this though, including new lighting (arrived today) and contemplating a new camera setup too.

@kaustubhillindala2643

3 жыл бұрын

MAdmazon!

@notgoddhoward5972

3 жыл бұрын

So that's why the generals never listened to him. I wouldn't listen to a box, no way.

@arronjameshook

3 жыл бұрын

Who would you say had the least worst logistics among the belligerents in Europe during the WW2?

@QuizmasterLaw

3 жыл бұрын

Obviously the USSR being a capitalist market economy enjoyed vastly superior logistics or, economic reductionism sometimes fails.

@TheImperatorKnight

3 жыл бұрын

@@arronjameshook Probably the British because they had access to oil, rubber, trucks and lots of Lend Lease etc. But even they struggled in certain areas and overran their supplies at times (e.g. North Africa 1941)

Allies were using unlimited resource hacks, Germans never had a chance.

@brettk9316

3 жыл бұрын

Allies entered cheat code "Enable_America"

@yoga5631

3 жыл бұрын

They typed in "ale 1000000" in console lmao

@MrX-un8cz

3 жыл бұрын

Yamamoto know the hacks but he got hack back by those filthy seal clubber in the US

@fltfathin

3 жыл бұрын

unlimited "free" resource + manpower, dang it makes "america free country" have different meaning

@jankthunder4012

3 жыл бұрын

Typed + 99999999 oil into the console

"I also got pushback from a vocal minority..." Welcome to the world of military history nuts.

@codyraugh6599

3 жыл бұрын

More welcome to the world of putting forth historical realities rather than party propaganda...at least while living in a non-communist state.

@Groovy_Bruce

3 жыл бұрын

Welcome to the internet.

@SilverMe2004

2 ай бұрын

@@codyraugh6599 accept that is exactly what he got pushback for. Making the claim that Germany only lost to the commies because it wasn't a 'real' free market economy.

@anomonyous

2 ай бұрын

​@@Groovy_BruceHave a look around.

Dude, paint the tanks they will rust. Oh honey, they won't last long enough to rust.

@willyreeves319

3 жыл бұрын

the US stopped painting the bombers because they didn't last long enough to rust

@enwurdgibsmedat1517

3 жыл бұрын

@@willyreeves319 planes tend not to be made of steel and tanks tend not to have aluminium armour

@bigbuilder10

3 жыл бұрын

@@enwurdgibsmedat1517 aluminum does indeed rust. Extremely violently actually. Unlike steel, the oxide layer doesn’t easily flake off. That being said, it does get shed when in water or with lots of air current blowing past it. If you’ve ever touched pure aluminum metal, you’ll know the white powder that’s always left behind on your hand or clothes, that’s the oxide “rust” coming off.

@brucenorman8904

3 жыл бұрын

@@willyreeves319 Not painting also decreased weight and friction thus giving a boost to speed.

@enwurdgibsmedat1517

3 жыл бұрын

@@bigbuilder10 Did anyone say it doesn't rust?

A lot of those Trucks and Jeeps from Lend Lease were left in Poland after 1945 helping to rebuild the country. They survived up to 1970s in some places working on farms or delivering products to and from factories. My grandpa said that the best motorcycle you could get was lend lease Harley Davidson. You can still find them cars, trucks and motorcycles in various museums and sheds around Poland. I've also seen few rusted wrecks of GMC trucks and Jeeps in a small village of Antoniów in Poland back in 2010/11.

@dusk6159

2 жыл бұрын

Truly all-around impactful and a link from one world to another.

@lovetolearn5253

Жыл бұрын

I didn't know that. I wonder how bad Poland was under soviet liberation 1944/late 1950s compared to west Poland 1939/1940 under soviet occupation. I wonder if Poland had it better under German occupation or the soviet union. I would think The Jewish community had it better under soviet control but the soviets wasn't angles there to help.

@user-ss3nk5fz6n

Жыл бұрын

@@lovetolearn5253 Considering the fact that the Germans planned to murder 85% of the Polish population after winning the war, enslaving the rest - They were better off under the Soviets. Search Generalplan ost, it destroys any notion that it would have been better under the Nazis in eastern Europe, than under the USSR.

@tomigun5180

Жыл бұрын

@@lovetolearn5253 Think about Katyn, and you'll know right away which one was worse. Of course the Soviets lied about that (too), and blamed the Germans.

@Charon-5582

Жыл бұрын

@@lovetolearn5253 probably not much different for the average polish guy.

I enjoy the phrasing in the title, "weren't as nightmarish." Not good, not mediocre, not bad, still nightmarish but not as horrid as the Germans.

@andrespodra8459

3 жыл бұрын

Not easy to organize equipment, shells, food/drink, shitters and shelters for 3 million men. I think that Russians are always been slightly better in logistics than other europeans, because of huge territories they had. Russia is not densely populated so it requires some understanding in this matter. There are very rare occasions when they come to battlefied outnumbered and outgunned. Even if you managed to surprise them, prepare to fight with huge amount in a month.

@Mitch93

3 жыл бұрын

Oh hello!

@oliversmith9200

3 жыл бұрын

"Money bad, state-ism good. All hail Stalin." lol

@gutzzgutzz6795

3 жыл бұрын

The Germans pretty much did everything terribly except fight.

@RGC-gn2nm

3 жыл бұрын

@@Mitch93 lil

On behalf of the Russian people, I'd like to show my appreciation for you clarifying the situation on logistics and land lease, as well as your other work. Many people around here would prefer to underplay the importance of Land Lease as a reaction to the widespread western stereotypes about the USSR in WW2 and the red army in general, which they find offensive. I think neither viewpoint is fair towards the people who fought and won that terrible war. You are one of the most bias-conscious historians I've ever seen, and it is a breath of fresh air, especially considering how many historians both here and abroad tend to be skewered towards one or another agenda or political perspective. Thank you for what you do.

@BigSmartArmed

3 жыл бұрын

"Many people around here"

@Raskolnikov70

3 жыл бұрын

When I did my Russian studies (in the US) in the late 90's and early 00's it seemed like Lend Lease had a fairly positive view among Russians and especially Red Army veterans of that era. It was a period where people felt like they could openly discuss their own experiences that had been suppressed during the Soviet era, and because the internet was becoming a thing we had access to a lot of information and personal ancedotes coming out of Russia. We read and heard a lot of stories about how important Lend Lease was to their war effort and that they had a positive view of the US and UK - which is probably why the Soviets did what they could to wipe out physical traces of it and deter discussion of it after the war ended. All of that equipment was rounded up and melted for scrap, replaced with inferior domestic equipment, a theme that those vets in their 70's and 80's at the time talked about often. It's unfortunate that contemporary politics is affecting discussion about these things so much now.

@i-etranger

3 жыл бұрын

I cannot agree more, Nami. That can meat in the tranches and the trucks are in almost every book I read covering the war from 1943 onward. The Willys are in every movie. The land lease made war way easier and we should not forget this help when the country fought in its the darkest time.

@p_serdiuk

3 жыл бұрын

@@BigSmartArmed That's a laughably bigoted view. Of course, while talking about Soviet secrecy and misinformation, you aren't even able to see that your rant about Ukrainian fighters is exactly that. The possibility of many members of a major ethnicity within USSR desiring to leave the Union and acquire independence is so subversive to the communist ideology that it needed to be replaced with scaremongering about hostile US/CIA operations. That's a far more exciting and dramatic explanation than the bleak reality of Holodomor, forced collectivization, and multiple ethnic and class purges, that were the real cause behind the formation of Ukrainian SS battalions and UPA. And as a Russian-speaking Ukrainian who is good friends with some veterans, including one guy from "Nazi" Azov, reading your delusions made for a good laugh. If only Americans were as good at this as Russians desperately want them to be, this war would already be over.

@alexalexin9491

3 жыл бұрын

You know, you're not the only Russian watching TIK's video, and no one gave you the right to speak on behalf of a 140+ mil nation. Why can't you just speak for yourself?

I asked my dad: "When did you know the war was over?" He responded: "When the Americans landed in North Africa." He was born in Croatia in 1903 as an ethnic German, drafted in the Yugoslav army in his teens; drafted in the German army during WWII. In the invasion of Russia, German casualties mounted and Russian troops fought stubbornly even when surrounded. He felt America's industrial production combined with Allied manpower finished Hitler. Russian troops deserve all the credit in the world, however US bullets and beans shortened the war. Thanks for the video.

@tomazlah8238

3 жыл бұрын

still without SU war would be over by 1942 and allies would be fuked and north africa would fall.germans troops would demolish anglo-american troops anywhere near europe and we all would be talking german today.the only reason we are not is because of miracle that Soviet Union produced between 41-43 and practically saved the world.lol gotta give credit where is due, no matter if they are commies.

@jamesmcilvenny2294

3 жыл бұрын

@@tomazlah8238 There is no denying the sacrifices the people of the Soviet Union made, but why would the war be over in 1942? Germany still can’t invade Britain, and how does Germany get more men and material to Africa when it couldn’t even supply the men it had there already? Even if they took North Africa, there is no way ships full of oil would be making it back to Europe given the Allies dominance of the sea and air. With no food, no oil, and no viable way out of the mess they’ve made, their armies would dwindle and society would collapse. When the US nukes Berlin in 1945, few would see any point in carrying on.

@tomazlah8238

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamesmcilvenny2294 lol if germany could focus on north africa , they are fuked. egypit would fall like a fruit basket. british and rest of commonwelth forces would get absolutellly demolshed anywhere near europe and germany could started to prepare for sealion, yes couple of years but probably doable at lest in 1944-47,im talking about ascenario were su is under germany off course.

@jamesmcilvenny2294

3 жыл бұрын

​@@tomazlah8238 If Germany had let Stalin into the Axis, that would have been a very difficult nut to crack. Thankfully Hitler was never going to do that. If Germany had not invaded Russia, I think they were doomed to lose anyway. If they had done the impossible and beaten Russia in 1941, yes the war would have been much harder. The ideal situation would have been if the Soviet Union had not been trading oil with Germany. If they had done so Germany would have run completely dry of oil and food in 1941 and the war would effectively be over. No oil, no tanks or planes. No food and the people stop cheering for the Nazis. Germany wouldn't even have had enough oil to invade the Soviets in June 41'.

@whitetiger5284

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamesmcilvenny2294 Honestly this guy has no idea what he's talking about. Even if the Germans didn't push on the soviets the war was never going to end in Hitlers favour. Plus Hitler was always eventually going to go to war with the USSR and the US, he even says so in his book. He hated the soviets with a passion and he knew war with the US would be necessary to complete Germany's goals. But again even if they didn't attack the soviets the Germans would still have had an impossible fight, with the infinite resources on the side of the allies, the american production and numbers. It would have been a longer war, but it would have only extended the war long enough for an A bomb to be dropped on Germany first due to the policy of Germany first. They couldn't funnel any more troops into North Africa due to the Mediterranean slowly falling to the allies. Rommel was defeated long before El Alamein. It was only a matter of time.

Zhukov is on record saying they would not have been able to CONTINUE the war without Lend Lease. Argue against one of the great generals in history.

@erwin669

3 жыл бұрын

Stalin and Khrushchev also said they would have not been able to prosecute the war without Lend-Lease. I want to know how the Lend-Lease detractors think they could have won the war with only 1/4 of the number of trucks and 1/10 the railhead capability.

@KaiShanIV

3 жыл бұрын

Suvorov (the author, not the general) also wrote that the soviet army would not have moved without the 400,000 trucks from lend-lease.

@nagantm441

3 жыл бұрын

@@erwin669 they would have had to invest in new truck and railroad factories east of the urals...

@imaginarystranger1974

3 жыл бұрын

Zhukov is one of the worst generals in history.

@daniellee9328

3 жыл бұрын

@@imaginarystranger1974 commie big mad

Never commented on KZread before but you've challenged my knowledge on WW2 more than anybody I've either read or watched. That's why I became a Patreon. Keep up the good work.

@TheImperatorKnight

3 жыл бұрын

You should comment more often! My goal is to get you to think, and by challenging you, that makes you think. Thank you for your support 👍

@jaroslavpalecek4513

3 жыл бұрын

Anton AKA Stalingrad battle data is also excellent.

@alanpennie8013

3 жыл бұрын

@Blesava Konjina He didn't develop his argument well but I thought it was a good one. Because price signals are lacking military supply is almost bound to be less efficient than civilian

@brucealbert4686

3 жыл бұрын

@@jaroslavpalecek4513 Velmi Dobry!

@MecTavish

3 жыл бұрын

LOL tik knows nothing, he thinks hitlers was a socialist! HAHAHAHAHAHA

when I heard Elba I thought you were talking about the island where Napoleon was exiled

@TheImperatorKnight

3 жыл бұрын

Able was I ere I saw Elba!

@AndreLuis-gw5ox

3 жыл бұрын

The name fits

@tokul76

3 жыл бұрын

Elbe. Corsicans might know the island. Central Europeans tend to learn river first. Geography comes in before history.

@MarkVrem

3 жыл бұрын

Yup Elba the place Napoleon sat around depressed reminiscing the good ol' days making out with Czar Alexander and the continental system.

@timbushell8640

3 жыл бұрын

Or just Frankfurt... ... ; )))))

I remember one of your earlier videos where a captured German soldier stared in amazement at the allied camp and asked "Where are your horses?!"

@jussim.konttinen4981

3 жыл бұрын

Well, where are they? My father had a horse and Mosin-Nagant in 1968. A couple of years later: "You're free now! Go, otherwise you end up in a sausage factory. Run free!"

@elduquecaradura1468

2 ай бұрын

@@jussim.konttinen4981 he mean because the US was capable of doing so many trucks that the allies didn't need horses to pull carts to keep working the logistics

@allangibson8494

Ай бұрын

@@jussim.konttinen4981And the horse?

Maybe the Lend Lease was not so vital for the Soviet infantry divisions, but it was crucial for the mobile units like Tank Corps, because heavy American trucks could transport heavy artillery pieces at the same speed with tanks.

You forgot one of the biggest reasons - level of troop's morale. Defending their own country and later counter attacking for revenge, was way better morale booster than just attacking a foreign country. Soviets stubbornly preserved in defense, against the formidable enemy, and then it was easy for them to fly on the wings of victory toward German territory. And btw, German war atrocities certainly didn't help in scaling down determination of Soviet revenge, but rather the opposite.

@omarcepeda9121

3 жыл бұрын

You say this as if the Germans didn’t fight as Viciously as they did, remember even after the surrender in stalingrad thousands on Germans kept fighting. Both peoples are warriors

@Karthagast

3 жыл бұрын

@@omarcepeda9121 I don't think @damyr says that "as if the Germans didn’t fight as Viciously as...". He is making a valid point in general, regardless of combatants nationality: Fighting first in defence of your own homeland and then in a "revenge" offensive pushing back your enemy, boosts your fighting moral much more than fighting first in the offensive, invading a foreign country, and then fighting in defense of your own homeland because your offensive failed misserably. It has nothing to do with being German or Russian. It could be applicable to any nationality.

@damyr

3 жыл бұрын

@@Karthagast Exactly. You've explained my point better than I did.

@novadhd

3 жыл бұрын

@@omarcepeda9121 Thats cause the Germans were going to die regardless as they had nothing to lose

@mercurysarcade8538

3 жыл бұрын

In German propaganda it showed the Soviets as barbarians that you must fight to the end, that would probably influence them to keep on fighting because in there mind they would die if they didn’t (probably would die but there are some occasions of surrenders)

“A swift counter attack is always easier than a hard planned offensive.” - Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery

@crawdaddy7667

3 жыл бұрын

This is true when you look at operation market garden, which was the brainchild of Montgomery

@Swift-mr5zi

3 жыл бұрын

@@crawdaddy7667 Monty had hardly anything to do with most of the planning and the plan didn't even fail...the operation failed because the plan wasn't executed

@andym9571

Жыл бұрын

@@Swift-mr5zi Exactly. The backbone of the plan was to take the bridges on the first day. The 82nd at Njmegan didnt do that.

@jaaackaissa1633

2 ай бұрын

@@crawdaddy7667 The Germans found the memoirs of an Allied general and niece mentioning preparations for a paratroop attack in the Netherlands. The Germans were preparing to receive paratroopers. This attack was part of Operation Market Garden, and this is the reason for the failure of Market Garden

“Your lending lease is worthless! It’s not helping in any way. Not even a little. Now, please don’t stop sending it. In fact send more. Not that it helps”. ~ the Soviet’s.

Studebaker trucks they still remember them as rugged reliable trucks I know this personally from survivors

@DarthKenobius

3 жыл бұрын

I wouldn't be surprised if Putin has one for nostalgia purposes and I assume he also has Hitler's remains in a box?

@rayjon237

3 жыл бұрын

Look at the russian copy the ural,. They copied studabakers and kept improving them..

@zopEnglandzip

3 жыл бұрын

@@rayjon237 you can still see the lineage in Ural's modern wagons.

@simplicius11

3 жыл бұрын

@@rayjon237 Not true. It was the Gaz-51/61 that looked like the Studebaker, but that's it. different engine, brakes... The Soviet analogue would be the ZIS-151, but also had a different engine, brakes...

@johnnyjet3.1412

3 жыл бұрын

Stalin personally sent a Thank You Letter to Studebaker, thanking them for the trucks

"Amateurs talk tactics, but professionals study logistics." Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC. It would be cool to see you do a video of the American logistics in the European theater during the war. The red ball express from D-day to the allied capture of Antwerp and from there to Germany's surrender.

@goldenhide

3 жыл бұрын

I'll point to a quick read by SLA Marshall: "The Soldier's Load." US logistics then and now seems to have this unique problem of a large and expanding capacity, but with poor efficiency comparatively. Aka the problem of having more supplies than you need.

@stevewatson6839

3 жыл бұрын

@@goldenhide "My soldiers can eat their belts, but my tanks gotta have gas!" - Some slap-happy Septic general.

@gengis737

3 жыл бұрын

Not sure. The best officers from French military school chose logistic just before WW2, while Germans one chose armoured division or air forces.

@tanith117

3 жыл бұрын

@@gengis737 They also thought that no one would go around the Maginot line. And their tanks were no where near logistically sound as Germans were (at least in the early war). Char 1bs were not reliable and very slow vs the more numerous and maneuverable German tanks.

@gengis737

3 жыл бұрын

@@tanith117 French did know that Germans could go through Belgium. They put their mobile force on the left of Maginot line to join Belgian army. But when Belgians denied entrance until the very day of the German offensive, and Dutch required help too, the French CinC overstretched the mobile force, depriving himself of any reserve. Letting the Dutch alone would have keep a sizeable motorized force just at the exit of the Ardennes, tsouth of the gap between panzer and infantry. Also, French tanks were less logistically sound, but more powerful, better armored. Somua and even H35 could play a role, while Pz I and II were just training vehicles. Germans ad the good fortune to use czech tanks, thanks to Chamberlain.

A connection I never made before. During the Spanish civil war, the Soviets "saved" the Republic's gold in Moscow. Later they paid for Lend Lease with gold. Regardless of any moral issues, you have to admire Stalin sometimes. He could be a smooth operator when he wanted to be.

@ArmaDino22

3 жыл бұрын

You can add Romania to that list. When Romania entered WWI, they transfered all their gold to the Tsarist Russia for safe keeping. Suffice to say that after the 1917 revolution, the Romanians never saw their gold again.

@yulusleonard985

3 жыл бұрын

They were transferred to US and sunk by U-boat on the way.

@gimzod76

3 жыл бұрын

Don't forget how they begged the Czech legion to give back the Russian gold reserve during the revolution

@dusk6159

2 жыл бұрын

@@ArmaDino22 The romanians and republican spanish got conned by Russia hard and in the same factions, sheesh.

@edh9999

2 жыл бұрын

@Fuck KZread Pretty sure he couldn't moonwalk, though ;)

You left out all the food supplies the US sent to Russia. That greatly helped their population and Armies. They had lost so much agricultural land in 1941. And this also reduced the need for Soviet farm labor manpower. A cousin who was in the US Merchant Marine made deliveries to Iran for shipment onwards to Russia. He said the amounts of everything were massive. And the Russian agents at the Ports were pilfering and selling valuable parts of cargo on the black market even before it got to Russia.

@SovietUnion_

3 жыл бұрын

Not true. Most of the supplies arrived were either rotten food or broken down equipment, since companies in US didn't care about quality, but rather a massive profit they made

@douglasturner6153

3 жыл бұрын

You must have information no one else has. Including the Soviet's. Fact is they got quality trucks, food, aviation fuel, special metals, a complete radio communication system by Motorola, airplanes and on and on. Learn it, love it, live it. American generosity and support were overwhelming while at the same time fighting on different parts of the globe. And bombing the bageebers out of the Germans too thus drawing the Luftwaffe away from Russia and tying up over 10,000 of the deadly German 88 guns that otherwise would have been sent to the east. I could continue but you definitely need to do some honest research.

@SovietUnion_

3 жыл бұрын

@@douglasturner6153 oh really? My great grand father was a soldier on the eastern front during ww2, he went all the way to Poland and then shrapnel got in his leg so he had to retreat. And right before Poland he had American supplies arrive, and guess what they found? I already described it above. And it wasn't just a singular thing, it was nation wide, how do I know that? Because after the war, he became an officer and was reviewing different reports in that regard. Do some research? I think Americans think they know too much, and overstate US's contributions in a war So yes, I do have information most people don't have

@douglasturner6153

3 жыл бұрын

That was standard communist propaganda. They resented the fact they needed all this help to survive. So disparaged it later on. If he was an Officer he was part of that system. And rear cadre's corruption often left front line troops shortchanged, something my cousin saw. Stalin made a deal with fellow gangster Hitler and carved up several countries. He hoped Hitler and the western powers would get in a long drawn out war on their own territories and he could later on scoop up the pieces. That cynical plan backfired big time and the Soviet people ended up bearing the brunt of war.

@SovietUnion_

3 жыл бұрын

@@douglasturner6153 👌 Lmao Americans are really like that ❄

TIK making some 4D Chess moves with his video plans

@emperorofwends8875

3 жыл бұрын

Teleports behined you

@TheImperatorKnight

3 жыл бұрын

@@emperorofwends8875 A bit like Rudolf Hess

@Mikhalych88

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnight Or like Soviets during Operation Uranus! Wait, that sounds wrong.

@emperorofwends8875

3 жыл бұрын

@@Mikhalych88 mesage from Žukov to Paulus during operation Uranus : nothing personal kid

@HavanaSyndrome69

3 жыл бұрын

I know right? lol You can tell that he enjoys the 4D game though at least. He likes the debate.

A minor addition on lend-lease. The Soviet nonaggression pact with Japan was from 41-45. So those US trucks were being shipped to Kamchatka where the Sovi8had an army without a front to fight on. Meaning all they had to do was load up and drive west to reinforce.....

@auguststorm2037

3 жыл бұрын

Vladivostok not Kamtchatka. But you are right the far east Lend Lease route was first in terms of quantity of equipment.

“Olov, remember to bread crumbs the trail for our army!” - the invention of the bread supply line

"Lend-Lease supplied the boots that marched to Berlin" Me: yep the trucks certainly helped Video: No, Lend-Lease _literally_ supplied the boots that be marching into Berlin, 14.5 million pairs sent to the Soviets from 1942-43 Well that got a chuckle out of me. Edit: Also TIK, of all the videos I enjoy the most the ones delving into Logistics. It really shows how important such a system is and that even the greatest battle plan is worthless unless one has the capability of ensuring said plan gets the necessary material needed to make it a reality. And that materials can even be something as mundane as a new pair of boots or toilet paper; something I even forget when taking account of the parts, ammo, food, fuel and other essentials just one soldier needs; let alone a division or an entire Army Group.

@brunoacostasilva

3 жыл бұрын

@@zava5025 It's not economically efficient ir good for the taxed/supplier nation (i.e: USA in Cold War(, it's a sort of wealth redistribution on international scale. It may be military or diplomatically good for the supplier nation though, in Cold War case, it helped US to stop Soviet influence.

@w8stral

3 жыл бұрын

Actually: Soviet trucks sucked: No 5 ton trucks as the Studabakers were, very few 1 ton trucks where most of their trucks Soviets did make were 1/2 ton and almost none of them were 4 wheel drive whereas nearly ALL LL trucks were 5 ton trucks and 4 wheel drive. Every 5 ton truck = 5-->10 soviet trucks.... Why TIK did not bring this up, I do not know.

@ilsagutrune2372

2 ай бұрын

yeah, I love the logistics stuff most of all. Not a fan of "the glorious tiger did this next" style videos you see from some others.

"Money bad, statism good, all hail Stalin" classic curmudgeonly TIK. Love it!

@TheImperatorKnight

3 жыл бұрын

"curmudgeonly" Well, I learnt a new word today 😂

@generalfred9426

3 жыл бұрын

"Those who believe in the Stalin shall receive the gifts of the Stalin"

@floydlooney6837

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnight but is this actually the case? (sorry)

@gustaveliasson5395

3 жыл бұрын

@@generalfred9426 Those who believe in Stalin shall be sent to gulag for idolatry. Also, have an upvote.

@noodled6145

3 жыл бұрын

What the word means for anyone annoyed by words no one uses in actual english: "curmudgeonly" - adjective (especially of an old person) bad-tempered and negative.

How about doing a video of the Movement of factories from the path of German Advance to safety and the subsequent reestablishment of those factories. That would be fabulous.

@RENEBACON

3 жыл бұрын

well organised, and must have been prepared well ahead, which beats the rumours about Stalin´s surprised by German´s attack, let´s imagine usa were invaded and moved industry to Canada ... never

@alvaroflores2558

3 жыл бұрын

well the movement of that factories was a big problem for diferent reasons.One it`s that you need a lot of trains to move and probably not at the best moment(the same trains were needed to move supplies to the front).

@Overlord734

3 жыл бұрын

@@RENEBACON There was such plan, but it was very outdated for 1941.

@lowercherty

3 жыл бұрын

We built a steel mill with iron mines etc. In Utah for that very reason. Other facilities were also moved away from the coasts to provide some contingency in case of invasion or bombing.

@yoga5631

3 жыл бұрын

@@RENEBACON I think he wasn't surprised the German invaded but was surprised on WHEN they invaded Imo he had the plan in early draft when barbarossa happens

Tik I love your content m8 and I really like that you've gone in all this effort to explain many economic related subjects from our common perspective instead of just saying : go read rothbard or go read x ( x insert any austrian economist). It's easier this time and age to recommend a video to someone than a book ii think. But as for the last thing you said, to stick it up to the stick to tanks camp, well I wouldn't be bothered if you did. The reason I came to the channel first place was due to m. History ( my hobby since I was kid, so you just make it easier for me to gain info without breaking my budget) and the rest are the extra treats that keep me coming back every day to watch what I have missed. Keep the good job

As if any modern army in the world works as a free market entity. You'd have to go back to 14th century Europe and free mercenary companies for that and even that enterprise had constraints. In total war all economies are manipulated and the countries distort prices with regulations, borrowing and straight up money printing, it's no different for US and Britain. For instance the US had almost all domestic private car production frozen for the duration of WW2, rationing of various products, money printing and more.

@Toralian89

3 жыл бұрын

It's like the whole ancap thing was tried before and people moved on to more efficient and reliable ways.

@magnusyarbrough5527

3 жыл бұрын

Toralian89 i wouldnt say tried either, ancap literally cannot exist, it would collapse in on itself in 3 hours. even the ancient people knew you needed atleast some form of organised authourity, even if the capital couldnt enforce anything, towns and stuff did.

@patcoghlan3852

3 жыл бұрын

Of course it is a state led model. The difference is that the Americans in WW2 essentially created massive production orders and told the existing industrial base in the country to meet them through a bidding process, and then distributed material as needed. There was little nationalization, for example (the statutes in law for that came after the war under Truman). The US benefitted from not being under bombardment, of course, but it would be a mistake to call it a socialistic system in WW2, instead of a mixed market entity under heavy regulation. American rationing in WW2, at least of food supplies, was entirely unnecessary and was used more as an anti-inflationary tactic to counter the money printing. Goods shortages were not a significant thing, the war material drives were done more for morale purposes than anything else, and even gasoline, the one thing that arguably did need some rationing for, was not something that would have been a problem for in any other period than in 1944-45 when the US Army was in Northwestern Europe. The Soviet Union was different entirely in that production was handled through economic planning that already before the war was dependent on an informal black market economy to meet quotas. The Soviet evacuation of war material and factories, often lauded, was something of a failure in that they did not sort out the evacuated materials for 1-2 years. A common type incident was, take a tank factory in Kiev, and send the ball bearings and heavy equipment and industrial work force to Chelyabinsk, but send the raw materials in stock and the existing production order information to Novosibirsk, while the rolling stock would be destroyed by German bombing on the return trip. It was, quite simply, a mess. Now, Soviet production was very good for a few specific things. They were excellent at tank production, aircraft production, and meeting quotas in a short period of time through overtime procedures and 24/7 operation. They did, however, have problems with the softer elements of wartime materiel, and with coordination between plants.

@AJ213Probably

3 жыл бұрын

@@magnusyarbrough5527 Even if ancap did exist longer than 3 hours, how long would it take for it to fall to another country? No foreign government would allow such a society to exist. Its like the revolution in Europe, no Monarchy will allow it to exist and spread

@magnusyarbrough5527

2 жыл бұрын

AJ213 2 minutes because the invading country would just buy all the private security forces.

Hi TIK, thank you for new video! It's nice to finally hear about Soviet logistics and how they compared to German ones. Thank you again for your amazing job! Previously I put comment under your latest battlestorm video and since you didn't respond back then, I will post most of it here again :) As I said in my previous comment, I have recently read Adrian Wettstein's "Wehrmacht im Stadtkampf 1939-1942" (Wehrmacht in Urban warfare 1939-1942). It's a quite new work about german way of conducting warfare inside cities in the first half of WW2. Obviously, the main focus of the book is battle of Stalingrad (more than 60 pages of it are about this battle). The author talks mainly about german perspective (tactics used german combat forces, logistics, tactics of commanding the troops, equipment and ways of using it in urban warfare etc.), but uses Glantz's "Stalingrad Trilogy" too (although Wettstein is skeptical of claims about german numerical superiority in the city: counting division personnel, according to him, doesn't give full picture of what has happend, the german divisions had rear troops and artillery within them, while soviet divisions' rear personnel was under corp's command and soviet artillery was outside of city. The soviet rear and artillery personnel wasn't counted by some historians, while german one was counted, this way soviet strength got underestimated, while german one was overestimated). I wonder what you think about this book and if it could be of any use for your Battlestorm series (perhaps the look on german urban warfare tactics, logistics and C2 could add something to new episodes). I'm not sure if it was translated into english, but it was released in german. I would be glad if you would respond to my comment, but either way, thank you for your amazing videos! I hope you will get some rest, so that you don't overwork yourself with this awesome series.

Hello TIK, I'd like to compliment you on the great and well-detailed videos you make. Back in the days, when I was in high school, I devoured the well-known Battlefield series of documentaries. Although I still like to watch them sometimes for old times sake, you have really changed my perspective on things, making it very hard sometimes to hear those familiar narratives again that I trusted so much for such a long time. And that is a good thing. And as a teacher (albeit chemistry, not history) I really feel that WW2 history in schools should be much more in-depth and truthful. But that would make it complicated. And complications require thinking. And thinking is hard. Keep up the good work, greetings from the Netherlands.

Thank you: A great discussion of an under-appreciated factor of military operations- logistics.👍👍👍

My Russian dad has always told me that the American Studebaker trucks were the workhorses of the Soviet logistics during ww2. They were perfect for the Russian terrain and were much better than the Soviet counterparts. They didn't teach us that in schools though. In fact I was once physically punished by my teacher for bringing up Lend-Lease during a history class.

@hunormagyar1843

2 ай бұрын

Damn...

@reaperbsc

2 ай бұрын

This is exactly why the US and russia are at odds with each other today.

@user-qo1us9oc7g

Ай бұрын

@@reaperbsc Russians still believe the lies and poisons about the Soviet empire and how great it all was, well they couldnt do anything without the hated capitalistic west.

@SloppiestNobb

Ай бұрын

Your name is doge to the moon. You weren’t born in the USSR

TIK i really appreciate your use of sources and your analysis of the eastern front's complexities. Even if I dont completely agree about everything you say there is so many thought provoking insights from these videos. Keep it up man!

@TheImperatorKnight

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you! I don't want you to always agree with me on everything. My goal is to get you to think, and so disagreeing shows you're not just blindly following what I preach, but going out there and looking into this stuff yourself 👍

Great vid, TIK as always. Thank you!

Cold analysis and thorough calculations! Good job!

TIK, excellent video! Your points on Soviet logistics are very reminiscent indeed of the situation facing Slim in northern India. At that point the Japanese controlled Burma and the British were holding a defensive line in northern India. In between the two was a wide stretch of very difficult, hilly jungle. Various idiots in British high command wanted Slim to cross this and attack the strong Japanese forces in Burma. Slim said no. He knew the Japanese would attack and wanted them to come to him. Why? Because when they did so they would have to supply their forces through this very difficult jungle. They would end up starved of supplies. That is what happened. The Japanese crossed this difficult zone and attacked. Their best forces were almost totally destroyed and suffered severe losses from hunger and illness due to supply difficulties. Meanwhile Slim was fighting on prepared home ground, reasonably close to his supplies. Then when Slim went on the offensive, this jungle zone presented much less of a problem because the best Japanese forces had already been destroyed and Slim had superior logistical capabilities due to things like Dakota transport aircraft. The Japanese forces were unable to benefit from their supply bases inside Burma as many of their best troops had already died in the northern Indian offensive.

I'd be interested in hearing about how different governments organized research and development of new equipment, production of equipment and supplies, and logistics. We often hear about the worst results-when the system completely fails. But there are probably interesting examples of different approaches taken, what worked and didn't work, how the organization adapted and changed and so on.

An excellent vid. Tbh I sometimes get bored of ur rambling about economics but this video was spot on and very informative.

absolutely brilliant as always TIK. Good health to you and all as well

I like the spin you have on economics because it is hard to separate economics from warfare. It is why Germany capitulated in WWI. Excellent series.

Last time I was this early, Anton Drexler was still head of the NSDAP.

@flyforce16

3 жыл бұрын

Last time I was this early, General Cadorna was still planning the 3nd Battle of the Isonzo River

@TheBrianp1

3 жыл бұрын

@@flyforce16 Last time I was early our generals worshipped Montu.

@s.31.l50

3 жыл бұрын

@@flyforce16 He is still planning the 13th battle of the Isonzo to this day from the afterlife

@principalityofbelka6310

3 жыл бұрын

@@flyforce16 Oh god. Is he still continuing the decimation policy?

Every new video i learn somenthing new!!! Thanks for all your great work! Greetings from Brazil!

@jussim.konttinen4981

3 жыл бұрын

Vesa Keskinen is our most famous expat in Brazil. In 2007, the Mannerheim Cross Knights Foundation awarded a bronze Mannerheim statue in honor of the 90th anniversary of independence for, among other things, Vesa Keskinen's life's work and charity's work.

Keep up the good work. Channel is awesome.

7. The front length shortened as the Soviets moved west.

@MagiconIce

3 жыл бұрын

But only in the very end in 1945. If we're talking 1943-1944, it even got wider. The most narrow part of the Eastern front probably was the line between Königsberg (nowadays Kaliningrad) in the north and the black sea towns, e.g. Odessa, in the South. After that the Axis Armies and the Red Army also had to spread wide because fighting entered the countries in southeastern europe, e.g. Romania. Sure, Romania did switch sides then, but this didn't stop fighting, since the Germans were still there. And they had to fight in Bulgaria too and in Hungary, so the frontline for over a year extended several hundred kilometers into difficult terrain. If they wouldn't have soundly beaten the Germans on their own homesoil beforehand, this would've probably caused a massive problem for the soviets, needing time to haul up supplies for the push into the balkan countries meanwhile the strong enemy would counter push. But that strong enemy wasn't there so the elongation of the front didn't hurt the soviets that much. And since 1943 Allied Forces had set foot on mainland Europe again, first with the invasion of Sicily and then Mainland Italy and then in June 1944 with the Invasion of France, binding significant numbers of German Troops, which could not be transferred to the east. The frontline only became shorter again towards the end of the war from end of 1944 onwards, when the Red Army reached for eastern central european countries like Poland, Hungary, Austria and Czechoslowakia and the front became naturally shorter because, again, there is a geographical tight spot of europe between Stettin in the north at the baltic sea and Triest in the south by the Adriatic Sea.

@user-gd9bi2hg5m

3 жыл бұрын

@@MagiconIce Then Red Army came to Bulgaria last one changed side

Well done video as usual. I too have wondered how the Soviet logistics stacked up vs the Nazis. I knew from Glantz’ books that lend-lease played a large role in Soviet operations (and also keeping their people from outright starving to death) but did not really have an overall picture of how their circumstances differed vs the enemy. You answered some questions here. Thanks for the great work.

Great Job on researching for this topic.

Thanks TIK, great content as always.

Hi TIK, I've been a avid viewer for several years now, and I really appreciate the different perspectives you give on the topics you cover, especially WW2. That being said, I have an issue to take with you in these last two videos on logistics. Military planning in general, and logistics in particular, are complex matters, and as such, Army officers have created guidelines to facilitate such things as calculating how many supplies a unit needs. Systems are in place to give an approximation of necessities so the supply channel can predict what's going to be needed. In parallel, every unit, down to the smallest level will give feedback so the logisticians can adjust their predictions and distribute resources rationally (in a perfect world this would lead to a 100% efficient system). As such I don't agree with your argument that logistical needs are impossible to predict, or that there is an infinite need of supply, and as such it is impossible to be efficient or even to calculate efficiency. These are just some thoughts based on my military education, keep up the great work, cheers!

@beefy1212

3 жыл бұрын

The issue you are seeing but can’t identify is these videos are not about logistics but ideology. It is rather easy to identify if your logistics is working correctly even in a completely moneyless system... How much are you producing How much are you using How much can you deliver How much can you deliver to a given area If you are not producing enough to meet your usage how much you can deliver is meaningless. Germany could produce enough at least until 1943, they could not deliver it due to lack fuel trucks rail and roads. Could they have been more efficient perhaps, would it have mattered perhaps, but no matter how efficient they got at transporting supplies it was never going to make fuel they didn’t have appear out of thin air. The example given by TiK of soldiers bidding on bullets is just stupid and totally unworkable. I completely agree with Tik on capitalism supplying the needs of the free market when business can weigh the cost of getting a widget tomorrow vs next week. Soldiers do not have that luxury when being shelled or when being tasked with taking a city. Germany lost the war due to lack of fuel and rubber period everything else was a series of cascading failures from that inescapable fact. Conversely the US had enough oil to spray it on dirt roads to make quick and serviceable roads. The Russians with 409,000 2.5 ton trucks gained at least 818,000,000 pounds of logistics capacity at 2 tons a truck that was the supply capacity to supply 483.45 German divisions at 846 tons a day and do so at nearly 10 times the distance from the nearest railway than the Germans. WW2 was won by factories and trucks and not rifles and tanks, and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t understand WW2.

@matiasguardaredes

3 жыл бұрын

@@beefy1212 I completely agree. As I said I like TIK for his different approach to history, but I also appreciate his opinions on politics and ideology, even though I don't agree with many of them.

@Flakey101

3 жыл бұрын

Except these estimates and calculations always under estimate war time usage. Even up to the Gulf war that has been the case.

@Hetschoter

3 жыл бұрын

@@beefy1212 that is holistic view of the whole economy, so by definition is not just logistics (since production, use etc.)

@Hetschoter

3 жыл бұрын

The "infinite need of supply" is stupid in and of itself. There is only so much supplies of any kind that you can use (as a unite) and after certain threshold even more supplies would acctually hinder your ability to fight (finding in the piles of stuff exactly what you need fast; loosing these supplies due to more efficient bombing [more ammunition and explosives into the mix] etc.). At some point if you have so many supplies (even reserves of soldiers) it would be more benefitial to create new units instead.

Tik, I recommend debunking The Untold History of the United States in which he claims that the lend lease did little to nothing. They also talk about the US as well and would love to hear your opinion on this documentary.

@ghostrider.49

3 жыл бұрын

To be fair in the beginning of the war when it was needed most the lend-lease wasn't that important. Out of 17 million tons of supplies between June 1941 and July 1943 only about 4 million or 23% was delivered to the USSR, the rest being delivered when the Soviet Union was already winning in 1944 and 1945.

@chuckschillingvideos

3 жыл бұрын

@@ghostrider.49 "to be fair" Bullisht. You're being completely dishonest. The Lend Lease aid was most critically needed when the Sovcoms began their maneuvers west.

@ghostrider.49

3 жыл бұрын

@@chuckschillingvideos I'm being dishonest? The only one being dishonest here is you. I'm basing my opinion on facts, you on the other hand base it on your all American pride, you seem like the classic arrogant American who can't stand someone saying "Murica didn't do it all" even when someone like me actually recognizes the significance of the lend-lease but doesn't overplay its significance, like you. So you say, the Soviets needed the lend-lease in order to advance west? Wrong, because when it started becoming significant(circa 1944) the Soviets had been advancing for a YEAR, it's as simple as that. If the lend-lease was so important, then how come the Soviets survived basically without it by 1944 actually WINNING against Germany? It's literally basic logic, and moreover, the Germans were running out of oil. Hence, they could not wage a war for much longer after 1944. It's as simple as that. And don't even mention the logistics, the Soviets proved they were capable of big offensive operations in their counterattack in December 1941, and their retaking of the vast lands of the Caucasus from November 1942 to February 1943.

@RENEBACON

3 жыл бұрын

@@chuckschillingvideos In the costs of war, these supplies accounted for less than 5% of weapons, about 11% of aircraft, 17% of the tank. There was much more "civilian equipment" - cars, motorcycles, but also textiles, shoes, food and other civilian needs. Unfortunately, the weapons could only be used in the summer, because they often froze in the winter due to their construction. I do not question this help in any way, but it is not worth revaluing it. Even without it, the USSR would have defended itself, but the war would probably last a year or two longer. Leningrad defended itself from its own resources, the advance before Moscow was also stopped by the Soviet army on its own. Help, - The USSR paid for these supplies - gold, diamonds. But the USA were not the only ones to help the USSR - for example, Iran supplied fuel to the USSR for most of the war at reduced prices, which was forced by the Allies. And surprisingly - Mongolia supplied about half a million horses, which were able and willing to work even in the freezing frosts. Mongolia also supplied large quantities of meat to the USSR during the war. While aid from the West is still being talked about, supplies from other countries are hardly talked about at all, although, for example, the supplies to the horse have been very significant and have resolved supply supplies in the rear even better than American cars.

@caomhan84

3 жыл бұрын

He literally explains in this video why some of these generalizations are wrong. The comments arguing that "Lend lease didn't really help" are directly addressed in the video, which apparently people didn't bother watching.

13:18 General Balck said that the units operating on the front lines always needed 5x the supplies that was calculated by the General Staff. He also mentioned the same exact issues that the Soviets experienced, the trains with the supplies arrived but just sat there for several days and the supplies were being enjoyed by the rear area troops instead of the frontline troops who really needed them.

That is an astonishing number of vehicles provided under the Lend Lease program. Another great video.

More than anything this just highlights how weak the premise of the German logistics video was. It didn't fail because of their supply system being state run. It failed because of: 1. Large distances involved. 2. Strong Soviet resistance. 3. The Two Front War. 4. German Fuel crisis. 5. Allied blockade. 6 Poor Soviet infrastructure.

@markvorobjov6185

3 жыл бұрын

But all those reasons don't refute the hypothesis of bad logistic caused by state run economy. Those are just external factors that make logistic harder, but they don't necessarily explain the inefficiency of logistical efforts.

@papadonttakenomess1764

3 жыл бұрын

7. Bitter cold. 8. German corruption. 9. Poor resource allocation.

@manco828

3 жыл бұрын

Also poor German logistics didn't stop them from murdering millions of innocent people.

@TheImperatorKnight

3 жыл бұрын

"More than anything this just highlights how weak the premise of the German logistics video was. It didn't fail because of their supply system being state run." Did you ignore the latter half of this video? The economic calculation problem was still a factor for the Soviets, it's just that the Soviets could throw more resources at the problem. And I did say in the previous video on German logistics that having problems doesn't show how EFFICIENT they were being. Just because the Germans or Soviets faced problems, and whether they overcame them or not, doesn't mean they were more or less efficient than each other. All it shows is that one side (the Soviets) had fewer problems, and more resources to throw at the problems they had. But if they had "rationally regulated their interchange with nature" (Marx) using prices, rather than leaving it up to a centralized bureaucracy, then they would have had a much easier time of it.

@cptant7610

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnight "But if they had "rationally regulated their interchange with nature" (Marx) using prices, rather than leaving it up to a centralized bureaucracy, then they would have had a much easier time of it." Citation very much needed. No military ever operated in this way. If anything modern militaries have MORE centralized logistics. You can read it in the lessons the US themselves learned from the war. The lessons are all about standardizing material and procedures, cutting double responsibilities and supply lines and recognizing logistics as a military science that requires expertise. I can't link to sources because youtube is removing comments with links.

Tik looks fresh in this video and I'm not completely sure why The T-shirt is definitely very nice

@PBJT292

3 жыл бұрын

his jaw-line is looking pretty fierce too. I think he's been working out

@farqitol

3 жыл бұрын

Let's face it, TIK is the Robbie Williams of WW2 history content. Just oozing the sexiness of one of the world's worst events from everywhere.......

@White_Recluse

3 жыл бұрын

Simp

Honestly have a blast learning about this side of history, and looking into the nuts and bolts of how it’s works

You’re awesome tik keep up the good work

in soviet union even the snow carries the ammo and supplies to front , so to not be sent to gulag 😁

@i-etranger

3 жыл бұрын

the country has a soul and it penetrates all within its bounds. and if one crosses the bounds mal-intended - snowflakes will carry bullets!

@RENEBACON

3 жыл бұрын

1 working camp 2 counter-revolutionaries 3 died 4 freed 5 escaped 1934 1. 510,307 2. 135,160 3. 26,295 4. 147,272 5. 83,490 1935 1. 725,438 2. 118,256 3. 28,328 4. 211,034 5. 67,493 1936 1. 839,406 2. 105,849 3. 20,595 4. 369,544 5. 58,313 1937 1. 820,891 2. 104,826 3. 25,376 4. 364,437 5. 58,264 1938 1. 996,367 2. 185,324 3. 90,546 4. 279,966 5. 32,033 1939 1. 1,317,195 2. 453,432 3. 50,502 4. 223,622 5. 12,333 1940 1. 1,344,408 2. 444,999 3. 46,665 4. 316,825 5. 11,813 1941 1. 1,500,524 2. 420,293 3. 100,997 4. 624,276 5. 10,592 1942 1. 1,415,596 2. 407,988 3. 248,877 4. 509,538 5. 11,822 1943 1. 983,974 2. 345,397 3. 166,967 4. 336,135 5. 6,242 1944 1. 663,594 2. 268,861 3. 60,948 4. 152,113 5. 3,586 1945 1. 715,506 2. 283,351 3. 43,848 4. 336,750 5. 2,196 1946 1. 600,897 2. 333,833 3. 18,154 4. 115,700 5. 2,642 1947 1. 808,839 2. 427,653 3. 35,668 4. 194,886 5. 3,779 1948 1. 1,108,057 2. 416,156 3. 27,605 4. 261,148 5. 4,261 1949 1. 1,216,361 2. 420,696 3. 178,446 4. 178,449 5. 2,583 1950 1. 1,416,300 2. 578,912 3. 14,703 4. 216,210 5. 2,577 1951 1. 1,533,767 2. 475,976 3. 15,587 4. 254,269 5. 2,318 1952 1. 1,711,202 2. 480,766 3. 10,604 4. 329,446 5. 1,253 1953 1. 1,727,970 2. 456,256 3. 5,825 4. 937,352 5. 785

@FifinatorKlon

3 жыл бұрын

@@RENEBACON wtf happened in '49?

@i-etranger

3 жыл бұрын

@@FifinatorKlonlikely a typo? Again, he might have generated random numbers in excel - a guy on internet shares something without any reference...

@RENEBACON

3 жыл бұрын

@@i-etranger I am the reference, and the source is CIA, are the numbers wrong? - you prove it

3:56 So what your telling me is that the soviets did the Barbarossa supply plan except they had trucks

@MrEmiosk

3 жыл бұрын

AND Gross over supply of fuel for said trucks!

@FriedrichBarb

3 жыл бұрын

"I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war, the most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war." -Joseph Stalin The United States shipped $50 billion ($608 billion in 2020 money) worth of materiel under the program, including $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union. In addition, much of the $31 billion worth of aid sent to the United Kingdom was also passed on to the Soviet Union via convoys through the Barents Sea to Murmansk. Most visibly, the United States provided the Soviet Union with more than 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 14,000 aircraft, 8,000 tractors and construction vehicles, and 13,000 battle tanks. However, the real significance of Lend-Lease for the Soviet war effort was that it covered the "sensitive points" of Soviet production -- gasoline, explosives, aluminum, nonferrous metals, radio communications, and so on, says historian Boris Sokolov. Under Lend-Lease, the United States provided more than one-third of all the explosives used by the Soviet Union during the war. The United States and the British Commonwealth provided 55 percent of all the aluminum the Soviet Union used during the war and more than 80 percent of the copper. Lend-Lease also sent aviation fuel equivalent to 57 percent of what the Soviet Union itself produced. Much of the American fuel was added to lower-grade Soviet fuel to produce the high-octane fuel needed by modern military aircraft. The Lend-Lease program also provided more than 35,000 radio sets and 32,000 motorcycles. When the war ended, almost 33 percent of all the Red Army's vehicles had been provided through Lend-Lease. More than 20,000 Katyusha mobile multiple-rocket launchers were mounted on the chassis of American Studebaker trucks.

@chuckschillingvideos

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrEmiosk That needed to come via lend lease, since the trucks ran on gasoline and the Soviets did not have adequate refining capacity to make adequate supplies of this product.

@MrEmiosk

3 жыл бұрын

@@chuckschillingvideos yes... it is said in the video... and the reason I said they had a lot of fuel to go around...

@RENEBACON

3 жыл бұрын

@@FriedrichBarb In the costs of war, these supplies accounted for less than 5% of weapons, about 11% of aircraft, 17% of the tank. There was much more "civilian equipment" - cars, motorcycles, but also textiles, shoes, food and other civilian needs. Unfortunately, the weapons could only be used in the summer, because they often froze in the winter due to their construction. I do not question this help in any way, but it is not worth revaluing it. Even without it, the USSR would have defended itself, but the war would probably last a year or two longer. Leningrad defended itself from its own resources, the advance before Moscow was also stopped by the Soviet army on its own. The USSR paid for these supplies - gold, diamonds. But the USA were not the only ones to help the USSR - for example, Iran supplied fuel to the USSR for most of the war at reduced prices, which was forced by the Allies. And surprisingly - Mongolia supplied about half a million horses, which were able and willing to work even in the freezing frosts. Mongolia also supplied large quantities of meat to the USSR during the war. While aid from the West is still being talked about, supplies from other countries are hardly talked about at all, although, for example, the supplies to the horse have been very significant and have resolved supply supplies in the rear even better than American cars.

TIK, keep on going bro, you are one of my favourite persons in the world due to this channel. Honestly thank you very much for the content you are producing, greetings from Perú!

i subscribe because of the first min of the video of you saying you anticipated and made this video i shall now binged watch this channel now

I have to say something about what you said at 1:15 more or less in the video. It is not true that critics are bad if you can predict them. If I say that the earth is flat and I predict a critic about actual footage from the space, that doesn't make the actual critic bad when somebody point it out. Edit: the time link now works

@NeiasaurusCreations

3 жыл бұрын

Well it is bad if they're so obvious with bad criticism he's already in the work to dispel it before they even move. I'd argue the criticism is bad because it's like they put 0 thought into why the situation isn't EXACTLY the same, despite all the variables that changed from 1941 to 1944-45 for the eastern front. In fact, I'd go as far as to say the situations in 41 and 44 are so completely different you'd have to be brain dead to think the scenario is the same. One look at raw numbers of the two forces facing each other down in 41 compared to 44 or 45 would tell you that the beast is entirely different. His point wasn't 'they're bad because I can predict them', but rather they're so bad I can predict they're bad criticism'. The two sentiments being completely different. One is saying they're bad because they can be predicted, the other is stating he can predict them because they're bad at it.

@shorewall

3 жыл бұрын

@@NeiasaurusCreations Yep. In the case of the Flat Earth example, they might predict the Footage from Space argument, but they cannot refute it, except by accusations of photoshop. :D Whereas TIK can predict and refute his critics.

@NeiasaurusCreations

3 жыл бұрын

@@shorewall Indeed.

@vilegione4569

3 жыл бұрын

@@NeiasaurusCreations you are right, my point is that only because the critic it's predictable it do not make it bad, or the critics bad. A critc is bad if it is false or fallacious, whether it is obvious or not, similarly those who write it.

We should just come together and form our own nation at this point

Nice one again. Many thanks.

Hey man, I love your videos. The length and depth of work really works good for me. I am a huge ww2 buff, got burned out for the bit, but your videos have bought back my love for it. One thing I really like is how you show how politics worked once applied. Your style and manner invites critics and debate, which I like, please don’t let it get to you. You do quility work

It would be great to see a video about land-lease towards the Sovietunion. I heard opinions that it was crucial, opinions that it was negligible. I heard that they supplied the majority of trucks and I heard that they supplied a minuscule percentage of tanks. What was the percentage of the supplies that were lost at see?

The Moscow museum to the Bolsha Voynya has a large section on Lend Lease and its contribution to winning the war. I was pleasantly surprised when I toured the newly opened museum in 1995, at the 50 year celebration of the Soviet victory over the Germans.

Great stuff . Thanks

THESE ARE SO GOOD DONT STOP!!

Exactly the question I wanted to ask. I assume they were even worst after the most important parts of the country were occupied. And Soviets did organised their industry to minimize the use of transports. (no sub-producers, build everything in one factory)

@jimthorne304

3 жыл бұрын

This is an important point that hasn't been mentioned. Not only did the Russians evolve a different production philosophy in order to lighten the burden on transport, they also 'value engineered' their tanks to use components of a lower standard but which would last for the six months or so that a tank would be in use; at the end of that time it would probably have been irreparably damaged. Germany, in contrast, was turning out beautifully engineered tanks, frequently modified, which led to lower production and greater difficulties in keeping them operational because the correct versions of components would not be available.

So basically: different circumstances lead to different outcomes?

@fedlad

3 жыл бұрын

Still would have lost the war ultimately as combination of various factors. However, with better logistics would have captured more Soviet territory including Moscow. Another very good video by TIK here

@lamwen03

3 жыл бұрын

@@fedlad Moscow was not the right goal. Ukraine food and Caucasus oil was what Germany needed.

Lend Lease was a great help to the Russians. One fact, not covered, was that each of the vehicles sent to Russia was LOADED with spare parts. Such as motor and transmission repair parts and complete engines, transmissions, drive assemblies, steering gear, shocks, and leaf springs, etc. It was said that the longshoremen who loaded these vehicles remarked that there were enough parts carried on the vehicles to build a second vehicle. Eisenhower commended that the Jeep was one of the items that won the war. Stalin said that it was the Studebaker. It's a tad hard to supply your troops when they are surrounded.

excellent work once again

When discussing supply chains the explosives supplied to Russia and vast quantities of locomotives 11000 and lathes and tyre factory’s x2 and vast quantities were sent via west USA to Russia to production facilities then to the front line, these supply lines or via Iran or north Russia were far greater than German logistics, allies logistics and production out performed German

@Mikhalych88

3 жыл бұрын

Sorry for nitpicking but I think you meant railway cars rather than locomotives.

@jasonharryphotog

3 жыл бұрын

@@Mikhalych88 i think you might be wrong on that

@FriedrichBarb

3 жыл бұрын

They weren't more automatized before the lend lease. "I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war, the most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war." -Joseph Stalin The United States shipped $50 billion ($608 billion in 2020 money) worth of materiel under the program, including $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union. In addition, much of the $31 billion worth of aid sent to the United Kingdom was also passed on to the Soviet Union via convoys through the Barents Sea to Murmansk. Most visibly, the United States provided the Soviet Union with more than 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 14,000 aircraft, 8,000 tractors and construction vehicles, and 13,000 battle tanks. However, the real significance of Lend-Lease for the Soviet war effort was that it covered the "sensitive points" of Soviet production -- gasoline, explosives, aluminum, nonferrous metals, radio communications, and so on, says historian Boris Sokolov. Under Lend-Lease, the United States provided more than one-third of all the explosives used by the Soviet Union during the war. The United States and the British Commonwealth provided 55 percent of all the aluminum the Soviet Union used during the war and more than 80 percent of the copper. Lend-Lease also sent aviation fuel equivalent to 57 percent of what the Soviet Union itself produced. Much of the American fuel was added to lower-grade Soviet fuel to produce the high-octane fuel needed by modern military aircraft. The Lend-Lease program also provided more than 35,000 radio sets and 32,000 motorcycles. When the war ended, almost 33 percent of all the Red Army's vehicles had been provided through Lend-Lease. More than 20,000 Katyusha mobile multiple-rocket launchers were mounted on the chassis of American Studebaker trucks.

@jasonharryphotog

3 жыл бұрын

@@FriedrichBarb it's all correct but also correct is that you can do things with tanks etc but maybe they are a bit overrated, with people you can achieve anything. It's a terribly sad time in history and one that my elders took an active part in on two fronts, one ending up a Lt. Col. The innocent stood up and loyalty did what they thought was required when they were acting on the failings of two or more? or groups of leaders who failed to act correctly at the right time Peace costs lives

@dmitryletov8138

Ай бұрын

2000 locomotives is the official and exact number, not 11000. USSR had 28000 pre-war locomotives, so these 2000 is just 6% of total. Please keep your propaganda vibes for the kids.

Socialism can do logistics, but it is like juggling. How well it is implemented depends on the juggler. So wartime which is easy to focus on for a centralized power, this has been done for centuries. When you throw in more and more things to juggle, the harder it gets. Capitalism can distribute more across a larger pool of jugglers making adjustments easier.

@forkstaf1918

3 жыл бұрын

Damn this is actually a pretty good explanation of it.

@Scrap_Lootaz

3 жыл бұрын

That's just in any army similar "jugglers making adjustments easier." may end up behind bars or in penal units. Because instead of increasing efficiency, they will make the logistics system more corrupt.

@gustaveliasson5395

3 жыл бұрын

No, sorry, that's not how competition works. When you have competition, somebody wins. When somebody wins, they've aquired a monopoly position. A monopoly centralizes power. It does not distribute it.

@kilyaproductions1385

3 жыл бұрын

@@gustaveliasson5395 except that it’s not 1 single competition that determines the permanent juggler. There are endless amounts of competitions, offering a chance for the best to win.

@rifleman4005

3 жыл бұрын

@@gustaveliasson5395 no sorry that's not how competion works. In capitalism competion is a constant.

As someone that works on the economic calculation problem in my university I did not expect to hear it in a video about war.

During Op. Typhoon AG 'Centre' needed 19,000 tons of supplies every day yet they were receving only 6,500 tons from 1 grosstransportraum regiment. Also they couldn't even muster reserves in 4 train stations close to AG 'Centre'. This resulted in huge supply issues. Eg Guderian's 2nd Panzer most of the time had only fuel for 1-2 panzer divisions (mostly 4th Panzer Division from XXIV Panzer Corps) of its 5 for 70-100km on single refueling

Great as always TIK and helps explain lots of other aspects. I have finished reading Vasily Grossman's novel Stalingrad in its repaired uncensored version (it was originally published under the title For a Just Cause). Even in its hyper patriotic genre, two big things are apparent: 1) The Soviet people survived by barter - particularly food. They got any immediately available food and would barter it where they could. They would barter anything for anything on the non-food front too. They could not live by rationing alone. Those in charge of supplies are always diverting stores to get favours. The black market network was extensive. 2) The author mentioned US trucks pulling anti-tank guns and driving logistics. There is also a surreal moment where a US parcel from American women to Soviet women at the front is opened and the Soviet female nurse is bemused to find it contains, perfume, lotion, stockings, a fancy dress and a dressing gown. While the author would claim to the Stalinist censors that this pointed out the idle pursuit of the war by the capitalist nations, you can clearly see how it revealed how Communism had actually failed to provide the products and quantities that its citizens needed. Capitalism had so much surplus that it could produce such fripperies.

@thedevilneveraskstwice7027

3 жыл бұрын

amen

@sharefactor

3 жыл бұрын

Interesting! Thanks :)

@kernowpolski

3 жыл бұрын

@Justus Immelmann Yes Grossman refers to tinned meat in the novel as well and to a Soviet reader it would be clear what this referred to, as the Soviets did not produce tinned meat until US spam arrived and Stalin liked the idea but didn't want it to show how poor Soviet supplies were. After the war tinned meat stew became a staple Soviet army and civilian diet. Another example of Soviet reverse engineering.

@kernowpolski

3 жыл бұрын

@osamu takeda Actually Lebanon was doing really well until it was plunged into a religious civil war in the 70s and never recovered. The Philippines isn't a capitalist country it was a dictatorship for decades and remains a US/Spanish post-colonial mess, currently run by an elected autocrat. Your cherry picking doesn't address the points made in any way. You seem to think capitalism is an ideology - it is not, it is merely an economic system derived from the free market. Communism is an ideology that seeks to total change the human mindset and replace it with something intrinsically alien to human nature. The two are typically placed in a false opposition, because of Marx's theories which are outdated and have been demonstrably proven wrong by history. Russia had all the ingredients to become the next USA at the start of the 20th Century - vast natural resources, a huge labour force and a population with some technical genius. All of that was burnt in the pyre of Communist ideology along with the death of millions. In order to survive people had to participate in a culture of lying and corruption, culminating in the near global catastrophe of Chernobyl. Russia is culturally limited by the major impetus of societal change having to come from the central government, thus they exchanged the tyrannical and corrupt autocracy of the Czar for that of Lenin and Stalin. You should try reading some Russian and history and literature to get a better appreciation of this.

@kernowpolski

3 жыл бұрын

@osamu takeda How very mature of you...

Maybe the Soviet payment in gold and inability to "pay with paper" had to do with the Ruble being a closed currency so it didn't have value outside of the country, so they needed to exchange with something else of value.

@alanpennie8013

3 жыл бұрын

Indeed. The Russians could have paid with natural resources, but the Americans had plenty of those.

@i-etranger

3 жыл бұрын

i doubt UK paid LL in paper. and i think definitely not in UK paper since the debt was in USD. Now you can say that instead of paying in gold, which UK could not produce, it paid US with goods and services, which is rather equivalent to gold. I think TIK was in a spiral he just could not stop. :)

@88porpoise

3 жыл бұрын

I assume that was mostly a joke. At the time such transactions between countries were completed in gold. One of the reasons lend-lease was put into place was that the British were rapidly exhausting their gold reserves under cash and carry. In addition the gold and other rare materials were transferred to the US during the war as per the lens-lease agreement. The Soviets weren’t exactly in a position to ignore their obligations at that time. When the Soviets finally made payments for lend-lease in the seventies it was a complex transaction about trade agreements etc.

@ThumperLust

3 жыл бұрын

They also paid in diamonds, platinum and chrome ore. A lot of chrome too.

@frederiquecouture3924

11 ай бұрын

Aurevoir Minerve.

As ever, very knowledgeable and an in depth answer, I wish I could support you as a patreon but my own financial logistics are a bit limited, I'm affraid😉. I certainly am a big fan as a fellow historian so I will be taking in all your great content and theories!

lol... I enjoyed this so much can't wait for the next one

Perhaps a monarchical government like in WWI Russia, which barely supplied any bullets at all, was the way to proceed.

@KatanamasterV

3 жыл бұрын

Take a look at the movement of the front lines in WW1 and ask yourself, if they "barely supplied any bullets" how those movements (and concomitant offensive and defensive actions) occurred. I'm not stating that the Russian Empire ran an effective or efficient logistical system in WW1 but if the Imperial Russian Army received no supplies how the heck did it stay in action for 3 years against the Imperial German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires? You're perhaps trying for a politcal own on TIK regarding the methods of governance but if you take a close look at what happened to cause the Russian Empire's logistical (and other domestic) failures in WW1 and then take a look at where the Soviet Union was most significantly assisted by Lend-Lease you might notice some interesting things.

@pozhiloy_monstr

2 жыл бұрын

@@KatanamasterV the Russian Empire received supplies. She received Japanese arisaka rifles (a Fedorov submachine gun was later made for their caliber), light machine guns, Adrian's helmets, shoes and much more. And the front did not move for one simple reason, it was a peripheral front, which after the defeat at Tannenberg could not significantly change the situation. It is enough to look at the number of German troops on the western front and on the eastern front. Yes, there was a Brusilov breakthrough, but it was a tactical victory that eventually led to nothing.

@KatanamasterV

2 жыл бұрын

@@pozhiloy_monstr 1. I agree that they received some from the Japanese, as well as others, but manufactured more, both supplies and weapons, than they received from all other parties combined. The Russians however were chronically short of arms, ammo, and all types of equipment. Doesn't change that the Russian Empire did supply vast quantities of material to the army, just not enough of it. Given the size and scale of the conflict though running short is not exactly surprising. 2. I recommend you recheck your maps for the war, secondary front or not (and I think thats debatable if you include the numbers of Austro-Hungarian and Turkish troops instead of just the German numbers) the Russian front moved alot at the tactical and operational levels after Tannenburg and aftermath especially in the south, just not so much the strategic level. German centric view misses a ton of the Eastern Front action in WW1.

@pozhiloy_monstr

2 жыл бұрын

@@KatanamasterV the number of Turkish troops was not too large simply because of the geographical features of the front. The number of Turkish troops rarely fell over 300,000 people. As for the material equipment of the Turkish army, everything was even worse here than in the Russian one, so it is at least strange to perceive Turkey as a serious enemy.As for Austria-Hungary, it is also not the strongest opponent due to internal conflicts and weak industry. In addition, the Austro-Hungarians, in addition to everything else, had to fight in the Balkans and in Italy. Maybe there were tactical successes after Tannenberg, but this did not save Russia from a strategic failure, as a result, Russia lost Poland and the Baltic States, there was a relatively powerful industry in the Baltic states (the Russobalt factory), and in Poland a high-quality railway network built with French money. As for the German-oriented view, yes, you are right, the battle of Moonsund is very often overlooked, which in fact was based on the principle: "as long as they don't rub under their feet."

Lend Lease also provided nearly all new rail rolling stock introduced between 42 and 45.

I'm so happy I've found your channel.

Hey TIK. i never usually commented onyour videos because i usuall liked i and repeated watching your videos. but i want to say.there is almost no channel that have ever been more inspiring in persuing hsitory tahn your's. keep the amazing work up! i love your channel!

Great narrative. Going through Infantry Officers Candidate School during the Vietnam War and spending a year running supply convoys I can say that the USA military totally appreciates the importance of logistics in winning wars.

Thanks for all your hard work to give us this information. Rock on TIK

Lots of variables. Industrial base capability, logistics infrastructure, packaging, shipping queues, etc. which is why the US has dedicated government facilities for manufacturing military unique items (tanks, ammo, etc.). A US Army division ships with 30 days of supplies. Which is why the Army should buy dedicated shipping containers that convert to housing (an almost instant base). You can see entire base concept models where containers are used for almost everything (walls, guard towers, hospitals, housing, motor pools, revetments, etc.). For an Army on the move, digging in every night is a huge time consuming workload ...which is why trenching machines (Ditch Witch) would be very useful. The British logistics study found a huge % of manpower on the battlefield was ordering, organizing, unpacking/packing, and shipping supplies. The US Army switched to standardized sets that were shipped forward. Most of the $1m/Soldier cost per year in Afghan was logistics. The USMC FOB energy experiment was successful in that it saved moving tons of fuel. Remember a division is a small city with all the functions of a city. The logistics tail being a point of vulnerability. Which is why the Atlantic seabed is a boat graveyard. I’d also argue that targeting should be revisited. If you need to destroy 30 tanks, you need mass target solutions (say a hypothetical 120mm smart Metal Storm mortar system)(or see DARPA’s solution) vs individually shooting 30 + missiles to kill 30 tanks. The Gorman targeting study basically concluded the defender couldn't shoot fast enough to stop a Soviet swarming attack. See kzread.info/dash/bejne/oqWOqMtpmrHAlKw.html as well.

you are my Favorite channel here on youtube great stuff .. keep it up

I think in this case you're actually blinded by your ideology. Or you haven't explained your point very well in your first video. I cannot understand how you could organize a war economy with a free market. The Americans and the British hadn't a free market either. The politicians gave orders to the army, the army told them what that would cost and then the politicians either stole the money from the tax payer, or they printed money. I don't see, how this is a free market. Even worse, I don't see how you could organize a "free market war" at all. People generally don't kill each other for money, and especially not if the risk is so high, like in ww2. They would just buy the resources of the east, from the people in the east. It's easier, safer and cheaper.

@alanpennie8013

3 жыл бұрын

You can't. That's why the Soviet economy was rather well suited to wartime conditions.

@88porpoise

3 жыл бұрын

I can agree with this. You could definitely argue that the pre-war competitive economy put the US in a better position for the war (although I would challenge that, as I suspect that the massive strides towards industrialization that the Soviet Union made in the 1920s and 1930s needed a control economy, and a government that didn’t care much about the millions who suffered and died to achieve it), but the US government exerted massive control over private businesses during the war. They would tell companies “you make this in these quantities” or “you aren’t making enough, this other company will make them too at this royalty”. The US government determined who got what raw materials to use in production and told them what civilian goods they weren’t allowed to produce. Oh, the Soviet economic system definitely created issues before, during, and after the Second World War but it also had benefits in rapid industrialization and concentrating the economy on the military.

@chaosXP3RT

3 жыл бұрын

You can't steal money from a tax payer. It's already stolen. In the USSR, the factories are government owned. In the USA, the government hired companies to make product, but the companies were still their own independent entities

@chaosXP3RT

3 жыл бұрын

You have no idea what a Free Market or Capitalism is and it shows

Hurra monday

@TheImperatorKnight

3 жыл бұрын

Second!

@oceanmadrosci3381

3 жыл бұрын

i expected this wideo

PS. It is important to note that the very same "Studebackers" that were so important for the war-effort were also delivering PRISONERS - and I do not mean any "German POWs" but POLITICAL PRISONERS from the Central/Western regions of the USSR to the GULAGS both in the North of the Urals - as the ones in the "far East", like the GULAGS OF THE KOLYMA. You can catch a glimpse and a description of the "American Studery's" in one of the "KOLYMA TALES" written by Varlam Shalmov - a pisoner of the Kolyma himself. I don't remember the title of the tale exactly (I think it was "The Thermometer Of Grishka Logun") - but you can find out which one it was by READING THEM. The descirption of how the hungry prisoners used to lick the barrels of glicerine delivered on the trucks, and how "sweet" glicerine tasted was "vivid" enough. PS. Warning ...a very un-popular lecture among modern day communist revisionists in the East and the "Champagne communists" in the West, by the way! >: ) ...

Your balance as a historian is impressive and appreciated.

I would also argue that smaller size of Soviet units had some impact on ability of Red Army to support more units and to perform strategic redeployments from one area to another.

@aleksaradojicic8114

3 жыл бұрын

@@dbenson3114 That was still possible as smaller size gave Red Army ability to concentrate more units in same area. Real downside of smaller size was inability of Red Army units to handle losses.

Great video. I remember reading Von Mellinthin's Panzer Battles that his discussion of Russian operations as referring to the Americans putting the Red Army on wheels, which is why they were so much more mobile than the Germans ever were.

@RENEBACON

3 жыл бұрын

In the costs of war, these supplies accounted for less than 5% of weapons, about 11% of aircraft, 17% of the tank. There was much more "civilian equipment" - cars, motorcycles, but also textiles, shoes, food and other civilian needs. Unfortunately, the weapons could only be used in the summer, because they often froze in the winter due to their construction. I do not question this help in any way, but it is not worth revaluing it. Even without it, the USSR would have defended itself, but the war would probably last a year or two longer. Leningrad defended itself from its own resources, the advance before Moscow was also stopped by the Soviet army on its own. The USSR paid for these supplies - gold, diamonds. But the USA were not the only ones to help the USSR - for example, Iran supplied fuel to the USSR for most of the war at reduced prices, which was forced by the Allies. And surprisingly - Mongolia supplied about half a million horses, which were able and willing to work even in the freezing frosts. Mongolia also supplied large quantities of meat to the USSR during the war. While aid from the West is still being talked about, supplies from other countries are hardly talked about at all, although, for example, the supplies to the horse have been very significant and have resolved supply supplies in the rear even better than American cars.

@bretrudeseal4314

3 жыл бұрын

@@RENEBACON If western aid was so useless, why was Stalin whining for arctic convoys and a second front throughout the war. The fact of the matter is that a second front was in being at all times. The battle of the Atlantic, the Mediterranean theater, and after Pearl Harbor, the Pacific War which released Siberian units from the Japanese front. No allies, no Persian oil as that would have been kept by the US and Britain. This is not to diminish the accomplishment of Russia during WWII, but noone should underestimate the contributions the Allies made in support of each other during the war. One should also keep in mind that while the West aided Russia against Hitler, no such support came from Russia in regards to the Japanese. It was only after the war was practically over the Russia broke its non-aggression pact with Japan.

@RENEBACON

3 жыл бұрын

@@bretrudeseal4314 usa aid in one sentense: ´we will watch and at right time join the right side´ H Truman

@dusk6159

2 жыл бұрын

@@RENEBACON Your "sentense" is bullshit. The US were supplying the Allies before 1941 and the SU after 1941, and were destroying Germany by air and Japan all-around by 1942, even getting into the ground vs Germany and Italy by 1943.

@dusk6159

2 жыл бұрын

@@RENEBACON If anything it was the SU (which was huge in Europe, of course) that pounced at the right moment when the US cleaned up the problem in Asia.

Love your show man!

thank you for answering the question - Nikolaj

Repost from the last logistics video since I posted late there. Also international womens day so if people don't read they get canceled (XD JK) Interesting note tik: Though obviously the roman republic/empire had drastic changes throughout its existence. In many points from the pre marian republic into the 2nd century there are documents illustrating that soldiers did buy their ration supplies and could buy from wandering traders who followed the armies. These traders also sold all goods that were not strictly necessities like wider varieties of drinks/foods. The romans are also noted for having legendary logistical abilities for a pre modern army (less so than many modern armies but we are talking about the horse being the fastest land communication available here versus telegrams/radio which is almost instant). This actually I think adds some validity to your argument regarding a "free market army" as it were.

@shorewall

3 жыл бұрын

That's interesting. I have long thought that the strength of the Roman Legions were their logistics. People talk about their weapons, their discipline and fighting spirit. And I just notice their manpower, their equipment and food, their camps and roads. :D

@Hetschoter

3 жыл бұрын

Paradoxically it is the opposite. A bunch of people can carry the same amount of stuff in roughly the same time as traditional horse/oxen drawn wagon. Trains and trucks have changed this. Also roman legions were not dependent on ammunition supply, especially not on large caliber field artillery shells (which is not something, that you can create locally and demand for it is only by the military). By all this I'm not saying you cannot draw parallels, but the differences would be too large to ignore. You could do it with armies right up until napoleonic wars (from top of my head).

@FifinatorKlon

3 жыл бұрын

This was fairly common in medieval times in Central Europe as well, actually. In German this was called "Tross". It also included soldiers' wives and children at times. That article got it wrong in German though, it's not exclusive to Landsknecht-regiments. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tross

@janehrahan5116

3 жыл бұрын

@@Hetschoter I would argue that it evens out in difficulty when you remember the far lower individual productivity in pre modern warfare. Sure there are fewer variables to consider but those variables are far more expensive in terms of equipping the men involved, and each man removed from the home labor pool is far more harmful due to the lower population.

Excellent video as all way but there are some stuffs that I want to point out . The Soviet truck production is kinda misleading because the Red army converted many civilian trucks into military trucks because they were identical to each other so it was easier as USSR produced one type of truck for everything, also the left over trucks that survived the 41 onslaught was also pretty considerable. The Lendlease trucks did help though as they were more powerfull than Soviet ones the best Soviet truck the Zis-5V could only carry 6 ton while Western trucks usually about 10 ton.Secondly is that the Soviet actually had a huge garrison in the Far East about 40 division ,though mostly had second rate equipments but Japanese land forces is really lack luster and even with the SU focus mainly on Europe they would barely achieve anything if they attacked.

@simplicius11

3 жыл бұрын

"the Zis-5V could only carry 6 ton while Western trucks usually about 10 ton" You're wrong here. And the Soviets were the No.1 truck producer in Europe before the war (150,000-200,000 per year). It is simple, they could get trucks from the US, so they switched their capacities to light tanks and armored cars. Those light tanks were not much successful, but it's better to have them than not. If there was no LL trucks they would produce their own.

@iankerridge5720

3 жыл бұрын

The Soviets may have started with significant forces facing the Japanese, but their spy network in Japan and Germany discovered that the Japanese had no intention of fighting the USSR as well as the USA and China, etc. Stalin was even convinced of this ( no mean feat, as he distrusted intelligence info deeply) and so the USSR did move many of those resources West to engage the Germans later.

@konstantinkelekhsaev302

3 жыл бұрын

@@iankerridge5720 Red Army always kept at least 1-1.5 million men stationed against Japan.

@lamwen03

3 жыл бұрын

@@konstantinkelekhsaev302 Probably even today. Although now perhaps more aimed at China.

@chaosXP3RT

3 жыл бұрын

"Western Trucks" It's that difficult to say "American Trucks" isn't it?

Excellent video!

Good video!

I think an interesting hypothetical to test the veracity of Lend-Lease would be to explore what might the outcome have been if America had supplied Germany with the same truck resources + fuel . . . from 1942 onwards.

@a-drewg1716

3 жыл бұрын

well considering that Germany was always in desperate need of fuel that alone would have made a difference and the trucks would have allows Germany to be capable of a far greater level of motorization then it was ever able to achieve (I believe at its height it was 20% motorized)