Відео

1:21:15 Written to Franz Urbig, German banker and also Disconto-Gesellschaft.

39:30 actually this was a joke not used as a joke in Germoney.

There is so much nonsense crap "facts" in this introduction, thank god Stahel is the main speaker.

As very common for western lecturers he is totally silent about multimonth tripartite talks in Moscow on stopping Hitler between Britain and France on one side and USSR on the other. These talks were totally fruitless because both British and French delegations had no authority for signing any binding agreement. The British delegation had also specific instructions not to tell anything meaningful to the Soviets altogether. Only after many months of absolutely meaningless negotiations Stalin decided on changing the course. By the way, the lecturer carelessly says "foreign minister Molotov". He forgot to mention that Molotov had been appointed only recently when the talks in Moscow became a failure. Before that, Stalin's long time foreign minister was Maxim Litvinov - a staunch Anglophyl who was even married to an Englishwoman. In fact, Soviet foreign ministry under Litvinov was his personal domain. So you may definitely say that it were the British who made everything to change him for Molotov. Second: you have to remember the Munich agreement. Yes, the Western sources condemn it but only relating to surrendering Chechoslovakia. But in fact, the Munich deal had a second important consequence: throwing the USSR out of European politics. The leading western democracies acted so as the USSR doesn't exist at all and any agreements with it are useless. Yes, it was Chamberlain's success, the Soviet Union was totally isolated right before the war. Having started negotiations in Moscow Stalin hoped this isolation would be gone. This hope proved to be wrong. And in the end Stalin faced the perspective to be left with Nazi Germany alone without any allies. Very bleak perspective. And at that moment the German proposal came. Unlike British and French stance, the Germans were fully businesslike. The essence of these proposals were: we mustn't necessarily be friends, but let's define clearly our spheres of interest and agreee not no meddle in each other's affairs. Stalin's reaction was obvious. And then, when the WW2 began and the British were trying again to woo Stalin, he answered gloatingly: Gentlemen, you had been trying so hard to throw me out of European politics. Ok, you won, I left. What's wrong this time?

Never realized that because the nazis attack in Greece, this caused them take their operation in Russia as a late start ( thus having to deal with a russian winter).

Nothing is FREE...the American tax payer pays for it....

Nothing is FREE...the American tax payer pays for it....

Fantastic lecture. Dr. Stahel appears here: 25:24

I thought you had a special guest. Were you supposed to give his address?

I found his book on Operation Barbarossa rather skewed. He cannot seem to allow Germany the credit of winning a single victory throughout the 3 army groups in the initial stages of the campaign rather he pins everything down to Soviet ineptitude, although in critiquing German armour from the onset, he states it was woefully underarmoured. So which is it? I suspect the initial successes can be any reason other than Germany's then ability to wage war well. He is of course one of the many students of Glantz so this is to be expected. But what I find bizarre with many of the current historians is this narrative of the Germans not coming close to destroying the Soviet Union which, let's be honest, is a far cry from the truth of the matter. Regarding Barbarossa he puts forward the legitimate argument that Germany was woefully under powered for invasion due to its haphazard design, armour, and planning, highlighting issues within logistics, production, and command fractures. Yet he doesn't seem to acknowledge that based on poor intelligence Germany was building for a rapid victory, crushing the bulk of the Soviet forces west of Dnper and Dvina rivers. With this in mind, can one honestly state Barbarossa's strategic direction to be a failure? Obviously it was, but not for the reasons he puts forward. And now there's a multitude of armchair historians echoing this revisionism that Germany never came close because of issues mentioned above, and that Germany never stood a chance. I'm quite sure had the French stopped Hitler in 1940 we'd be having this conversation today about how badly planned Case Yellow was on Germany's part. Just a few thoughts.

In September 1939 when National Socialist Germany and Soviet Russia invaded Poland the Communist had already murdered between 50-75 million innocent people and the National Socialist had Not murdered their 1st thousand innocent people! But we are told that the British and French declared War on Germany and Not on Soviet Russia because they could only confront 1 enemy at a time and it was obvious who the greater Evil was!!! Makes perfect logical sense!?? I Guess that most Historians don't bother building the timeline & retaining the information but once it is done you will find many holes in the official narrative

This fun fact gets me banned for hate speech

By the end of the war the Soviet military will exceed 37 million in their armed forces! The Germans lost the 6th army with 300 k men and equipment @ Stalingrad and was never able to conduct another major offensive again. The Germans had inflicted about 7 times the amount of losses on the Soviets in the 1st 6 months and yet the Soviet Colossus continued to grow & swell

all the houses around the lake make nitrogen ,shit!!! do not do that ,you are polluted, period, it is no mystery, politicians that run the area are neglecting their jobs ,I grew up in Holland area I have a BS Nat RES UM

Interesting how newer studies like those by Andres Resendez counter the argument that disease was the main culprit in native losses, in his accounts it shows that Spanish enslavement, us indentured servitude, and the complications following from that unjust labor system were to blame for the almost extermination of the Native American Indian. Spain enslaved virtually all of North America, and the United States came by right after and enslaved the rest, even sent them to Europe and down south. It was assumed that this was the case because speculators agreed that native slaves were easier to locate, less costly, and more efficient than their African slaves, and could be imported without having to cross the oceans or deal with transportation complications. In addition, there’s was an abundance of them, and Spain even has stated they were in such a vulnerable position to colonization that it would only take a mere “ few hundred well trained conquistadors to conquer all of the said territory, or all of the West Indies”

Muskegon, Michigan history-- all of these real people and their families...is just absolutely fascinating to me. Thank you for doing all the work to help this important history to stay alive!

Excellent discourse on the Barnarosa.

I like that question he said Who are they.. 😊 they're like mushrooms popping up in the field. You'll know that when you see them.

🙏😇❤️🏳️‍🌈

Clarence Boddicker?

disappointing

Because kepford was half Jewish he was never given awards such as medal of honor while other pilots who didn't do crap got MOH and Navy Cross! Ike was a American Hero!!

*Promo sm*

The role* and influence

Equity and diversity in the same time and space is logical fallacy!

The game just went out for those online as an FYI

Reiterating old myths and dogmas

One of the best explanations I have heard why wear and tear wore down and wrecked the German Army in the East. An army designed for Central European conditions is woefully unprepared for conditiins in Russia.

Her examples of accusations against enemies foreign or political remind me of Q anon beliefs that Democrats run child pornography rings or of suggestions that Disney co. encourages pederasty. Will historians debate one the day the veracity of these claims?

Thanks, Dr. Selmon and all of our uniquely talented students for making this a year of growth and learning!

💛💚

Why did the stream end before time was up?

Crete was NOT the first deployment of German paratroopers in WW2.

Such a great program!! Some of the best professors I’ve had!

A lot of interesting things, but also a lot of false statements.

Love it!

Classic example of how NOT to introduce a speaker! Wasting 35 minutes to serve own unbridled ego: Trying to give the speech for him!

Eduardo Verdugo looks like an amazing player !! Looking after to see what he does the rest of the season. Lets go JayHawks !! 💪💪

Excellent lecture. Most US Americans are totally ignorant of world affairs and history. They swallow the garbage fed to them by Washington, the CIA, and the compliant and subservient media. Most Americans would sum up WW2 as: "Hitler was an evil guy who killed 6 million Jews. The Americans saved the world and won the war when they landed in Normandy in 1944".

Great video!🤩🤩🤩

Why did Hitler do it? That's an easy question to answer. The German experience of WW1- the dependency on foreign imports led to famine and defeat. Hitler wanted German hegemony in Europe, that was the goal. To achieve lasting hegemony he needed unlimited food and resources to wage war indefinitely and the only place that had those resources was the Soviet Union. The racial hatreds were justification.

David Stahel books are amazing

Nice job

I stopped watching on 11 min 32 seconds. Stalin did nor eradicate the "best$ commanders and generals. All of them were Civil War heroes, but none had Blitzkrieg experience and how to deal with that. More, lector has no idea what happened in purge 1937. The problem was that in 1939 Red my were only 600,000 bayonets, but in 1951 5,000,000. Rapid expansion of quantity did no sync with low level commanders, like sergeants and lieutenants. Sometimes they were promoted from privates, because they had school education. In Nazi army low level commanders had an autonomy, in Red army everything was by order, no any deviation, or court marshal. Same was with weapons. It was old and in great shortage. Remember that Germany started war in 1936 and in 1940 defeated Frans and Britain. Red Army was operating in peace time, so mobilization was partial. For example, transportation was planned to be taken from civilian transportation, because country was able to produce only for civilian needs and some for military. When Germans attacked, many regiments was not fully mobilized and took their last stand as a heroes, buying time to other divisions and armies to get ready. Americans were sitting behind Atlantic ocean and were are not invaded by Nazi the best War machine. So, this lector is full of BS.

One correction here Bulgaria never sent any troops to the eastern front. Hi is confusing with Hungary

Thank you so much, what an amazing lecture!

One minor correction or addition: The Operation Barbarossa was named after Frederick Barbarossa not because of anything he did during his life but because of the "barbarossa myth" that happened after it. The myth goes that KIng Barbarossa didnt really die but instead is sleeping under a german mountain (dont remeber the specific one). He would only awaken in Germanys greatest need to restore Germany to its glory, and most importantly, fight the final battle against the forces of evil to crush them once and for all. For the nazis, the soviet union was the worst thing in human existance and they considered it basically a crusade against "evil". By naming it after this King (who was successfull in restoring the HRE) they tried to make a connection that this was THE BATTLE of battles and that fortune, as was in the past, would be with them .

yea.... we aint going to no games my nigga