Historian Reacts - GERMANY COULD NOT WIN WW2 (part 1) by Potential History
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 мар 2021
- See the original video here - • Germany Could Not Win WW2
Enter the giveaway here - gleam.io/competitions/1ADyV-v...
Become a supporter through Patreon for exclusive supporter rewards - / vth
If you want to see more of this, make sure to hit LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, and leave a comment! And if you'd like to have more input into the future of the channel, consider joining my patron team. Thank you in advance!
Our discord mods have graciously set up a fundraiser to send VTH to Europe to make videos for the channel - www.gofundme.com/f/hgg-vth-tr...
Check out History Guy Gaming (my strategy gaming channel) - / @thehistoryguy
Updated link for Discord - / discord
Twitter - / thehistoryguy25
For business inquiries contact: vloggingthroughhistory@gmail.com
Special Thanks to the following who are the official sponsors of this channel:
Tier 6 - Mike Tasset, Insane, Daniel Nimko, Ziv
Tier 5 - Kai Stasch
Tier 4 - Graham Brown, Sandor Nagy, Derek Wohl
Tier 3 - Qethsegol, Robin Svensson, Austin White, Chris Curtis, John Molden, Peter Gadja, Raoul Kunz, Typhon, SGTMcAllen, David Storey
#History #WW2
"I don't know anyone who wishes Germany won WW2."
Welcome to the internet, you must be new here.
@@thehorsecockexpress1068 Stalin literally didn’t slaughter 6 tims more lmao, j getting ur stats from an already debunked myth. Not saying Stalin was good, but hes nowhere close to being Hitler
@Dripstein holodomor is not a thing
@Dripstein 10 Million ? Really ?
@@thehorsecockexpress1068 Lol 6 times...I thought it was way more...
@@pauldezv5884 Lol he probably thinks the Katyn Massacre was the Germans after being taught it in his Commie schooling
I really like how you don't just sit and nod and laugh at a few jokes like most reaction content. You actually interact with the video, make criticisms, qualifications, etc. It's a more engaging type of video to watch.
I love when people can actually enrich the material they react to. Also look for Mr. Terry's videos for the same feel.
@@Kastor774 mr terry rambles on more tho
I hate reaction content that’s all facial expressions and fake laughing
Totally agree. Most reaction videos are very lazy click bait.
This commentary enriches the content.
I agree
The Manhatten Project really was massive. At one point there was like 40 facilities all over the US working on it. Germany couldn't have done that in war time.
Canada too
@@PotentialHistory I didn't know Canada was involved? Learn something new...
@@v2153 Uranium.
10% of all the electricity in the USA was used for it as well. Ten percent of the largest economy in the world's electrical supplies. Nobody else had even close to that ability.
@@squamish4244 well germany could have used the occupied countries industry. but the biggest problem is that hitler thought of the technology as jewish plus what many people forget before the nazis came into power many nobel prizes in physik math and chemistry were going to german scientists which fled the country thx to the nazis and help the us.
One point that you missed about Japan's lack of involvement in the Soviet Union was the fact that the Japanese had some really bad experiences with the Chinese and were tied in an attrition campaign with them, so they were understandably pessimistic about the idea of invading another large country like the USSR , they simply saw many similarities with China and wanted nothing to do with it.
The Japanese army tried to engage with Soviet Union two times: at Lake Khasan in 1938 and at Khalkhin-Gol River in 1939. Was beaten to a pulp both times. A very humbling and sobering experience - assuming the Japs had enough of neither tanks nor anti-tanks weapons even in 1945.
Japan was really in a bad spot snd thought attacking the US was the best bad option, too bad the US still fucked them up insanely bad lmao
Not only that, but the Japanese and the Soviets had already fought a series of battles along the border between Manchukuo and Siberia, usually referred to as Kalanin Gol, in 1939. The Soviets gave Japan quite the bloody nose, and convinced their leadership that they were not ready to take on the USSR.
Fun fact: one of the senior Soviet military leaders was Gregory Zhukov, he who was perhaps most responsible for the Soviet portion of defeating Germany.
@Mustapha1963 The Japanese lost the battle, but they gave the soviets a bloody nose, the soviets had what 3 times the men 5 times the tank's and had aircraft for the whole conflict, they had better and more equipment in every way yet had less casualties and lost less equipment to a force that should have obliterated them.
The Japanese cancelled their planned invasion of the USSR on the 9th of august 1941 after the USA oil embargo on the first the invasionwas for September 1941. The invasion was (KANTOKUEN) if you wish to do some research.
The Collier's Student Encyclopedia, 1973 edition, in its article about W.W. II posits that one of the fatal mistakes Germany made was delaying Operation Barbarossa by more than 6 weeks due to the perceived need to punish Yugoslavia and Greece first for their "impertinence". The disruption those two countries played to the German plans can certainly in large part be laid at the feet of the utter incompetence of Germany's dubious ally, Italy...
"I don't know anyone who wishes Germany won WW2."
Oh my sweet summer child
I had the same thought. Most mfs who wish that would usually be the first to go though
@@ChronicAndIronic I wanted Germany to win because I like their uniforms and weaponry... that was before I learned about the atrocities they committed.
Before anyone accused me of supporting Nazism or their racist Ideologies, I’ll let you all know that I was just a kid at that time and I have no knowledge of what WW2 is other than the fact that 6 year old me just finds their uniforms and weapons cool. But when I learnt what they did, f*ck that.
@@apolloknight9521literally 6yo me
@@apolloknight9521 same...
edgy 12 year old boys
"I don't know anyone who wishes Germany won WW2."
Dear god, never look at the hearts of iron community then lol.
to be fair most of the hearts of iron people I know do enjoy playing as germany but they don't have any inspiration that Germany should have won WWII.
@@xxhowisuxx I know, It's just a bit of a joke on how HOI4 community tends to over-obse about scenarios where the mean Charlie Chaplin look-a-like won WW2.
Ah yes the hoi4 community
Reject the Germaboos of the HOI4 community, embrace the minor country players
@@mikeytrains1 Yeah, Germany is pretty boring to play. Used to always play as Germany when I was new to the game but playing with countries like Sweden, the Netherlands or Hungary is so much more fun
20:30 "We would've probably destroyed any facilities that were working on those things." We actually did coordinate a bombing and sabotage of a heavy water plant in Norway out of nuclear concerns. That said, the German nuclear program had no chance of getting off the ground either way, but I did want to mention support for that statement.
the bombing barely hurt the facility though, the planted bombs are what took it out.
also the bombing actually killed civilians from families i happen to know while also destroying homes
@@christiannicolasborgenstee3092 Yes, the sabotage is what stopped the facility. I included mention of the bombing operation as it is one more effort that was used to reach the same goal.
Sorry for your loss. Far too many die in war.
@@morganmcallister2001 just wanted to mention it, i never meant to come across as judgemental or whatever🙂
Didn't the Nazi's hamper their own nuclear program at first due to expelling Jewish scientists?
There was an allied spy in Switzerland who was close to the head of the Nazi’s Nuclear program he was given orders in 43 that if the Germans were close to making one or even close to figuring it out the scientist was to be assassinate. The head of the Nazi’s nuclear program would see the head end of the war.
I agree that basically nobody (at least, that I've personally met) wishes Germany had won. But the thought of "could they have won if they'd made better decisions?" is still quite tantalizing because if an Axis victory was actually possible, then the historical Allied successes were much more epic and meaningful. In America, there's something of a myth that the Union was "saved at Gettysburg" (highly unlikely, Lee's army would have never been able to seize Washington) for the same reason.
Yeah I never bought that. Huge civil war buff and honestly the only was the South could have possible won was if the Europeans powers got involved. The Union could have lost every piece of equipment and man at Gettysburg and still won the war. It would have probably taken longer but that was a war that was as close to inevitable as it comes.
@@123chargeitFrom a military standpoint, I agree with you. But war is never independent of politics, and if Lincoln had been voted out of office in 1864 by a peace candidate the South would have won by default. That actually came closer to happening than you might think--Grant's campaign against Lee was so costly that it provoked an outcry in the North. But Sherman's breakthrough and March to the Sea convinced the public that victory was in sight, ensuring Lincoln's reelection.
As a Ukrainian, I would say that "the Ukraine" may be appropriate when referring to the region when it was part of the Soviet Union and earlier eras. When referring to the modern day country, it's definitely just "Ukraine".
I dunno hitler thought keiv ( the capital) was massive political W. He literally mucked up the already messy the russia campaign for it. Thus i think it might be important to mention the country
Nonsense. It always used to be "the Ukraine". Over time, we've dropped the definite article. One isn't more correct than the other, it's just an evolution of language.
@@patavinity1262 That is incorrect. It’s not just an evolution of language. It specifically happened because Ukraine became an independent country. If the Soviet Union still existed, we would still be saying “the Ukraine”.
@@Vlad-jg2ku That's complete nonsense. The word "the" has no bearing on the diplomatic status of a territory. There's no inherent difference between "the Ukraine" and "Ukraine" any more than there is between "the Jura" and "Jura" or "the Crimea" and "Crimea" or "the Yucatan" and "Yucatan"; these names are all more or less interchangeable in English and any political implications which arise from using one or the other form are entirely subjective.
@@Vlad-jg2ku "Украина" was a name for "frontier" territories, which later changed into "Окраина" as time went on. So I guess "the Ukraine" is just signaling is that it is indeed a country, and not some frontier territories, although term "украина" is not used nowadays as far as I know so it's redundant and we can drop "the" in the it's english pronunciation.
И по пути можно начать ещё говорить "в", а не "на" . . .
About Ukraine: I lived there for a year and every single ukranian did not like when foregners reffer to Ukraine as "The Ukraine" they don't necessarily hate it, but most of them would like to be reffered as any other country, specially as a country that gets questioned on it's nationality all the time.
I'm not Ukranian but I got corrected several times being there.
I guess it's probably because in the past it was "the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic"(as part of USSR) and for some reason when they become simple "Ukraine" the "the" stuck in some minds and they made it public knowledge, even though it's erroneus one.
I think it was because during the time of the ussr it was a state of that whole entity so it’s referring to the Ukraine area of the ussr but I’m not 100% sure
@@KachiAT No, it's because of what Ukraine means. Ukraine literally means "border region". Krai, usually written крај/краи in Slavic languages means "region" and is one of the administrative divisions in Russia to this day. So when the name of your country literally means "border region" in your native tongue, it is normal to ask "A border region of what, exactly?". And that is why Ukrainians are not that keen on the name - the very identity is tied to being the border region of Russia, which makes an Ukrainian actually "border regionalist", if you will.
And that is a bit longer problem - they are not some old nation with a distinct culture, name and traditions. They are one and the same Slavic tribe that lived in the Eastern European plains that, over centuries, was divided in separate states. So they have a slight problem now - they don't want to call themselves Russians, even though they essentially are (a bit more about the Russians later), but they don't really have another name to tie themselves to. The only other national name they can tie themselves to is Kievan Rus, the name of a medieval state in the region that is a predecessor to all Slavic European countries east of Poland... but that has Rus in it.
So you end up stuck with "border region" as a name of your country and nationality - which is a HUGE problem when you want to portray yourself as something distinct. And they want that.
Let me get back at Russia. The name itself comes from the Rus people (that were in fact NOT Slavs) that were called in to rule over the first official Slavic state. Up to the time of Kievan Rus, the states were not really what we would define today. It was just one people, Slavs, living on the large land with no central government and different sections being under the rule of a local chieftain. Just like in Germany, or France. But as those chieftains could not decide among themselves who is to rule the now united country, they decided to agree on an outsides, a neutral option, so no one holds the upper ground.
That is how Kievan Rus came to be known as such, it was a state centered in Kiev, ruled by Rus people. Over the centuries all those Slavs simply became known as Russians. And the name stuck. Then, after many wars and countries from the west conquering parts of Russian people (mind you, I am talking about what was known as Russians BACK THEN, not today), cultural differences started to grow, mainly through religion.
And then, in the century of nationalism (19th century) those differences among one people became separate nationalities.
Ukraine had that bad luck to be stuck with the name that literally ties them to Russian empire and what we TODAY know as Russians - which, I repeat, has no connection as a nationality to the ancient Rus people in anything but a name.
Long story short, all those people are Slavs, with some regional differences in customs and dialect which is normal due to the vastness of the Eastern European plains. In the last few centuries, due to the complex geo-political situations, ONE PEOPLE divided into several and stuck to some name. Russians, being the direct continuation of Kievan Rus, stuck to that name. Others changed theirs. And currently in Ukraine, they got stuck with the name that simply ties them to Russia.
Think of it this way, if Norway was called "Gräns" and people there "Gränsmen" - do you think they would like that? Gräns being Swedish for border. Of course not, because everyone would then question their history and the right to consider themselves different people.
Same with Ukraine. By sticking to that name, they are forever recognized as one people with the rest in the region - something they don't want to do. And that's a problem.
@@sammcdermott78 In german it is also called 'Die Ukraine' most of the time. This is usually used to refer to a region within a country. Since Ukraine has always been a part of some empire or foreign entity (mongols, Poland, Russia) it makes sense that the usage of the Ukraine/ die Ukraine instead of just Ukraine stuck.
It also doesn't help much that the word Ukraine can be translated as border from proto-slavic. So when people talk about the ukraine they talk about 'the border' and suddenly the 'the' makes actually somewhat sense.
@@aramhalamech4204 oh right that’s very interesting
Working at ORNL has really opened my eyes to just how crazy the whole manhattan project really was. I don't know if any country at the time could fight on two fronts and also throw the resources into anything close to it.
@C0LL0SSUS There were two Manhattan projects. The scientists could not decide which was better, a uranium or plutonium bomb. The solution to the dilemma was to build both. Actually, the B-29 project cost more than the Manhattan Project. (One poorly understood fact of the War is how much of industrial output was devoted to aviation.) And not only were these two projects immensely costly, but the United States played a major role in arming and feeding the Brits, Soviets, and other allied forces.
50k 2 months ago and now you're at 145k. Nice channel growth my dude! I found your content through Over Simplified. You remind me of some of my history teachers growing up. It was always my favorite subject in school.
Keep up the good work!
The level of respect in this man towards any kind of argument and how he counterargues sometimes with absolute esteem is just amazing.
He is what a GOOD historian looks like. There should be more of them, but...unfortunately...
It's called being an open-minded adult XD
He has a very classy approach to history.
Not really lol, u his boyfriend?
@@sureucan9366 shut up
There is a sequel to this video so if you want to watch that. Congrats on 50k!
Your support is extra Shiny
Brought to you by the same book all historians reference from lel
9:42 he took the oilfields around Maikop and they extracted some oil from it, but not much since the soviets blew em up, so it was just like a drop of water on a hot stone ;)
Re-watching this months later. It's amazing. This was the 50k vid, now you're almost at 250k. Congrats and happy new year!
About Taking Moscow: The problem there is it would've resulted in the German advanced being cut off from the South by Zhukov's army, but not only that it would've been a distraction from the strategic aim of seizing the oil fields for the critical oil they needed to sustain the war which was their primary reason for invading.
Not only that but the mention of disloyalty is fairly unlikely considering Stalin's constant paranoia and purges, it lost him ground but gained loyalty and it could even be argued that taking moscow would embolden the soviets
It's not even like taking Moscow would win the war. Napoleon made the same mistake only a century and a half ago and when the French settled in the whole city was set on fire. It also helps that when your country spans the length of an entire continent that you can just tactically retreat whenever the conditions don't favor you. Even with oil and proper planning, the German war machines wouldn't have been able to keep pushing, especially if America got involved. The Soviets could've stalled indefinitely until the Germans get caught in the impossible terrains of Siberia.
@@joshwolf6932 lf they went to Siberia there wouldn’t be much left to defend. But stalling for time would probably help. Also lend lease aid would probably significantly ramp up, because the Germans seemed closer to winning. As well if they got there, they might have been able to strike Alaska, which would even further incentivize help.
He says that while Russia is vast, you don't have to go all the way to the Pacific. Where I think you would have to occupy is everything west of the Volga, plus cities on the east bank of it like Kazan and Samara. I just don't know where they would find the troops for that.
I was astonished and bewildered when I found out how many Ukrainians watch your videos. By the way I am from Ukraine, too.
I love that there are so many Ukrainians watching. Will have to get more into your history some time.
@@VloggingThroughHistory would be awesome, thank you for your content
You mean THE Ukraine? XD
I’m half-Ukrainian lol. Very interesting.
@Benjamin Brashaw Perhaps
It seems likely to me that if Germany hadn't invaded the Soviet Union, then the Soviet Union would've invaded Germany. When there's two militarized and ideologically incompatible nations annexing territories near each other, it's inevitable that there will be an armed conflict between them at some point. Both sides knew that. If Germany had waited for Stalin to make the first aggressive move, they would've lost the element of surprise. WW2 probably ends sooner in this scenario. IMO Berlin falling to the red army is virtually guaranteed the moment they sliced up Poland. Bottom line is that Germany very badly underestimated what the Soviets could do. The Soviet Union HAS to be a rotten edifice that will fall down when you kick the door in, as Hitler boasted, in order for WW2 to make any sense for Germany.
I think chances of the Soviet Union falling in would have been much higher if Germany was not on a crazy genocide ride, annihilating all the territories and people east of Germany. In the beginning of Operation Barbarossa many people were happy to be liberated from the Soviet Union until they realised Nazi Germany was even worse. If Hitler was not as mentally sick as he was and would have treated the population of former Soviet land better, chances would have been much higher that people rallied for Germany instead of the Soviet Union, cause the Soviet Union was kinda a rotten structure, Stalin just purged all of his military staff shortly before WW2 and living conditions were not great, especially compared to Germany. Due to Nazis being radical inhuman beings they basically shot themselves in the foot from the beginning, you won't see many people supporting your ideology if your ideology is only made for a very specific ethnic group.
@@TheLuxentertainment the axis tend to shoot themselfs in the feet all the time
@@TheLuxentertainment This is simply not true and a pop-history understanding of nazi ideology. The reality is that the nazis DID get a huge amount of support from the eastern territories, such as Ukraine, Belarus (then called 'White Russia') and the Baltic countries, which includes the guarding and running of concentration camps. A large portion of the red army that was captured defected to the nazis. The Waffen SS was probably the second most diverse military organisation in the world, right behind the British. Plus they had support from Romania.
The nazis didn't lose the war because of one reason, it was an accumulation of bad luck and losing important battles. The battle of britain destroyed much of Germany's air defense capabilities, reducing their ability to defend from British bombing of important cities, infrastructure and factories. The Romanians proved to be weak allies during the invasion of the USSR. The freakishly cold winter froze up German artillery and tanks, followed by a thawing to muddy sludge in the spring, making blitzkrieg impossible (which was a huge blow since speed was key to winning against such a huge country like the USSR). American Lend-Lease to the Soviets also helped enormously. Finally, when the USSR was finally lead by component leaders like Zhukov or Vasilevsky in 1942 onwards, that sealed Germany's fate.
I'm not sure if the soviets would still have fought with the same determination, if they were the attackers in the conflict. Remember how the soviets had a hard time against the Finnish. Imo it was mainly the soviets ability to just continuously throw everything they had at the Germans that turned the tide in the east (just look at Soviet casualties), and I don't think the soldiers of the Red Army would have ideologically given it their all if they were the attackers. They would probably see it like the invasion of Finnland, a war more a product of Stalins meglomania. But with the German offensive the red army soldiers were aware they were fighting for their lives and their families, quite literally their own "Lebensraum", which the Germans wanted to take away. I think this ultimately gave them the motivation to continue fighting to the bitter end even after their first horrendous losses. Plus the Germans would have been able to better supply their lines if they had been on the defensive at the start.
@@imperiumoccidentis7351 they had support for like 5 sec before all the warcrimes. Ukraine was a hotbed for uprisings and fighting behinde the lines
50K day? MAN WTF!? I just found out about your channel this week and it has 133K subscribers at this very moment. You must have had quite the momentum my guy.. Hats off and you deserve every single one of those subs! ❤
i think "Ukraine" means something like borderland so "The Ukraine" was in a sense - prior to Ukrainian independence from the USSR - linguistically correct.
Yeah this. Krai means borderlands.
Pretty much. We are arguing with Russians about it all the time, the old linguistic norm there is “on Ukraine”, which is as if Ukraine is a province or area, rather than a country. New countries have such issues. However, never heard anybody saying “On Taiwan”.
@@pomamoba I mean, it's stuck in our language, will change with time, so don't get too mad at us for that.) Sadly, we have a lot more pressing issues to fix =\
“Krai” is not only border, it’s also just “lands” and in older slavish languages (as U means in) it relates to CORE
So it’s more like core lands, like, main lands
It basically means what @Andrew Diakov said, and Ukraine _is_ the original region that the core of Russian (and Slavic in general) culture and language came from. Kiev was the center of Slavic culture in the Early Middle Ages and it wasn't until after the Mongols got kicked out of the region that the larger Rus population, which Ukranians are a part of, began to form distinct national identities, though the populations had their own identities prior to that. And it became a bit of a tug of war between Moscow and Kiev as to which city was more important, which Moscow eventually won due to a number of factors.
Chuck jager is credited with the first kill of a me262 my grandpa was in chucks wing during Vietnam. My grandpa asked chuck once about the me262 kill and chuck said “it was a dirty kill I shot the boy as he was trying to land... not my proudest moment..”
Goodness.
that is how many (most?) me262 kills were scored, by looking for them taking off or landing, as they were much more vulnerable, otherwise it was hard to even engage them. Turns out our Grandparents invented camping at spawn points, who knew..
@@tucsonbandit correct in fact of the 350 some
Me262 kills only about 22 where actually dogfight based the Tuskegee airmen are also credited with the most dogfight kills of the me262 having shot down 6 total
I still think my favorite confirmed kill of a me262 was the dude who just happened to be shooting his M1911 off of a mountain side that just happened to hit a pilot as he was trying to escape some spitfires
@@SnepBlepVR dude what??
You're awesome! I've been binge watching your content on and off for 2 days now
I’m addicted to this channel. Nice content bro.
Your red/black chair sometimes looks like a cape and makes you look like Dracula 😄
I'm also drunk.
Same, unfortunately I’m not drunk 😔
Your are sooo cool for being drunk
@@dailypunch6249 😂😆
@@dailypunch6249 Thanks. I too thought the constant vomiting and shaking when I didn't have enough was rad af.
@@murderc27 oh dude so epic
16:49 true. Actually some historians argue that the USSR agression and total annihilation of the Japanese army in Manchuria and Korea (the best Army they had) was more a deciding factor than the A-bombs, since the Japanese feared the Soviets occupying the Home Islands and killing the Emperor, and that's why they surrendered specifically to the Western Allies and technically never signed a peace treaty with the Soviets (which is why is also why Russia and Japan have still border/island conflicts to this day)
Heres the problem with that, the Soviets barely had a navy. At least one that could threaten the Japanese islands or rival that of the U.S or U.K. Plus Soviet higher ups saw no interest in occupying Japan like they did Germany.
@@GabrielUngacta the Japanese had no way of being sure about the Soviets not occupying their country...and given how much lives an invasion of the Home Islands would cost it stands to reason that the western allies would help the Soviets in their landings (assuming no A-bombs are read and/or Japan doesn't surrender).
I personally think the Japanese decision makers saw that only the Western powers would allow the Emperor to survive (once the Soviets attacked), and the A-bombs were a final nail in the coffin they were in since Pearl: they just sped up the decision to surrender.
@@1207rorupar if you'll remember the western allies and the Soviet Union were arguing about who gets who in Germany and Europe. I doubt the allies were willing to share Japan. Especially due to the fact that Aoviet generals were not interested in occupying parts of Japan to infuriate and possibly provoke another war with the allies immediatley after the end of WW2.
Also the Soviets did not have the resources nor experience to build up an anphibious assult fleet for a massive invasion.
And finally ot would have taken around a year to transport the troops needed from Eastern Europe to Manchuria for the invasion, by that time the allies would have already had a major foothold in Japan.
@@GabrielUngacta I can't see the Allies successfully invading more than Kyushu, Shikoku and at most South Honshu. In a scenario with no A-bombs and the decision made to invade Japan rather than bomb it and blockade it into submission, then both Britain and the US would most definitely support a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido and (once things bogged down in the south) of Northern Honshu. And given Pearl I also can't imagine the US accepting anything less than an unconditional surrender, which Japan wouldn't accept until it was placed in a situation similar to nazi Germany. Now, the Soviets might bargain more of Europe for their involvement in Japan, probably the whole of Korea too. They would probably not be as aggressive as they were in their race West to Berlin but, with the Allies also not helping them too much (just to get going in the South) both would probably be OK with invading Japan. It's the UK which I doubt would insist in fighting.
@@1207rorupar this should be able to explain the situation more than I can.
ruclips.net/video/RwBh4p08tRs/видео.html
Regarding the order not to retreat from Stalingrad: I think it is hard to look at this in isolation. In the winter 1941 it was Hitler's "holding order" on 16th of December that led to the front not collapsing. So this order had worked a year before. So the Stalingrad order was based on a positive experience in a similar situation the year before.
@JanFunification True, but these pockets were much smaller than the Stalingrad pocket and te distances were smaller.
Stalingrad had no significant value at all, getting bogged down at Stalingrad was a silly mistake but it didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things because the Germans had no chance against the whole world
I have enjoyed your war games and these pieces. Thanks
From what I understand, conquering Russia was always Hitler's goal simply out of irrational hated and racism. He made a deal with Russia he NEVER intended to keep. He wanted "Lebensraum" for Germany.
That makes no sense, the oil reserves tho, that makes a lot of sense.
@@hbtm2951 Stephen is right. Conquering the Soviet Union was an ideological (racist) goal as well as a practical one. Hitler wanted to destroy "Jewish Bolshevism" and in his eyes, the Soviet Union was the heart of that evil. He was also aware of the fact that the two superpowers of the 20th century were going to be the United States and the Soviet Union, and he believed that Germany deserved to take the USSR's place. Check out Mein Kamph and the Zweites Buch for a deeper understanding of Hitler's motivations in WW2. The Soviet Union was a target from day one.
@@michaeltrue4625 Quite funny coming from the fact that they built tanks together and offered help between each other occasionally, same ideology coming from marxism (Hitler even saying that he was the ultimate marxist) but anyway.
@@hbtm2951 "Hitler even saying that he was the ultimate marxist" Making shit up are we?
@@veritasabsoluta4285 Oh, then you did not read Mein Kampf, now i'm making that up. My bad, you're the real historian here.
Something else to consider with regards to Japan invading the USSR:
There’s almost nothing of value in the Soviet Far East. There is only Vladivostok and then essentially tiny rural farming villages for hundreds of miles in every direction. Not a crippling loss for the USSR by any means, and Japan doesn’t gain much outside Vladivostok and total control of Sakhalin.
Also, while people talk about the USSR having Siberian reserves, the actual troops were redeployed from Central Asia, in and around modern Kazakhstan for the most part. For the entire duration of the war, the USSR kept a force numbering between 750,000 - 1 million stationed on the border with Japan precisely in case of a Japanese invasion. It was this same force reenforced with a few veteran units from the West that invaded Manchuria in 1945.
Operationally too, an invasion of the Soviet Far East is near suicide for the IJA as there’s only one logistical chain capable of supporting an army for either side, the Trans-Siberian Railway, which makes predicting any advance incredibly easy. It’d just turn into Japan throwing itself into successive lines of Soviet defenses with nothing to show for it. The lack of well developed transportation infrastructure in the Soviet Far East is a blessing and a curse in that regard.
If this is all true then why did the Japanese and the soviets fight that border incident?
@@lt3746
Because of the Mongolian People’s Republic and disputes with Japan over where exactly the border with its puppet Manchukuo was.
It wasn’t Japan aiming to expand north, but the Japanese defeat in that was enough to convince its military that the “Go North” faction was a non-starter out of an inability to match the Soviets on the ground.
The simple fact of the matter is that any attempt to invade the USSR by Japan would have necessitated leaving a skeleton force in China. The Japanese army just wasn’t large enough to fight such a war, and the potential gains were so minimal that it didn’t even make sense for Japan to do so. You have to cross a distance comparable in size to the width of the continental US before you hit anything of value after taking Vladivostok.
@@trinova9581 Interesting reversal considering the Japanese handed the Russians a humiliating defeat just a few decades prior
@@lt3746 another thing to add is that the Japanese government or high command were not even responsible for the border disputes. It was caused by low-ranking officers of the IJA stationed in Manchuria.
I don't know why but the Japanese Army had a strange reputation of lower ranked officers defying higher ranked officers.
I believe Ukraine means something like border region in Polish. It was more often described as a geographic area, rather than a nation-state, at least until recently. That’s why it’s called “the Ukraine” in English.
Ukraine only became the name for the nation in the second half of the 19th century. Before that the names varied but the latin version was "Ruthenian", wich also included Belarus
I am ukrainian, and this is what I will say. The term "Ukraine" (Borderland) appeared in the Middle Ages to designate the buffer zone between Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Muscovite kingdom, and the Ottoman Empire, this zone was located in the modern central northern and partially eastern regions of Ukraine.
Ruthenia almost always included exclusively the Western lands of modern Ukraine, partly with Polish and Hungarian lands. Although at different times its influence could spread to different territories.
Capital of Cossack Ukraine was the city of Chigirin. Capital of Ruthenia was Galicia.
Our ancestors from the Western regions self-identified themselves and were known to Western Europe as Rutenes, or Galicians. But the rest of the ukrainians did not see themselves that way, and did not call themselves that. For self-identification (before the birth of theRussian Empire, and its conquest of all of Eastern Europe), we used the names Roxolans, as well as Cossacks, Brodniks, and Rusyns (rusyns are not russians, they are the cultural heirs of Kievan Rus, and now exist in the Ukrainian state, they do not recognize Moscow authorities, they consider themselves primary and true).
Great video. Making valid and interesting point and being respectful about it.
It's crazy how just a few days ago I was casually thinking
"He's so close to 50k, I wonder when he'll crest that hill"
I finally come back to the channel after a couple days to binge the few vids I missed and I see that you have indeed summited the 50k mountain.
My hats off to you sir, and keep up the amazing content that I love oh so much!!
It is funny to hear someone from Ohio question the use of "The" before something.
Fair point.
In California, the issue is using "the" in front of freeway numbers. In Southern CA (i.e. Los Angeles) they say "The 101" or "The 5" to refer to the freeways "US-101" or "I-5". Whereas in Northern CA (i.e. San Francisco) we just use the freeway number without "the". It really marks your origin when you use the "wrong" terminology for the region you are in.
@@edwardblair4096 interesting. I was more referring to ohio state university copyrighting "The" before the school name and when announcing it in news etc always emphasizing it THE ohio state university. Which if I am not mistaken, and I may be, is their way of snubbing ohio university.
@@patrickfriel7957 every college and university has a silent the, The Ohio State University, The Ohio University, The Kansas University and so on, OSU just likes to emphasize it as Thee Ohio State University.
Something that is interesting when people say “The Ukraine” is that it seems like people are referring to a region rather than a country. Similar to how people say “The Caucasus.”
well yeah thats where this comes from. thats why it sounds so weird to me to just say ukraine instead of the ukraine.
WOW in one year you grew from 50,000 subs to 300,000+ Great Job man love your stuff!
Congrats on 50k! As a long sub for History Guy Gaming and one of the people that immediately subbed to this one, I can say that I am very proud that people are so excited about history in general. I hope this channel continues to grow and continues to gain attraction because you really do deserve it. I'm excited for the future of this and the other channel! Again, congrats!
I’ve been binge watching so many of your videos the past like 4-5 days. I listened the whole time driving for work today and helped the day go by. I’m loving it!
oh, wow. it's now 4 months later and VTH has 185K subscribers. That's an impressive growth rate man!
I'm pretty sure there are literally transcripts where Russian generals tell Stalin "if we lose Moscow it's whatever, it won't change our strategy at all."
This is quickly becoming one of my favorite history youtube channels
So 1 month ago you only had 50k subs? Thats an amazing growth rate and I hope it continues for you.
A couple of comments: Japan could not have gotten the resources they needed by striking into Siberia because the region was (and still is to a large degree) undeveloped. It would have taken much time and many resources to develop the extraction of resources they needed to replace what they had lost to the American/Allied embargo. They needed the already developed resources of the "Southern Resources Area." Also, you can't get rubber out of Siberia.
Second comment: The Allied fighter pilots quickly noted the jets did not have the endurance in the air that they had. The tactic was quickly developed of calling out spot reports when jets were observed, where upon Allied fighters in the area would bingo to the known locations of jet bases (which were significantly different in structure than regular bases as the jets needed longer, stronger runways). They would then ambush the jets as they attempted to land low on fuel and unable evade.
Your subs has quadrupled in the 6 months since this video, congrats!!!
Just a thought but I’d love a history based book club! Maybe a monthly or biweekly video on a book we read as a community? I understand if you were to busy to keep up a commitment like a book club on top of everything you do, so maybe just videos of you talking about you favorite history books? Love the content, keep up the good work!
Congrats on the 50k! You've made a lot of progress in the past year :) Keep going
My wife is from Dnipro (used to be dnepropetrovsk) Ukraine. Her father was actually an officer in the Soviet Union's army and they all came here at the fall of the USSR.
She hates it when it's called "The" Ukraine.
17:10 Not only the declaration, but the rapid invasion of Manchuria. The A-bombs hit on the 6th and 9th of August, and on the 9th of August soviet operations in Manchuria started. Just 11 days later this huge swath of terrain, the last remnant of the Japanese empire, and it's last (mostly) intact resource base was taken. And Manchuria was huge, about the size of Texas.
I just found your channel this week, they help me expand my history knowledge. As i am studying history these are very handy! Love your vids keep it up!!!
Congratulation on 50k! Love from Poland!
Awesome Work Bro Thanks 👍 Greetings from Helsinki Finland 🇫🇮🇺🇸🇫🇮🇺🇸
Wow, if you got 50k in march and 145 today, thats crazy fast. Congrats!! i just found the channel and subscribed... interesting content. Wish you would have ranked the last presidents though, would have been some real red meat for the comments haha
I remember watching those history Channel specials about the germans trying to get an atomic weapon. Then when I got older and relooked at a lot of things..... I felt lied to. Lol. Actually most of the documentaries I've watched growing up I kinda feel lied to
Yeah same
The History Channel was "spicing up" their documentaries long before it devolved into Ice Road Truckers, Pawn Stars, and Random-ass Lumber Yard Hillbillies. But at least they were doing it to...you know... _historical_ topics. I know I wouldn't be half as enamored with history as I am today were it not for the History Channel. And honestly, penetrating the myths of history and discovering the truths is possibly the most fun part of learning about the subject.
Bruh the History Channel is no place to get accurate info
@@felixgutierrez993 when they showed historical documentaries they should. I'm talking about the days when they used to jokingly call it the Hitler channel.
@@MrEd8846 I call it the WW2 Channel lol
Congratulations on 50,000 subscribers. I’m turning 17 tomorrow but I’m not able to hang out with friends because of the current lockdown rules in the UK. But since I found your channel a few months ago things have been really fun because I’ve always loved history but you are a really good commentator and add lots of very factually interesting information to the videos. So tomorrow I’m going to sit down with a cup of tea and binge watch this channel and your gaming channel which I love just as much as this one. Thanks for the amazing content.
Hey me too! Happy birthday!
Happy birthday !
@@Floreals Thank you :)
Happy birthday, glad you found something you like
I occasionally use 'the' to refer countries (and certain other nouns) by mistake, because as a german we need to use articles a lot. This video and the commentsection reminds me to be more careful when using them, for they're carrying quite different meanings depending on the context.
Fair assessment. It’s always going to be a cats cradle of alternate realities since any one choice, the invasion of Russia or Japans attack on Pearl Harbor, opens up a host of other choices that also get made differently. I particularly like how you and the original author focus on political and ideological realities. One that wasn’t covered is the position the Japanese navy had in their military hierarchy. Internal politics and the needs of an island nation focussed the internal politics toward the navy. Regardless of the other differences between Germany and Japan, Russia was not a naval war, so Japan had not positioned itself for that in part due to the focus on navy first. That was in part because of internal politics within their military.
Germany not invading the USSR leads to change in ideology and character motivations, as you mentioned. So it does become a bit fantasy-like since Hitler magically tolerating the "Bolsheviks" probably does not happen without today's hindsight. Germany could not have won WW2 with the ideology and general thinking they had is a good way to put it.
Another great video by the way. You've pulled me into so many historical topics in the last few weeks it's unbelievable. Congratulations on the 50k, you deserve it and can't wait for the tours you're looking to do of the WW1/WW2 monuments. Peace ✌️
He should watch part two: your argument is in that pretty much in verbatim and it goes into more detail.
@@jjwh Yeah I'd 100% agree.
So germany becoming unstoppable is basically false as no matter what happens, from the point where they f***ed up and extended way more than they should have. They were too confident and made enemies way more than they could possibly handle.
The most likely win for them (wouldn't be WW2) has to be signing an agreement with soviets and cut their industrial advancement and comeback. Then ending the war before bombardment of England.
Important part is as long as soivets aren't there to sandwich germany, germany could have factories that aren't bombed to smithereens and soldiers to fight/suppress resistance fighters and enemies. Great britain isn't invested in fighting thus war is unpopular leading to an instability. USA doesn't have a proper claim yet and mobilization isn't in order. With unsettled scores the war stops for a while, germany has new lands, money, influence. Both sides continue to their arms race. Nukes are becoming more likely to be used, world is still in tension, on the horizon a far darker future full of mushrooms and grim fates. Here is the thing, with germany becoming a huge threat cold war still happens. Communism is look down upon but not truly hated. The name of this new game is STABILITY. If two leader superpowers doesn't fall then may God help us.
Better way(in germany's perspective) would be completely shutting down the soviets and integrate the land to enable continuous expansion. If they are able to get new allies to their side than a temporary stalemate can be enforced( familiar? ).
Not true. Yes the national socialist ideology hates the communists but thats doesnt mean when Hitler and his staff runs the country they didnt use realpolitik. Thats why they traded with the soviet union and partitioned poland. Deboooonked
@@darklysm8345 it was more between politicians Molotov(USSR) and Ribbentrop (Reich) Hitler was not sane his hatred literally led to 6 million people genocide no way Stalin ever trust him if somehow Hitler don't attack USSR paranoid Stalin will definitely do by 1942-43
Was already a fan but that tshirt cemented it ;) cheers from Scotland
11:00 Another answer to this question is that Germany dearly needed this oil, because it wasn't only used for the tanks, but also to the multiple triing programs for tanks and plane crew.
The level of the Luftwaffe pilots just falled as the war went on, and it wasn't just attrition, it was also the reducton of hours of the trainings program.
Another sign of the influence of the oil problem is the scale of the offensive, which reduced itself year after year in the east.
1941 : Overall offensive
1942 : Just south front
1943 : Offensive in Kursk.
1944 : No offensive at all, many infantry unit were just captured and destroyed during Bagration by pure lack of motorisation. The same can be said for the battle in Normandy...
So yeah, the German needed that oil, but in the same time, after Satlingrad and the failure of Fall Blu, they just tried to doing without it, and mostly failed, yet the germans officers wrongfully never doubted that they would outwit the soviet and won over them with the right counterattack.
An even bigger problem for the luftwaffe ended up being lack of pilots. Later in the war they had plenty of aircraft sitting around, but not enough people to fly them, and those few pilots they did have were much much less experienced compared to allied pilots
Excluding the literal handful of super aces they still had.
@@bigvinnie3 Super aces🤣🤣 The German Command and Air Force had total Authority over it public, total conviction in purpose, years of preparation, a vast air fleet versus the RAF, who were tremendously unprepared, were building and training in real-time to catch up, due to the slow traction of a democracy dragged into a war, with the public still indignant about World War I and the Brits still defeated the German Air Force- the Nazis are so overrated as a military force. It's rridiculous- They simply benefited from 1st mover advantages, The Similar Malaise and unpreparedness of the French democracy, reluctantly dragged into war, Leaving the Ardennes Unprotected. The Ardennes being fortified means the Nazis get nowhere in the 1st place
The same as in World War I where they benefited from Blitzing through against distracted and "less prepared" democracies in the West, Then, Enormously benefiting from being camped outside Paris for the whole war, whilst the allies literally no room to make any mistakes, could only throw bodies in the way for the most part and couldn't do anything innovative, unlike the Kaiser's forces miles from Berlin, which was completely safe
That's partially true. I wouldn't say they were overrated they were a competent proficient military force. Especially on the tactical level. But that's because the Germans have always emphasized the local level and quick wars over grand strategic aims. But that's because back when Prussia was just a little duchy on the edgy of central europe the only way they could win a war was to not let it become a war of attrition. Now that fighting style once Germany was a major world power is flawed. I mean the weren't undefeatble or godly aryan super humans but they were a talented professional army with an excellent officer corps(though the allied countries had very talented officers as well and this applies to them too.).
Also we can't say definitively if the ardennes were defended they'd have gotten nowhere. You can never be certain with alternate history. But you're probably right. But exploiting the failures of your enemies is part of what makes a good military.
Lastly all the top ten fighter pilots of the war were Germans. One of them made triple Ace in a day. Hartmann took out 352 enemy aircraft. Rudel not a fighter pilot took out 500 tanks and a battleship. Now this isn't because the germans are some mythical super warriors its because they didn't rotate pilots out or use them for training. But they were also incredibly skilled. Now granted for every Hartmann or Rudel there was 100 badly trained unmotivated pilots by mid-late war.@@Rowlph8888
Congratulations on 50k! From the Netherlands
The reason that people call it the Ukraine when talking about the Soviet union is because the name Ukraine originally meant edge in Russian. So it was like saying on " the border"
In Polish it means countryside and a closer translation would probably be frontier.
There was no Russian when that name first appeared.
@@antonbatura8385 Remember no Russia
no, it's true.
I think your right, at least some of those in high command wanted to wait a year, and start earlier in the spring.
Really, really great video. I really enjoy your videos and I can't wait for more.
Just my thought on the whole push for Moscow thing and why I don't think it's as viable as it's made out to be:
To get Moscow requires encircling it. Moscow was surrounded by forests with the east full of it. It would've been easy to place mines and ambush any tanks trying to encircle Moscow. Also the German position meant that it had to deal with a possible counterattack by any side. The southern flank was a major, major concern for the Germans. The possibility of a successful counterattack from the south, along with all the logistical problems made Moscow very difficult to take. It would've also taken quite a long time as well. Perhaps months or even years. The Soviets would've mounted a long, protracted defense. Eventually the strength of the German forces would've been diluted enough and along with all the logistical problems, a Soviet counterattacks would've resulted in a German retreat.
It cannot be overstated just how problematic the logistics were for Germany. They were overstretched, having huge problems getting equipment/food/men back to the front. Even at the beginning of Barbarossa, there were signs of these problems. Add on the eventual environmental effects of cold/mud and it gets even worst.
Even if they somehow managed to get Moscow, most of Soviet leadership were farther East and the Soviet war machine would've still existed with productions in the East. It would've been a great symbolic loss, but considering that Stalin was still in power despite millions of his troops being captured and millions being killed, etc, I doubt the USSR would've just crumbled.
Personally I think that even with Hitler agreeing to push for Moscow, it would've been unsuccessful and Germany would've still lost the war.
For Barbarossa to be successful, you'll need Stalin to randomly die of a heart attack, maybe even start some civil war or political crisis as Germany take control of major cities. Even with this scenario, I still have doubts that Germany can maintain a hold on its conquered territories.
Great video! This video really introduced me to this oil question. I have been studying ww2 a lot and this crucial matter is almost never pointed. Thank you from Uruguay.
Very good points - well done! On the point about the nuclear program, though it was very expensive, the cost of Germany's V2 program was from 150% to 200% the cost of the Manhattan project, so Germany should have had the resources to afford a similar program if they'd scrapped their ballistic rockets. The American B-29 program was the most expensive weapons system in WW2 and I understand development costs were 2x that of the Manhattan project.
Everything we enjoyed today comes from world war II technologies and the scientific advancements that were made because of this war you guys do great work thank you for the documentary I thrive on information and knowledge and most of it comes from past war confrontations
If you want to know about Germany’s Oil problem you should watch “The Main Reason Why Germany Lost WW2” by TIK
Endorsed. One of TIK's best.
Yes one of the most accurate explanations of Germany's Oil situations TIK is amazing
@@nazarsinkovitch6779 That video in particular is good however in at least 2 occasions he lied about the information in his sources.... there are good channels on youtube but one important limitation is that is not peer reviewed like an historical journal where other historians scrutinize the job of the others
@@Chepicoro well yha its a RUclips video not a historical journal but he's still more accurate then most online sources and corrects himself when he makes an error most of the time. Also his work on the battle of Stalingrad is amazing.
@@Chepicoro A lot of history have a particularly agenda from my experience, they all pretty much disagree with each other, some go in to detail about some aspects really well then gloss over other part's so it's hard to get a correct answer especially when a lot of them have there own feelings come into play, at lest TIK corrects his mistakes.
I was just thinking of suggesting this video for you to react to in the future. But here it is :D There is also a part 2 to this video If I recall correctly
In '45 we were already producing the P-80, a jet that was a match for the Me-262 and easier to produce while being more reliable. The wunderwaffe just doesn't work out when it's factored in that we were easily keeping up with designs.
Sorry but it was not a match in 1945. From wikipedia:
After the war, the USAAF compared the P-80 and Me 262 concluding, "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (900 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number (the Me 262A's being at M 0.86), from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."
@@GrandTheftChris And the P-80 had a superior ceiling, better weapons for taking out fighters, better range, half the cost, and didn't need it's engines overhauled after 10 hours.
@@LordNinja109 Yes but all that became only usable after the war. In '45 they had like two machines in Italy that needed a lot of improvement. The Germans were ahead at that point and had 1400 jets that flew missions. The US not. That was my only point. Of course after the war the US could improve their jets, whereas Germany had to stop the development completely.
@@GrandTheftChris Germany made 1400 jets, but only 300 reached units, and with a readiness rate of 14%, that meant only 42 at any one time could fly. My whole point is that in '45, we were about to level the playing field again. Most comparisons about Germany's technology are done in the context of a vacuum. With no regard that the Allies were also working on various projects themselves.
@@LordNinja109 I think we both agree that the Me-262 had almost no impact on the war and didn't change its outcome. The only reason for my reply was your op "In '45 we were already producing the P-80, a jet that was a match for the Me-262" which is just not true. It wasn't a match in '45 and they never engaged in dog fights during the war. You compare two airplanes from two different development periods. It makes no sense at all. I don't question the capability of the US to build a better fighter jet after the war because they did. (Ironically also with the help of german engineers.) I just believe one should never try to change history and stick to the truth.
where did you get that shirt? its sooooo cool, great videos by the way!!!!
Amazon!
I’m 13 and love history and this channel always keeps me coming back I watch most of the original videos and other creators but he just adds more depth and adds so much to the videos I’ve learnt Heeps from him and even things I already know it so interesting to hear his opinions and the way he describes the facts I could legitimately listen to him for hours I also really like his videos on the American civil war and the other videos he makes your a real master of the craft and your videos never get old thank you for the hours of entertainment
Respect
I think one way they could have won was to go ahead and finish the English off at Dunkirk but held off on attacking the Soviet Union for a while. Perhaps a few years
@@Jordan81577 I don’t think that would have worked
Yes, usually you don't add an article when talking about Ukraine. Many reasons why so many people say it like this. Firstly, the historical translation of "Ukraine" is literally derived from "borderland". Nowadays this obviously is highly politicized and Ukrainians will often ask you to not use an article, because the country it historically was a borderland of was Russia. Secondly, the territory was probably often refered to as the Ukrainian SSR during the Cold War. Third, many english speakers maybe have the habit of putting "the" in front of country names that start with this sort of U-sound, because they often say "the US" or "the UK".
Well, it was a borderland of the Commonwelth, not Russia. The land between christian world and the Tatars. It became a part of Russia in XVII/XVIII century and was called there "Little Russia".
yea, for some reason saying "The U.S." and "The U.K." sounds right but i've never heard of "The Ukraine". In fact "the" only feels right for U.S. and U.K.
@@yarzyn_5699 You gave a pretty good explanation of the matter. I think the proper translation of what Russians called the region of Ukraine after the reunification of the 17th century would be "Lesser Russia". This way of referring to Ukraine is very controversial, but, from the Russian perspective at that point in time, it was considered a newly acquired land as opposed to "Greater Russia" with the capital up north in Moscow.
the russian federation. the german reich. the french state. and the list goes on with "the" usually is put in a facist state or a republic for example (the chinese soviet republic) but don't get that confused they are still communist
@@chozer1 Is the Republic of China, 中华民国, supposed to be fascist or communist according to your explanation?
Crazy to think you’re at almost 500K subs now!
My Grandfather Willaim, my Mom's side of the family, fought in the Battle of Britian via my favorite plane, the Spitfire.....I also became friends with an ex-German soldier who fought on the Russian Front; he was an intersting guy, wrote a short history of his life as a soldier, he self-published.....I wonder what my grandfather and Yogi would have discussed of their wartime lives.
Will you watch 2nd part too? I didn’t yet finish the video so sorry if you mention it.
11:50 breakout from the stailgrad pucket was most likely not possible, and prevoius in the war Germany was able to supply cut of divisions by air.
Not stationing Romanian/Hungarian troops on the flanks or allowing retreat straight away may have changed it
Also, hitler should not have diverted panzer divisions constantly between objectives
Bro nice profile picture
5:40 Stalin was afraid of the overthrow when Hitler attacked him but the generals decided it'd better to keep him in power because the last thing they needed was a power struggle (according to something i read a long while ago so I can't quote it)
Recommended reading: Hitler by Ian Kershaw. Explanation of general staff stating Hitler's generals competed for favor through military victories. This is similar to classical Rome with consuls attempting to "out do" the other.
correct me if im wrong but this was by design, no? hitler actively advocated for this kind of "darwinism" and while often useful it led to his downfall as generals didnt fully tell him the truth about the situation.
15:32 The USA was kind of already in the war.
They were embargoing Japan and sending Volunteers to China.
That is the opposite of neutral. They figured striking first would give them a better position in the war. They never intended on taking out the USA.
Embargoing a country is not even close to being the same thing as being at war with them. And the only American volunteers that I am aware of that fought in China were the Flying Tigers. They did not fight until after Pearl Harbor, although they did arrive several months earlier. In any case, their numbers were pretty low. The Flying Tigers had about 90 planes, so I'd guess that's 200-300 Americans.
The Japanese decision to attack America was just dumb.
@@Spencersoft Both Japan and Germany severely underestimated America due to its lack of Military history. Even in WW1 Americas military experience was minor.
They were involved sure, but as a neutral party, now unlike World War One where they were ambivalent and happy to supply anyone who had the money for it, in World War Two they were certainly more biased, but you must note that like with WWI The Germans were liked for a time until they joined the war, Once Prohibition started the Germans and their Beer companies became targets for politicians in-favor of prohibition. In WWII a lot of people thought of Germany as a wonderful place, this was of course, obviously before major news about the Camps had reached the ears of the American People...
@@jgw9990 But it's industrial might was not. By 1919 the US was manufacturing more munitions and war material than the UK, France, and Germany combined.
@@jgw9990 Well that was a major flaw, in 1916 and 1917 both France and Britain went bankrupt and couldn't participate in the war for much longer. The United States took over in their economics and made it so that both those countries would have been able to continue to keep fighting. Germany's view of America was incredibly stupid. That was a fatal mistake.
Hope you react to the sequel on this "Germany Could Not Win WW2 (part 2)", I don't wanna spoil all of it but he definitely covered at least one point you brought up on how Germany could have won WW2
theres no winning considering mistakes of invading russia declaring war on america and losing the air superiority in britain...these were giant mistakes...they basically took on the world..and lost..what a surprise...
If by "cover" you mean scoff at and barely reply to the meat of the criticism.
@@Gustav_Kuriga No, he means cover
@@kedarunzi9139 No, no he doesn't. He scoffs and hand waves it.
There's a theory that USSR was planning to attack Germany at one point. The Soviet Union wasn't that much different from Germany. They've taken control over the countries that were to the west from Moscow (like Latvia, Estonia, or part of Poland), and they've attacked Finland. They had the potential to push forward (just like in 1920). They would "liberate" countries from the German occupation and there would be a "peoples republic of" all-around Europe, from France to Poland. Pretty neat plan.
Wouldn't mind your opinion on the Tube Alloy project that actually predated the Manhattan project I suspect UK researchers were moved to Los Alamos.
I believe you would really like his 4 part Pacific videos or his look at the German Navy during WWI
Early congratulations on 50k
I only went to school till the 5th grade and i find your videos very entertaining
I’m kinda late to the party here, but first let me say as a new member of your channel your content I’ve seen so far is amazing. I do have an interesting question relating to the scenario you purposed when he was talking about Moscow being taken, for arguments sake let’s say that Germany does take Moscow, and the Soviet higher ups overthrow Stalin who takes his place as leader of the U.S.S.R?
About the taking of Moscow.
To my mind the real benefit was always a logistical one. The railway system of the red army propagated from Moscow like the tentacles of an octopus. Loosing that central node of transportation would have made it incredibly difficult to move food, ammunition, weapons and troops around for defensive and offensive purposes alike. In practice meaning that the Red army would have been limited in its ability to shift it's weight around and could have been more easily encircled and starved to submission. The red army's offensives would have had to been more localized and thus more easily defended against. The lack of viable targets would have made it much more efficient, in terms of manpower and equipment placement, for the Germans to set up defenses.
Bringing significant numbers to bear on an objective takes a lot of supplying and operating far away from your rail head places a real limit to the practical concentration of your forces. Having more men in your army than the enemy doesn't do you any good if those men cannot be supplied when concentrated for an operation.
It has to be said that the Soviet railways weren't compatible with German train wheel separation and the gauge had to be converted before use. So the denial of logistical capability would have been the more significant benefit in the short term.
Won’t stop the German from Running out of Oil
Their only chance was for their enemies to not be willing to fight. This was recognized in the very nature of their attacks, they wanted to shock their enemies out of resisting them. This is why the big three matter, they were all willing to fight to the freaking end. Not all in their countries were so willing.
11:37 Paulus would've really struggled to break out of stalingrad, millitary history visualised did a good video on it
Just a quick note on Stalingrad… Hitler made the decision to stay largely based on the assurances from Goering and his cronies that air supply would be enough. So it wasn’t so much a case of overruling the generals but rather a case of choosing which faction of generals to support
"The Ukraine" is a poor translation of what Ukranians call their country. Ukranians very much appreciate it if you say "Ukraine" and not "the Ukraine"
It... isn't. Ukraine is a geographical term as well. "The Ukraine" refers to the area, not the country.
@@thomasowens9373
No because that’s implying that Ukraine should be a part of Russia which it’s not.
@@RESIST_THE_GREAT_REPLACEMENT Austria means the eastern marches. That implies it's part of Germany. Destroyed by facts and logic. History will be history, there's plenty of places named after geographical terms.
@@thomasowens9373 u right is mean literally 'at the very edge'. But new political situation in the Ukraine dictates new conditions.
There never was THE Ukraine. It only became a thing recently because Russians refer to "in Ukraine" as "НА Украине" (literally "at the border") and Ukrainians "В Украине" (meaning Ukraine as a country, though linguistically incorrect). There is no English equivalent, so they invented "THE Ukraine" to make a distinction.
Congrats on the 50k Vlogging Through History! Greetings from a History lover in the Philippines!!
After the war Speer was quoted (I believe) as saying that if Germany had pooled ALL it's resources into an Atom bomb program, they *might* (pretty big might) have had a bomb by 1945, however this meant it would suck up resources for every other weapons project. So no jets, no rockets, no advanced aircraft designs, etc. It's still quite a stretch as the Manhattan project was literally a bigger operation than the Ford motor company at the time.
Also of course, they had almost no brain power to pull it off (Heisenberg being a rare exception) and the British found out at the tail end of the war that captured German scientists had been majorly off with their calculations and were no where close to perfecting the science.
@7:16 - Goering alone opposed the invasion but he had fallen out of favor with all the generals (and AH) after being secretly blamed for the first campaign loss of Germany - Battle of Britain and thus, it's cancelled invasion.
@24:10 - The problem with your trade analogy is that Germany was trading machinery for oil and food with Russia. Over time, Russia will use the machinery to build it's own machinery while oil and food are consumed and will always need to be replenished.
@24:16 - In Sept of '42, Von Manstein assured AH that he could break through the ring at Stalingrad and AH believed him. Von Manstein ended up blaming the Luftwaffe (Goering) for his failure.
Congrats for reachen 50.000
You might want to update it to ‘congrats for reachen 50k’
Y e s
Ayy reacting to 2 of my suggestions, can life get any better?
Regarding Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, I'm also personally of the opinion that their alliance was, in fact, SO circumstantial that if they HAD won the war, there would have been almost no time at all before they then went to war with each other.
Dr Jonathan House has a video that Potential History linked in his original video and it’s worth a watch. It explains how Hitler did try to send troops down to capture the oil field in Chechnya, etc.
also i don't think that germany could have won even if they didn't attack the soviets.
winning the soviet campaing was the only way Germany could have won against britain.
the battle of britain allready made it clear that Germany was on a timer, and needed resources and industry to rebuild, which they didn't have.
Britain wound't even need to put men on the ground to win a favorable peace treaty.
Europe would need to liberated
@@Damo2690 no, Germany was begging for a peace treaty.
@@anon300 Well not exactly, they wanted peace in which they kept their conquered land. Which the Brittish would never accept.
Asking for a treaty doesn't mean your losing