1941 Nazi Germany vs Soviets ALONE: Who would have won?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 авг 2024
- World War 2: what would have happened if in 1941, Third Reich Germany and Soviet Union had fought one on one, without any foreign help? Who would have won? Hitler or Stalin? And in situation what would have happened in the Pacific, between Japan and USA?
All This - Scoring Action di Kevin MacLeod è un brano autorizzato da Creative Commons Attribution (creativecommon...)
Fonte: incompetech.com...
Artista: incompetech.com/ Constancy Part 1 - The Descent di Kevin MacLeod è un brano autorizzato da Creative Commons Attribution (creativecommon...)
Fonte: incompetech.com...
Artista: incompetech.com/ Constancy Part 2 - The Descent di Kevin MacLeod è un brano autorizzato da Creative Commons Attribution (creativecommon...)
Fonte: incompetech.com...
Artista: incompetech.com/ Darkness is Coming di Kevin MacLeod è un brano autorizzato da Creative Commons Attribution (creativecommon...)
Fonte: incompetech.com...
Artista: incompetech.com/ Epic TV Theme di Audionautix è un brano autorizzato da Creative Commons Attribution (creativecommon...)
Artista: audionautix.com/ Gathering Darkness di Kevin MacLeod è un brano autorizzato da Creative Commons Attribution (creativecommon...)
Fonte: incompetech.com...
Artista: incompetech.com/ Martian Cowboy di Kevin MacLeod è un brano autorizzato da Creative Commons Attribution (creativecommon...)
Fonte: incompetech.com...
Artista: incompetech.com/ Night Runner di Audionautix è un brano autorizzato da Creative Commons Attribution (creativecommon...)
Artista: audionautix.com/ Opus One di Audionautix è un brano autorizzato da Creative Commons Attribution (creativecommon...)
Artista: audionautix.com/ Video Game Soldiers di Twin Musicom è un brano autorizzato da Creative Commons Attribution (creativecommon...)
Fonte: www.twinmusicom...
Artista: www.twinmusicom...
![FNAF Into the Pit has A LOT of Unused Graphics | LOST BITS [TetraBitGaming]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6YhZCRdipl4/mqdefault.jpg)
Churchill: "We shall never surrender"
Germany: And I took that personally
😂
Pretty much
STOP COPIEING MY NAME!!!!😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠
@@trencidarko7271 you have problems
@@trencidarko7271 what is your name . Kid
USA had no problem selling weapons to anyone willing to pay for them 😂🤣😂🤣
Nothing wong i can feel it
@@aaanjaaa feel*
What's so funny?
@@Jo-li2bi well because USA let every country to buy their weapon cuz you know USA need money
explain the lend lease
Hearts of Iron IV players:
*Hey, I've seen this one!*
That was what i thinking soulbro?
This guy plays too much hoi4 and think the soviets would be as dumb as the ai.
Me and the boys invading britain with just airborners:
@@unclelarry8842 *laughs in Chinese 1938 Yellow River flood*
Girls: OMG let’s do girls vs boys
Boys: Naz!s vs Soviets
Jajajaja ilegal with the full name
BULLSHIT
Naz¡s VS Soviets
@pepsi man dont forget
Capitalist pigs
@Wehrmacht nazi deutschland Based 😎
@@jeremiatampubolon6149 haha gblk para cewek2 selalu membandingkan cowok vs cewek haha
I didn't know Siri was so knowledgeable of WWII history.
LOL
literally just say "Simon says dadada" siri would say it
В нас своя история..у Сири и ...кого то своя.
Lmao
XD
[13:21] *"Japan had no interest in Siberia as it is an endless forest full of bears."*
Now that's the pertinent analysis they just don't give you over on the History Channel!
bro siberia have a lot of Oil, that is a importend resoruces for japan since USA stop export Oil to Japan
@@AbdulRasyidPangrango-qr9dt yeah and full of endless forest,bear,and their army aren't that strong (weak)
@@afdhalulakbar5382 bro.. soviet win WW2 again german in Eropea. But soviet still habe 40% manpower in far east, they are not that weak
@@AbdulRasyidPangrango-qr9dt dude the entirety of the Allies especially the US gave USSR 1billion USD and tonnes of natural rwsources and supply to keep them alive.
@@adolfyeetler9231 what do you espect to the country that just trought Starving, WW1, Two revolution in 1 years, Civil Wars, military Officer purge, and WW2? After all Soviet pay it back after wars. If soviet having long peace and not surronded by enemy like USa, of course they dont need it
In resume: Oil shortages were only a thing because the british enforced a naval blockade, the video explains how half of the luffwaffe was expended on the western front, how the production equivalent of 6900 tiger II tanks was used to make U-boats to try to emulate the british blockade and starve them into surrender aswell a 25% of the total artillery and ammo production being used on western anti-air defenses
The eastern front might have sucked most of the manpower, but the western front sucked most of the resourses
It said 7k tigers. Tigers didn't exist in 1942. They could have made panzer IV though
@@opperturk124 Yeah i forgot to add that, panzers were not heavy tanks like the tigers but were cheaper so there would be a whole lot more than 7K
@abdullah slhllr I wish i had a good pc to play on :(
And we think that Russia alone won the war and allies only joined in 1944 when Germany was retreating blah blah she also forgot to tell one of the best commander Erwin Rommel and africa korps engaged in africa
The reality is that allies already joined in 1939
@@ericvonmanstein2112 Yup, basically naval production it's super expensive compared to anything land-based, that's the most important bit
At the end of the video you said that USA, germany, and USSR test their atomic bombs. How the USSR test their atomic bomb if they were invaded, then they were split, then a civil war, and then internal divisions. I think its not possible. The cold war will be between USA and Germany.
Yeah in that alternate timeline russia devestate so much
and by the way either soviet union or the US wouldn’t have the material or the Knowledge for creating that bomb. (There are some books about the German atomic facilities at Jonastal. Still a restricted area).
But the Germans wouldn’t have „heavy water“ from Norwegian factory.
Uran would be found at Kongo, but that’s an British colony. Will they sell?
@G E T R E K T 905
You should ask Pagaun G, he wrote about that.
China could develop atomic bombs even before being an economic power, ae goes with North Korea.
U can argue they had soviet support, but I think they would have gotten it sooner or later anyway
Civil wars can reinforce countries, especially the army
Fun fact, that August 5 1941 attack was Hitler's first attempt to encircle the Kiev pocket, but his generals not only didn't commit to it, but many actually opposed the idea.
At that point many high ranking German officers started realizing that the 'cauldron' tactics used to encircle so many Soviet divisions in Kiev, Brest-Litovsk, and Smolensk were actually slowing down German Infantry to the point where the encirclements weren't even worth it, sometimes German divisions would let the Soviets break out of their pockets to rejoin the frontlines simply because it was taking so much time to reorganize and continue their advance.
Not just the Generals,not even Hitler himself was sure if he really wants to delay caputing Moskow with that.(Since they had to divert Army Group Centre's tanks for the northern spearhead)He wait 19 crucial days to make the final Order
I think the “madman who caused the defeat” narrative is incredibly overblown. There was a lot of times Hitler’s personal orders saved lives, or caused great victories. He may have made a few blunders, but he had far more successes’ over failures.
@@lizzyregis I mean isnt the whole idea to circle them to take them out of the war? Turn them into prisoners or just kill them?
Oftentimes they try to outflank them then cut their supply lines off typical wartime strategy
1 vs 1 would have been a no-contest. It took 3/4 of the whole world to take Germany down.
Giovanni Gavassino actually it would be a contest. The Soviets did most of the work, killing 8 out of every 11 Germans that were killed during the war. This also doesn’t take into account German oil shortages which stopped Germany from producing a mass amount of weapons. It also doesn’t take into account that Russia would have fought until the bitter end and it wouldn’t matter if they conquered even half of Russia. German supply lines would be so far extended and since they would eventually have to cross the Ural Mountains and river. Germany would never be able to force the ussr to surrender
@@ajaibsidhu6226 I do agree with your points, would be a fierce fight till the very end. Nonetheless, considering German's army was spread out on two major fronts and occupied countries, USSR had a massive lendlease of equipment with the best technology from the Allies, I still think they could pull it off, even in a war of attrition. There is a reason while almost all historians believe Germany lost the war because of the two fronts opened. Still, I do agree that it would be a very bloody war, with no real winners due to incredibly high losses. Indeed I highly respect Russian army and their efforts.
@black ops zombies lend lease indeed
The Soviets had a lot larger industry so they could just outproduce Germany by itself
@black ops zombies are you actually that stupid? The Soviet Union WITHOUT american lend lease had still 2x more Tanks than germany. America helped them but not nearly as much to really be imporant in the war. Its not Soviet Propaganda but actually fucking History. They mightve not had the same industrial capabilities as the Germans or the USA, but their doctrine didnt rely on Quality, but on Quantity, which was a decisive factor for them. *... Hopkins stated the following: "We never believed that our help lend-lease is the main factor in the Soviet victory over Hitler on the Eastern front. It was achieved by heroism and blood of the Russian army."* - Actual Quote from Harry Hopkins, one of the closest persons to F.D.R. who helped him design the New Deal.
Quit your American bs and dont tell others to Learn history if you yourself cant take it neutral.
“If your losing a battle, throw more men in it”
-Stalin Maybe.
That explains why the Germans used kids and teenagers in the battle of Berlin lmao
if you see a panzer send 500 men to die against it to destroy it
-Joseph Stalin
@@joekaputt4415 I never said nunna this shit
- George Washington
One on one Germany wins against anyone. Germany faced 3 super powers.
Nazi germany vs soviets alone
1/3 video is about what happened with UK and japan
Ahh..
Because its important...?
@@Irgendwelche5 nah
But still great
Historicism man.
Relevant
Even as a Russian, I believe if it was a 1v1 we would have lost.
Winter:am i a joke to u
You are not a Russian
Joseph Stalin we don’t have to lose as many soldiers as we did, the Americans captured the first German city in WW2. The city of Aachen fell to the Americans and was the first German city to fall in WW2, mainly because the Americans used small groups of men clustered on the battlefield. Germans that fought in Aachen said it was the most unpredictable things the Americans did, that caught them off guard. Also if you look into it RAF and American bombers destroyed the majority of German factories, and industry and economy. Also note that T-34 tanks where actually built on American machinery, and factories built by American contractors brought in during the late 30’s by Stalin, not many people know that.
Joseph Stalin We also used a lot of British Aircraft, also before we invaded Berlin we had the Americans bomb Berlin the night before. Certainly we did are part against the Germans, but we used everything we had while they still had men on the western front and in Africa Italy etc etc. The Germans lost millions and millions less men than we did, because their Generals where the greatest on earth, their pilots like Erich Hartmann shot down 352 Soviet aircraft alone and was the top ace. Also for every panzer lost, 70 T-34’s where lost. In a pure 1v1 Germany would have won, the Soviet Union depended on American money British aircraft and other American goods even top Soviet generals admitted to that in the 50’s after the war.
Joseph Stalin it’s also insane to think France and Britain wanted to attack the Soviet Union right after the war and although I dislike Americans, they where the only ones that respected are hard fight and disagreed because Churchill was a mad man by 1945
What I do like about this video. Is that it takes in consideration that "an army cannot fight with boots and guns only. It needs food too." And even with the stretched supply lines Germany would have far less problems with keeping their armies supplied. And Stalin did consider peace talks until late 1942. And had been willing to give up the Baltics, Belorussia and Ukraine for a peace between Germany and the USSR.
Hitler was so stupid not to take this. Thats an insane amount of resources if Hitler just accepted that. Ukraine is particular is the breadbasket of Europe and theres plenty of oil there too.
@@nemanjajovanovic8295 Pretty sure Ukraine and the Baltics would have been enough if you look at the line he drew across the map. Sure no Caucuses region but the best land is truly the Ukraine and the Baltics. Hell Russia stole the Baltics and Ukraine anyways, it just changes hands. Hell, had the German Army gone into Ukraine as liberators they would have had a working and dedicated populace with full support against the Russians. This alone would of freed up at least 75K 2nd line troops from Partisan duty.
@@JuergenGDByou can’t go in as liberators if you see the people as less than animals. Mustache guy still should’ve taken it
No? Stalin would never consider peace, because this war was not just a conflict for land and resources, but an extermination war. If USSR surrendered, tens of million would be executed
@@RoCK3rADhe could've came up with some bs like the Ukrainians are honorable Aryans or the Ukraine was the real Russia "kievan rus"
11:45
I tought it was one of those bad advertisement for an android game or something
That would make a good hoi4 mod
Huntet Hunter there is one, its named war in the east
So who win
Sovimany
Yes, but that's really it. The Video is Bullshit.
Hidde Boland
“DREW DURNIL!!!”
No allies for the Soviets
*Winter has joined the server*
Winter: Allow us to introduce ourselves
winter: i got you fam
To be honest if Nazi Germany and Soviets fought eachother alone and the winter wasn't there for Soviets, there's a chance Nazi Germany could've won that war...
YE ALL TALK ABOUT THE NUMBERS OF DEAD LIKE YE ALL BEEN THERE SEEN EVERY THING AND COUNTED AND DOCUMENTED . EVERY 10th YEAR NUMBERS KEEP CHANGING LOWER HIGHER AND LOWER AGAIN . SO WHY DO WE ALL BELIEVE IN HISTORIANS EXPERTS AND ARCHIVE ?????
@@reptiloidx8942 the weather does change but the change isn't significant. Since it still goes Below freezing.
I think it's very interesting the fact that Britain's choice ,if they want peace, changed the whole world!
@G E T R E K T 905 Well yes but Britain would have had to surrender to Hitler, not exactly a terrific deal.
@G E T R E K T 905 but what makes you think you Hitler won't go back on his word like he did with Munich agreement and all the other treaties and pacts he's violated?
@G E T R E K T 905 Do you seriously think so? damn
@G E T R E K T 905 Why on Earth would you surrender peace with the tragic war crimes Germany committed constantly??
And with a ruler that clearly was never going to stop no matter what. Peace meant nothing to Hitler. Nor did any rules of engagement in War. Hell even humanity to its most basic level meant anything to him.
Couldn't be me to yield to an evil tyrant like that. Churchill saw it. He was the one we finally needed to act on that, we'd already allowed more than enough to go down by then.
@G E T R E K T 905 Nothing even anywhere near on the same level as the mass killings of Jews, homosexuals etc. The gas Chambers, what both Germany & USSR did with the constant mass executions to the already surrendered Polish.
Although two wrongs do not make a right, Hitler was immeasurably worse in both action and intent and needed to be stopped, a man that wanted the entire World so he could destroy everybody in it.
I think Germany during the WW2 was overpowered, it takes the greatest two forces on earth USA and Soviet together along with Great Britain and the rest of Europe countries to take them down
If it was one on one no army could have defeated Germany
So overpowered we had massive nerfs in natural ressources, allies, and manpower.
USA could've beaten Germany in a long fight because they can't touch our homeland, and if they tried to invade they would have to fight a bunch of American Gangsters, Hunters, hobby shooters, cowboys, along with the military. We barely had a military at the beginning, and we had the best production, eventually we would overwhelm them.
@@mushroom11g55
Maybe but it's the same goes with opposite, I mean USA alone may win but that will cost them a lot of time, blood and money, but having great British, Soviet Union, France and many other countries and not mentioning those who Resist against the Nazis from inside as well
Britain were above the USA at that point it was only after the war when the US took the second spot off world power
@@arrow3123 nuclear bomb bruh.
But we are both alcoholics, why should we fight?
@Комиссар ✌👌
For money power
Kevin DeVere Damn right
Maul
We can throw Ireland in there as well
6:22 After what the Soviets did to Finland in 1939 / 1940, Finland would definitely have joined the Germans, anyway.
Same with Romania, after the Soviet invasion of the Romanian Eastern province of Bessarabia.
[later edit] Not to mention that Romania had the oil that German panzers needed so badly (at least until the German conquest of the Russian-controlled oil fields in Caucasus).
Finland was russian empire, and soviets gave ir independence in 1917, you dumb fool. Nothing was done to finland in 39
@@neptunefog6082 Are you autistic in 1939 the Soviets bombed Helsinki and invaded without any justification.
@@neptunefog6082 Yeah, absolutely nothing ... except invading it and then stealing a large piece of its land, YOU DOLT.
antred11 Finland was part of the Russian empire before 1917, so ussr did not “steal” anything. In 1917 Lenin signed finland’s “application” or declaration on independence and soviet russia acknowledged finland independency ( first country to do so). From 1917 till 1922 , during ww1 and ussr civil war at the weakest moment for the russian country, finland used the moment and was the aggressor , started a war and occupied lands of russia ( ussr) that had never been part of Finnish Duchy ( part of Russian empire) in belief of so called Great Finland by the finnish nationalists. In 1938 ussr had secret negotiations with finland, supposing that germany plans an attack on ussr, ussr suggested a pact with finland : in case nazis attack finland, that finland does not join the nazis and does not let the nazis onto finish territory while ussr supports finland to fight the nazis off. Finland refused the pact. Then ussr suggested an exchange: finland gives to ussr key territories for ussr border protection in exchange for karelia that Finland wanted. Finland refused again, even though there was no sense it that refusal. Finland refuses all other reasonable suggestions not to facilitate nazis attack on ussr. Finland left no choice to ussr. In 1939 Ussr had to move the borderline with this traitor country as far as possible before ww2. Finland was land-hungry, that’s all, and took the convenient side in ww2. They also were anti-Russian, since they always had territorial claims on russia/ussr. Finland wanted russian lands, this is why they sell themselves to nazis.
Soviets did not commit any war crimes in Finland. Finland on the contrary took part in 1941-1942 leningrad blockade to starve people to death which is a war crime.... You know only the convenient part of history, you are brainwashed like most westerners
14:28 What really helped the USSR weren't the things they used for fighting, but things that help fighting, like spare parts of a vehicle, food, etc. Stalin and Zhukov both admitted that without Lend lease it would have been difficult if not impossible to win.
The lend lease represented around 3 percent of the soviet material, and the american tanks were really crappy.
The americans contributed mostly with jeeps, nothing too important.
@@ruka3219 americans contributed in places like food, among other things.
Sherman M4s were quite popular among soviet tankers because they were more reliable and refined. their guns were weak but they have the IS-2 for that, who cares
American planes were used often, and Valentine light tanks were used inn place of crappy T-60
@@ruka3219 zhukov admitted that without the lend lease it would have been much difficult if not impossible to win the war.
@@ruka3219 Tldr at at the bottom
"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."
That is what Joseph Stalin said about American lend lease. Hell even Nikita Khrushchev confirmed that Stalin expressed those views. "If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war, one-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me."
According to an essay for RFE/RL's Russian service by Boris Sokolov "In a hypothetical battle one-on-one between the U.S.S.R and Germany, without the help of Lend-Lease and without the diversion of significant forces of the Luftwaffe and the German Navy and the diversion of more than one-quarter of its land forces in the fight against Britain and the United States, Stalin could hardly have beaten Hitler, it should be remembered that during World War I, the transportation crisis in Russia in 1916-17 that did a lot to facilitate the February Revolution [which lead to the abdication of the tsar] was caused by a shortage in the production of railway rails, engines, and freight cars because industrial production had been diverted to munitions," Sokolov wrote. "During World War II, only the supplies brought in by Lend-Lease prevented the paralysis of rail transport in the Soviet Union. In order to really assess the significance of Lend-Lease for the Soviet victory, you only have to imagine how the Soviet Union would have had to fight if there had been no Lend-Lease aid," Sokolov wrote. "Without Lend-Lease, the Red Army would not have had about one-third of its ammunition, half of its aircraft, or half of its tanks. In addition, there would have been constant shortages of transportation and fuel. The railroads would have periodically come to a halt. And Soviet forces would have been much more poorly coordinated with a constant lack of radio equipment. And they would have been perpetually hungry without American canned meat and fats."
Georgy Zhukov himself was even monitored by the KGB to have said "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own."
Tldr; 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. 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. It 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. American aid also provided 4.5 million tons of food, 1.5 million blankets, and 15 million pairs of boots. It shipped 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 14,000 aircraft, 8,000 tractors and construction vehicles, and 13,000 battle tanks and 180 billion USD (In today's currency).
@@gaminglichgamer4035 you deserve way more likes you literally wrote a SA
Germany was fighting all 4 countries at the same time and he split himself making himself weaker.
That’s why he struggled to the very end
Yes. Germany did very well too. Amazing the amount of tech and organization of the armies they were able to pull off. Imagine if the US GAVE GERMANY THE LEND LEASE? Europe would've been Germanys.
True
@@thediaz07 Never in any world where FDR is President would Germany get a lend lease... thank the Lord. Which wouldn't have helped Germany much. They had more than enough weapons.
@@BeniTheTesseract what? Production of those said weapons is the key. Imagine the luffwaffe on steroids? Or kreigsmarine?
@@thediaz07 Without the manpower or fuel to fly them? Good luck
"Slowly return to democracy."
That only happened to Franco's Spain because it was pressured geopolitically from all sides by EU/NATO, with a new and solid Fascist bloc in Europe democratisation wouldn't have happened after Hitler's death - not even after attempts at gradual subversion. Germany could have at least carved out Byelorussia as a satellite out of the USSR as well., otherwise fantastic video.
In Spain we returned to democracy when Franco died, we signed the Marshall plan and thus we were not touched (idk what would have happened in this other reality)
actually nvm, I had not finished the video and didn't understand the context of what you were saying
daniel Gcos fascism only thrived because the people of germany were poor and desperate and angry following the First World War and the treaty of Versailles, this chaos and turmoil in German politics is what drove people to ideological extremes such as fascism. Now that Germany have won and the anger of the people have been satisfied, there is no reason for Germany to go to war again. And with this low war support it would be incredibly difficult for the nazi’s extremist popularism to survive. Ultimately Germany would have to descend into moderatism.
Facist regimes don’t last very long look how long it took Russia to get rid of communism
I would say - here neo-Nazis masturbate tirelessly to their sick fantasies :>
Stalin had a son called Svetlana? Errr... she might have corrected you on that...
She became transgender
Svetlana in history: Stalin's daughter
Svetlana I know: a sledgehammer used to pound meats
@@darrelarno9151 is boris
@@darrelarno9151 BORIS
Wasn't his name Yakov/
I honestly think people minimize how close this war actually was and the dire consequences of a german victory I appreciate everyone actually doing there part. Imagine the number of soviet casualties without allied strategic bombing if the soviets could have even survived long term Every partizan every soldier every pilot did there part.
Yes. At one point the Nazis had overrun nearly 2% of Russian territory. Before they retreated.
@@annoyingbstard9407 Imagine if the Russians where like you and didn't put there industry on trains.
@@annoyingbstard9407 I think you are likely to stupid to understand land is useful for defense only if its defended and you can make bullets to defend it otherwise it should be made inhospitable .
Soviet casualties were really mounting up when the Germans were on the losing side so I think a German victory may be beneficial to the world. No Soviet means no Cuba, North Korea and most importantly, no communist China either, a better world.
😊😊😊
@@zdynasty7975 fuck no
I've watched all of your videos and I have to say. That they're all thought provoking and great source of What if or an look into an alternate universe. So keep up the great ideas, my good sire.
Never again war with our russia brothers...
GERMANY + RUSSIA
Little do you know that Goths and Slavs hate each other for thousands of years.
Ussr + germany = nazi union?
@@user-fq7ff4hs4z no soviet reich
No, Berliner Pakt or Pact of Iron and Work or something like that
Brothers ?! 😂😂😂😂
My biggest enemy:
WINTER
Just copy this name and your god Deutsche Brüderschaft
No it’s not, it’s lack of supplies, oil and manpower
GSG Deutschland Come, we will give you teeth again and break as our grandfathers did. For hundreds of years you went to us with your sword. And now you have migrants
BIGGER ENEMY FINNISH WINTER MUHAHAHAHA
So ist es... Immer genug Sauerkraut essen... Es gibt dir Kraft
The problem with Stalingrad isn't that German forces were tied elsewhere, it's the fact that they were overextended and cannot bring significantly greater forces without stretching their logical abilities beyond the limit, and the Germans were far from close in winning that battle. The German forces were starving because of the lack of logistic support as they were expected to forage, bringing in more German soldiers would be pointless if they cannot be fed. It's unlikely the Germans will win Stalingrad in even if they could deploy 30% more forces in Russia overall. What would happen will more likely be a stalemate. Keep in mind that the USSR is still outproducing the Germans in manufacturing output and armament even after 1942, although not by a lot. In 1942, the Russians were still producing 10,000 more tanks than the Germans even after losing 7& of its land and about 40% of its population. A stalemate with productivity roughly on par on both sides can imply several things, the USSR could still grind the Germans and drive them out very slowly as they are in hostile territory and losing even more people; although it's unlikely it would push the Germans out beyond Ukraine if Germany can get itself together.
While true, Germany not being tied up with other wars or having to worry about invasion. They could redeploy all this equipment and man power to strengthen the supply chain thus alleviating the supply issue since more well equipment armies would be doing the actual fighting. Trucks would have half tracks and wide tires able to more easily go across the rasbutitsa. Further more the Germans would have to rely less on horses and clapped out tanks for fighting. This would suggest the Germans had a much better chance of being more effective in Stalingrad as the armies would have been better fed. Better equipped and had more man power and not needing to throw themselves because of the need for a lighting campaign. Methodical advancement would mean less German losses. It would have still been close as Russia still was a force to be wreckend with.
the Entire Luftwaffe being deployed to the East would give the Germans total Air dominance and help with the logistical Issues because in 1942, only Half of all German transport planes were in the East
and as far as production capabilities goes, Not having a U-boat & V1 & V2 Program will mean that Massive Resources can instead be used for equipment needed on the east front like more Tanks or Anti-Tanks guns, it can even be argued that if the entire German war industry were to be focused on the East that they'll out produce the USSR / Perhaps more Troops won't make a huge difference aside from strengthening the frontline's and lowering the chances of a Soviet breakthrough, However More Equipment like Tanks, Planes, Trucks & the STG-44 & Panzerfaust being created and manufactured much Earlier *That most certainly will make a great difference*
Soviet union would have lost if they faced germany without other countries involvement..
@@smashtv6408 wehraboo
@@mynameistomfoolery5470 commiboo
THE BEST ERA THAT WE DIDN'T REACHED
If you mean technology uhm i guess
@@blockifahad6412 not at all
With 6900 tigers II tank you could conquer the world...love it
nukes tho
mermaidboy89 tsar bomba
They would probably break before the borfer.... Heavy tanks are only good on the defensive battles.
Everything financed with fiat money. Created out of thin air. It is time for an anarchistic society. I use Bitcoin / Monero.
germanys nuke was in hiroshima and Nagasaki
and 1000 ME 262
You know this is bad when he calls Churchill a warmonger but Hitler a strategist.
You mean accurate and non biased ?
Снеf Ргоору well let me stop you there, Hitler was a dumbass for strategy, Churchill was a warmonger and a failure (Gallipoli as an example), German Reich 1v1 Soviet Union it is in favor of the German Reich for the simple fact they don’t have to give up men and resources to factors like AA guns or protecting the french coast. Germany overall has the advantage compared to the USSR without the lend lease and other factors, Russian victories would happen but they would be trumped by german victories
ChatWithTheDutch germany lacked oil. hitler knew this, but his generals kept pushing him to drive to moscow to instantly capitulate russia just as they did with france. but hitler knew that russia is a totally different beast. he was going to fight an attritional war, and thus desperately needed oil, so ordered army group south to attack the caucasus region and seize its oil. pretty solid strategy i might say.
Churchhill kind of was a warmongerer
@Wolfgang Charlemagne Yes you are correct. He at first was speaking against them in his bits of writing and news articles..until he fell on hard times and needed cash to maintain his aristo pretensions. The historian David Irving says they bought him lock stock and barrel for £40,000 and he then became overnite their creature. The above info is common getting more and more known...and at the same time suppressed.
Kids : Nazi vs Ussr
Mens : Beer vs Vodka
Legends: Dad vs Mom
Khrushchev wrote in his memoirs, that Stalin admitted that without US aid, Germany would of defeated the USSR.
He's not wrong no one can fight germany alone it's basic suicide cause german strategies and engineering are far superior than any country at the time
He wasn't wrong.
"And 2 of his sons - Vasilij and Svetlana."... no comments
Svetlana was a very pretty.....boy?
Just one of about "one billion 800 thousand" errors!
Yup, yup, dude
The ultimate battle between fascists and communists.
Facist for god
Capitalism❤️
Wtf man, Germany was not a fascist
Nazis v Communists
@The Paranoid What qualifies as fascist in the modern era?
Germany probably would have won, don’t forget, the Soviet Union was receiving hundreds of millions from 42-45 in military aid, weapons, ammunition, fuel, trucks, food, guns.
Without it, I’m not sure the Soviets would have won against Germany
As a russian guy. I have to admit our country was weak. If this happened I would say our country will lose against the nazi germans. Our country was corrupted with riots and many genocides began. We were weak in all types of things, aircraft, ships, guns, but we wernt weak of men. Except we were useless in trying to defend the line. I have to admit that we didnt have any good planes to defeat the bf and the ME. If this would of happen I gotta say my country would dissolve and we will lose against the powerful germans. Thankfully that never happen😔🙂
i also dont think that the soviets would be able to produce nukes in 1951 in this timeline like the video says, because they would have to recover from the great patriotic war, and the second russian civil war. the soviets also were not that well lead either, because of the great purge. but if stalin didnt do the purge he wouldve been overthrown in 1937-1938, alot of people dont know this, but alot of the generals and soviet officials were secretly in touch with trotsky in mexico plotting to overthrow stalin. but imo he shouldve been overthrown, and if he had been overthrown if he didnt start the purge in the first place, i think the soviets wouldve done somewhat better in ww2 like they did in our timeline, because they wouldve been much better lead.
@@SosaL432 your right. I don't t think we would be able to produce nukes bc we would have to recover the horribleness things Joseph stalin did to our precious country. Genocide, purges, forcing men into the army in order to push the germans away and if we refused we be executed. Mexico, was one of our friends. During the russian civil war the red army blocked few ports in our country. The bolsheviks did do this. The white army tried to stop the engaging blockades but the red army were already there with there weapons ready to fire. Mexico, helped us all. During our starvation from the communist party mexico sent food to the russian civilians and we shared to make no one die of starvation. I cant say but it would have been way better if the white army defeated the bolsheviks. Stalin knows what he had done, but hes always hiding it behind his fake nice smile on him. We didnt have guns such as the german ones. We had outdated ones, garbage scrap of tanks, and our ammunition was low. We did have enough planes but like I said they were scrap metal and poorly designed. Nazi germany had initial success trying to take 40% of our land, lend-lease helped us push them back which was known as the battle of stalingrad. We didnt surrender. The germans were literally a heartbeat away taking stalingrad but the plan was to kill the nazi generals and it worked. I'm very glad mexico sent food to us not to starve, and usa making the lend-lease act to have weapons to defeat the germans and push them away. So I'm glad we had some cover but the relation between russia and usa is not so warm today since the russian invasion of Ukraine 2022 had started. Hopefully we dont get to the gates of world war 3😔
@@martinsayago9263 also, i forgot to mention, in that timeline, i think the nazis would also want to puppet belarus, and the caucasian regions for sure since that was their goal.i also think that in that timeline the bolsheviks would start producing nukes in the 1960s, or the really late 1950s if theyre lucky. and you're right, the bolsheviks in ww2 had a massive but weak air force, and alot of guns, but outdated ones, they also lacked some of the technology. alot of people say in the comments of this video that the soviets would win, but they are dead wrong tbh, they forget that food is a vital resource for an army, they also forget that even though nazi germany didnt have as many weapons as the soviets did, their weapons were way better, with a more advanced, but not as big army.
@@SosaL432 Ur 100% right. The nazis did want to puppet Belarus. Belarus was one of nazis most wanted countries. They wanted it bc they are a huge ally to russia. In volgograd, we have a museum and I saw this one document called the nazi manipulation. The article was written by a german solider who died of cancer. It started out when nazi germany saw the vital allies of russia. There main goal was to invade and capture all russian allies such as belarus, and some other Baltic states that were sympathetic to russia. In order to defeat russia easily, they had to capture all allies of russia so they could give out information. It also talked about the whole plan about capturing russia such as Ukraine and the others. Hitler wanted to puppet all vital allies of the soviet union to change and manipulate there ideological power. Nazi germany also wanted to kill many civilians during their manipulation. They did this to keep the russian guessing that there civilians are in chaos and they would be killed and russia will have there population low meaning they would have no other options but to surrender. This is a important document and that's why it's called the NAZI Manipulation. Actually, we did had a missile to be launched at germany. We created and built a copyrighted missile of germany called the V2 ballistic. If u search it up on google u would see that russia actually used it, but dont let that fool you, again we were super weak in supplies and we lacked many materials. We actually had some newer planes to fight against the luftwaffe such as the La-5 but we only had like around 300 bc we lacked so many so we had no other choice but used the old outdated planes to try and protect our nation but we failed bc we were so weak in everything and the germanys were literally a sword and we were paper they just sliced us up. Thankfully, germanys weakness was there logistics. Which we targetet. And thank god we built the t-34 just in time so we can match against the panzer and tiger tanks. We didnt really have bombers, our bombers were literally made from tiny pieces of metal. Literally, the anti aircraft guns literally shred all of our hardworking bombers and enormously destroyed our 2 year production of bombers in just 2 days. But the main key to survive and have some power is food. We didnt have much so we suffered of that to. If it wernt for the usa land lease, god knows who would have won but I gotta day nazi germany would have won. And if it was germany against the soviets alone I have to agree that nazi germany would destroy and crush us easily like a slice of cheesecake. Even though I'm russian, I have to agree that germany would of won if this chaos had fallen.
@@martinsayago9263 and one more thing, if the Germans win in the siege of Moscow in this timeline or the battle of Moscow in real life, they also after not long would’ve taken Leningrad and Stalingrad since I think if they won the siege/battle of Moscow Stalin would have committed suicide in the Kremlin or at his home in the dacha. After that I think the bolsheviks might be forced to the peace table and set up a Siberian government, and the Germans would create a strong defensive line around urals, because they only really cared for west Russia.
Girls locker : ew I hate P.E omg what is that
Boys locker :
I know this is a Russian saying this so some here doesn't mean anything but Khrushchev said:
`I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.`
that's interesting, didn't know that
Nope, Germany lacked oil and natural resources, as well as military strength and equipment. The US would have crushed Germany one on one.
@@rs72098 though without the UK that would have been much more difficult..invading from North Africa?
KingJustice98 - The question was not the US, the question was Russia WITHOUT US AID.
where did you find this statement by krushhev ?
This video puts into perspective how much the Germans actually accomplished having all the world against them: Atlantic defenses, 25% of production devoted to AA guns, embargos everywhere, U-Boat production, V1 and V2 rockets which were the pinnacle of rocketry for years to come, powerful tanks, first assault rifles, first use of jet aircraft in combat, having to carry their idiotic allies, etc. and they still managed to defend themselves against enemies with 3 or 4 times the manpower, tanks, aircraft, etc. for a long time. They could have even gotten the atom bomb did they really care to do it. Germany truly deserved to become another Superpower and would easily have been one, probably not the dominant one, but still winning on the technological front. Even now Germany is the dominant force in Europe, not even two defeats, a division and all its capital destroyed were enough to push it too far back.
They were never alone. The axis powers were Germany, Austria, Finland, (Vichy) France, Italy, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, yugoslavia and Japan. Less than a third of the axis forces were actually German.
@@annoyingbstard9407 Croatia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Austria, Vichy France and Finland weren't really that significant. Sure Finland was crucial for a northern campaign but Germany alone could have accomplished that. On top of this, Italy was more of a nuisance than a benefit for Germany. I guess the only somewhat competent countries from that list would be Romania and Hungary.
"With 6900 Tiger 2s, you can conquer the World" Best quote I've heard in a while.
I didn't know Stalin had a son named Svetlana
@@paulwhite760 sons, not son
Daughter
@@zvallid ruclips.net/video/EnQ_3anpWQk/видео.html
Daughter, he hated his drunken son. He had the other one shot because he gave up and got captured.
Nirad802 she had a relationship with a jewish photographer that made Stalin angry and Stalin expulsed the jewish photographer to a gulag in a artic island in 1943.
Without the 250,000 trucks the US gave to the Soviets, their logistical chain would have been even poorer than the German one, despite the much longer distance the Germans had to manage. This alone would have greatly altered the outcome of the war, let alone many other factors, such as Germany not being decimated from the air by British and US saturation bombing of industry and civilians.
Damn so the usa really bailed russia out and yet russia thinks they took germany out all by themselves. Hell no. Germany would have murdered them if it didnt face the obstacles it did.
bull
@@TheRealBillBoball talk, nothing to back your shit up.
Correct. The Soviets were a western welfare state.
@@TheRealBillBobIts true!
"The Soviet Union carried WW2 and could solo the entire world 🤡"
*This video shredding that theory to pieces*
The fact the US is the biggest supplier of the Soviet Union shows how weak the Soviets are without the allies
@@acegabrielcruz3687 The soviets are ALWAYS comically overestimated in every aspect, I don't understand how people will happily shit on the Germans who fought their asses off to the bitter end and complain about wehraboos but commieboos and worshippers of the ever more flawed hammer and sickle get a pass lmao
@@acegabrielcruz3687 The majority of American lend lease aid arrived after the Soviets had decisively defeated the Germans at Stalingrad
German let's the "Desert Fox" General Rommel loose on Russia. Russia would still be speaking German today.
I havent started it yet but i feel like the third reich will conqure russia.
Better we🇩🇪 drinking with the 🇷🇺 thats better for all 😁😁😁🍺🍺🍺
Me and the boys uniting to stop USA from world domination
Make booze, not war)
Maybe 🇰🇵
Star Trek Theory fuck that
The war over the drink. Beer or vodka?
One of the more important notes on operation Barbarossa in this scenario is that Stalin would had not been caught with his pants down as he did in our timeline - although both Hitler and Stalin knew the inevitable war between Germany and USSR was coming, Stalin didn't think Hitler would be crazy enough to invade while still battling Britain on the western front. In fact when British intelligence was trying to convince Stalin that Germany was planning the attack, Stalin shook those points off, being convinced that this was a ploy by British to engulf Soviets on the eastern front. If there was peace between Britain and Germany in this scenario, I'm curious what preparations Soviets would had made prior to Barbarossa.
The Soviets wanted to join the Axis powers but Hitler was too ideologically opposed to communism
Not a chance in hell of Russia winning against Germany. Although Germany suffered the majority of its casualties on the Eastern front they still dedicated a significant amount of troops, and resources to the west. If you add 50+ more divisions, an air force that would’ve been twice the size in the initial invasion, an unfathomable amount of tanks, factories not being bombed, more than enough oil for 10+ years of war, and unthreatened supply lines behind the front?! My god…how is this even a question?!?!
Why is it that literally any other timeline seems better than our own?
Because in no other circumstances war drag itself longer than 3 years and causing exaustion to anyone even to those do not involve themselves with war.
every alternative timeline better than our own you say? hm... american civil war won by south? guess that would be a good alternative right?
i dont think that the slavic people woud not like to get enslaved and shit
A bit idealist at the end maybe, nevertheless an enjoyable senario and video
@@rock3tcatU233 Even if so, how about the states economy end up? How strong the state would be? How about crimes that are commited by non blacks?
My favourite bit was when "highly" was pronounced "higgly". Still interesting tho.
I am txnping whit my foit
@@charityjackson2601 Bruh
The ending is complete nonsense. There isn't a way a peace treaty could be signed. That war would be until the full defeat of either side. It wasn't a clash of ideologies, it was a war of survival for the USSR. Germany viewed the russians and some more peoples of the union as quite literally subhuman, and the amount of lives lost just within the 4 years of the real war behind the frontlines is insane. Germany would not settle for just baltics and ukraine either, as they aimed for a german "living space" all the way up to the urals. Needless to say if that ever happens every russian within is shit out of luck and is likely going to get killed by the nazis. That's why the soviets would also never accept a surrender.
If you really wanted to make a german victory scenario, it would make more sense to have it as a complete military defeat of russia, not signing a peace treaty with moscow not even taken.
Without peace treaty the ending will be the same.....
Russians act like they could have beat the Germans ALONE. They had lots of help and after WWII, the countries they "liberated" were just under new management. Still, respect for fighting the good fight when they had to.
80% of the German army was fighting the soviets without which the normandy invasion
would have failed, imagine millions more german soldiers on the beaches, so the soviets
helped the western allies as well, if you want to compare the germans and soviets
here are some stats
German occupation of Poland: 6 million poles killed
Soviet occupation of Poland: 150k poles killed
the soviets werent trying to exterminate most of eastern europe like the germans
@@edmiesterful these stats are also based on the fact, that there were almost no soldiers in the Eastern side side of Poland, cause yk they were defending the western side
@The RightStuff Khrushchev was
full of crap.
@The RightStuff Germany invaded
alongside:
Romania
Finland
Italy
Hungary
Slovakia
These countries gave many soldiers and
the Germans got supplies from occupied
countries like France, Belgium, Holland etc.
Nazi Germany would lose even quicker if
they fought the Soviets alone.
@@edmiesterful you're that the Soviets weren't trying to exterminate people like the Nazis...they were trying to enslave those people since they are no use dead and that is why Communism is the greatest system to enslave the masses. Absolutely nobody could take on the Germans alone. The Soviets relied on Western intelligence, weapons, infrastructure, equipment, and support on the battlefield. I mean the Germans fought on 3, almost 4 fronts.
This video leaves out an important part:
Some of the USSR countries could have switched sides to get freedom, imagine, for example, if Caucasus switched sides and helped Germans to get to Baku oil reserves in exchange for freedom, bet Germany would love it.
This is pretty realistic, taking into account their plans on Caucasus.
@Kwen he did say “some”, not all, not with direct support from Germany, could’ve been Kazakh revolt. and he used the Caucasus not Ukraine or Byelorussia as an example because it would’ve supplied Germany with desperate needed oil smart fella
ahahahahahahahah
@@sgtreznov9869 completely deconstructed his argument there good job.
To OP.
"Some of the USSR countries could have switched sides to get freedom, imagine, for example" That is impossible. The nazi ideology means all those countries and their people are considered "lesser people" by them. Fact is that this is *exactly* what happened in the Ukraine; Belarus and many other Soviet republics. At first the people believed they won their "freedom" from Stalin. Then they quickly learned that Stalin's police-state prison was better than the nazi extermination camps. They could play charades with Stalin and get spared. They could play no charades with the nazis who considered them "sub-human". You're speculating if Nazi Germany would offer those states "freedom" when this something that isn't even considered among the nazis.
" bet Germany would love it. " No, because they are not fooling anybody with their ideology at this point (even Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy had serious qualms siding with it) and they're NOT into offering people they loathe any kind of bargain. The only country they offered some sort of fair deal were the British following the fall of France. For everybody else it was simply conveyed as "You do exactly as we say or else..." Historically this has *never* been a good way to convince other people you're their friend and ally.
And Caucasus isn't a country. Neither is it populated by people the nazis consider "worthy".
Last of all, what could Nazi Germany *possibly* offer the people of Caucasus to make them consider "switching sides" ?? HOW are they going to get these assurances??
@@McLarenMercedes Tbf Japan did some terrible shit that was probably equal to the nazis if not worse. During the rape of Nanking a Nazi ambassador (I forget what he actually was so ambassador it is) openly protested it and went around stopping rapes in progress. Of course he is just one person and not all Nazis would have done that. But yeah I don’t think Japan really cared. Other than that I agree with what you said.
As for the Pacific war in World War 2, the United States would have still prevailed against the Japanese with no assistance. The American strategy for winning against Japan would more than likely have been different but arriving at the same results. Every senior Japanese commander knew that challenging the Americans could only be effective for 6 months,at most, before the American factories were able to outproduce the Japanese Empire on a massive scale. Both the Nazis and the Japanese made the same strategic blunder in expanding their empires far beyond the capacity fo their military forces to hold them.
I agree.
Wrong. America had the japanese naval, military and diplomatic Cypher decryption in 1940. America wanted Japan to attack and knew it.
By late 44 the US was producing a fleet carrier (Large ones like Enterprise) every month and at least 5 Escort Carriers per month.
They also had the population to train and rotate pilots in and out of combat.
Tbh if Germany didn't declare war on the U.S, the Germans wouldn't have spent so much money on the Atlantic Wall and they could've sent more men to the east as well as resources.
@@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheesewrong, with nothing to back your claim up.
Fun fact: those 850k men from other axis countries made up mainly army group south and when Germany was encircled at stalingrad it was the Romanians that were overwhelmed on their back
While in the North, Finns and Spaniards played an important role.
@@gumdeo mhm, the fins greatly improved the German capacity to fight in the winter and the army group north wasnt pushed back as much as the others when winter came
100% victory for Nazi Germany versus the Soviet Union without question. Barbarossa proved that without luck and outside help, the Nazis would have dogwalked them
What outside help?
seems about right to me
edit: my username used to be adolf hitler
Too bad,muricans won in the end and both of us lost.
@@tsarnature6587 Your php and username is Joseph Stalin. The irony hurts so much.
@@stalingaveusanorder6262 Sorry comrade,I dont use capital letters because I hate capitalism.
@@tsarnature6587 How did Murica win?
Megumin they won by sending a fuckton of supplies to the allies in which they were in and kinda booty raped Germany, and in the Cold War democracy won following the collapse of the USSR. So in the end I guess Murica kind of did win lol.
America has turned fascist.
Oh shit!
NO WAR PLEASE ,BOTH GOT HOT CHICKS AND AWESOME BANDS
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE HLC .
Bands go to Germany but chicks maybe Russia? lol
@@martinmueller4240 classic dude
Whoowh your right dude
But wait we dont want bands or hot chicks we want victory and powerrrrrr hahhahhahhaaaa. Сука
Missed was the fact that two thirds of the tanks that stopped Germany in front of Moscow came from UK lend lease.
2:45 okay that gave me chills
I really wanted to watch this video, but the computer voice was too much for me. Can't you find someone to do a voice-over?
just turn the volume off lmao
@@Dietsch_ :- I did, & the video!
@@blueeyeswhitedragon9839 lol
His real voice is much worse
@@Dietsch_ heyyy my clone!!
"Hitler and Mussolini die at the same day in 1964" holding hands in same bed.
WOW good one, I would not give a comment like this a like most of the time but wow so good.
I ship it
I would say - here neo-Nazis masturbate tirelessly to their sick fantasies :>
The men did not really like eachother though
@ShapeShifter The Name of The Song is Action Hero From Jingle punks
In this world hittler wouldnt be the worst person alive
Without other fronts the Germans can fully focus on the Soviet front which will cause a German victory
Yeah, in our timeline Germany had troops spread all over the place -- North Africa, France, all of Eastern Europe, etc. At the end of the war there were 400k German troops in Norway, for example. They were fighting in all directions. The naval war in the Atlantic was a massive expense of labor and materials. The Luftwaffe was spent in the skies over Britain and the allies enjoyed overwhelming air superiority. All major German cities were bombed into rubble. Her industry was utterly crippled and railways were destroyed, compounding logistical problems. The atlantic wall was an absolutely enormous project. They had no oil. And they had to contend with communist partisans and saboteurs in occupied territories. Yet they still put up an incredible fight.
1v1 with the soviets, the reds would have been crushed. Every tank, plane, bullet, man; all German industry, engineering, and military might directed at a single enemy, on a single front.... Plus they would have several million anti-communist volunteers from across Europe joining the war effort (in our timeline over 1.5 million volunteers). And any extra weaponry and material Germany couldn't produce themselves they could just get from trade. Honestly, soviets would not have stood a chance. It would still be a titanic struggle, but Germany would definitely have won.
Britain surrender: perhaps.
Russia surrender: Never!
@@jacobreinhardt8724 Good counter argument, that surely made people change their opinions on the subject.
You are right.
@@samuelskogqvist5565 These men are your héroes too. Show some respect.
the suicide choice that Hitler made was stopped attacking Britain instead invading Russia. He should take Britain first. then there would be no ground holding for Americans later on Europe . strategical failure for Germany. if he really want Russia land, he could do that later, after united west euros.
Yes. The "strategist Hitler" decided that opening a war on multiple fronts was a smart idea. In history that has never worked. But apparently Hitler thought that "this time it will be different!". You know you're in trouble when you start believing your own propaganda about "weak and degenerated enemies" and base your military strategy on wishful thinking.
Keep dreaming boys, Nazi's are gone !!
I think he tried lol
You show extreme ignorance
Stalin was creeping up to the west,he had to go in and send him running.
Soviets were 85-90% responsible for the defeat of Germany, they could bring it up to 100 in this scenario
The Germans fought several at the same time
@@gustavo042 how is that relevant to my comment
Because if germany only have to fight the Soviet they would have win since germany was far stronger and competent then the Soviet union@@Hys-01
85% of Lend Lease to the Soviet Union only happened after Stalingrad and Kursk. Lend Lease had little effect on saving the Soviets. That feat must be attributed to the Soviet people. What Lend Lease did was speed up the end of the war, but it was not vital. Without it, the war would have taken maybe a year longer.
In late 1942 Stalingrad was under german control and Kursk wasnt happened
Lend-lease support started about mid-stalingrad-battle
@@kendekorcsmaros8730 And it only started arriving in significant quantities after the Battle of Kursk ended in August 1943. By then, the tide of the war had turned. The Soviets were going to win without Lend Lease being a factor. This fact ruffles a lot of American feathers, but the data is out there, and it's supported by many academics.
WW3
McDonald’s vs Burger King
Hamburger vs Lettuce
Number 15 burger king foot lettuce
T series vs pewds
Mobile Cyclop series won
Pepsi vs coke ww4
Finally! you release the new video! I’ve waited for this video was released for months.
The ussr more or less did single handedly take on the nazis, the other allies were a minor distraction at best
you are really believing this?
@@MrBeauty2000 76% of all nazis killed in the war were at the hands of soviets (thats more than all other countries involved in the war combined by a factor of 3x!) the battle of Stalingrad alone killed more nazis than the UK, US and france entire involvements in the war combined, the soviets also were on a full offensive for berlin over a year before the allies would have boots back on the ground in mainland Europe and again with next to no help, the famous lend lease was „noticeable“ at best and an absolute insult at worst and the only reason the allies could make any gains in Europe was because the vast majority of the nazi army was being pull from the west and sent to the east anyway, and if you’d like i could go into absolute detail with any of my points like sharing the production capabilities or the absolute insult the lend lease was because 2% of what you already make a year is unnoticeable etc etc. im sorry it was nothing like the movies man but the other allies barely participated when compared to the Soviets (also the very battle that made the nazis surrender, the battle of berlin, was exclusively fought by the germans and the soviets so you cant even put that as a point either)
@@HitachiTRQ-225yeah and the 24 percent captured way more land way quicker
@@pierce7992 Probably because they only had to fight a fraction of the army the east had and they had to keep pulling troops from the western front and move them east, isnt it funny how the west couldn’t even start an offensive until over a year after the east started theirs? Maybe use your critical thinking man
(Also they didn’t capture more land idk where you got that from, france and like 1/3rd of Germany is nowhere near as large as the eastern half of Germany and every country east of Germany including the parts of mainland RSFR that were lost, you literally have to outright lie to support your point)
Russia: Has millions of not mobilised soldiers
Also Russia: barely does anything to stop Germans near Moscow.
Also: you said partisan involvement was exaggerated in every country, when Partisans almost single-handedly liberated Yugoslavia.
Apart from leftist dreams If there were only the partisans Jugoslavia in 2021 would be still under Nazist
@@zvallid I kind of agree and disagree at the same time.
@@zvallid No after years of fighting Yugoslavia you have been liberated. Look how Algeria liberated itself from France or how Vietnam liberated itself from 3 imperialist countries using guerilla tactics and communist ideals
"two Stalins sons - Vasily and Svetlana" made my week:)
I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how russia works. Wars in Russia NEVER end with the fall of Moscow. While morale certainly would have taken a hit, I find it very hard to believe that Stalin would just surrender just because moscow fell, while the city that bears his name is still in the midst of one of the most brutal battles of the war. If the germans have no ammunition or oil in the dead of winter, it won’t matter if they have more freed up men and tanks. Stalin still had tons of planes and tanks from the far east REGARDLESS of lend-lease, that he could use to stage a counter-offensive.
You are certainly right about fall of Moscow. But then I think it is different if all major cities of Stalingrad/Moscow/Leningrad would have fell - I think it is very likely that World War 1 outcome in the eastern front would have repeated itself. A revolution in Russia at some point when enough casualties would have been sustained and not enough food...
but then again you cant have an army without food or weapons
yousef 501st Most of the manufacturing is in the Ural Mountains. The red army’s remains could have easily gotten weapons and food.
If Stalingrad will be occupied no more oil from Caucaso trough Volga can feed russian tanks..they had to surrender..
So how do you build tanks without the steel from lendlease ? how do you fuel them without the oil from land lease since Germany took most of Russia's oil fields ? How do you not starve with 40% areas to grow on gone ? They would have lost on their own
One of the key things people missed was that Germany couldn't have ever won against the USSR alone, even in this scenario. Because even if the Germans took Moscow, the USSR can just move their capital all the way back to even Vladivostok, then what? Not to mention near the end of WW2, USSR's production was steadily increasing, even with the mass territory losses. So even if Hitler didn't accept the peace treaty in this video, they would come to a costly stalemate, as German supply lines are stretched too thin.
As bad as the Nazis were we should have left them alone to grind themselves down against the Soviets.
Yanky
Well you did just that for three years (June 1941 to June 1944) the American strategy was to let the Soviets grind down the Germans before opening up the second front
Overall lots of good points in this video about historical misconception around the war. German ability to import Oil would be by far the biggest factor, lack of oil is what really made the German advance stop, not just that they could not transport it across Russia, they did not HAVE enough to begin with. If German oil imports are unlimited and their cities not bombed then they have unlimited time horizon for victory.
Yes that is true because the four month plan to victory in the east was because it would run out of fuel by then.
Those who believe this scenario's outcome would be no different than real life... are failing to consider some enormous differences between the two situations.
- Germany does not have to devote a large portion of production to uboats --> increased German production
- Germany is not being bombed from '42 on by Americans or British. --> increased German production, more available troops for the East, more available anti-air for the East, no skilled pilots lost fighting non-Soviet allies increases Luftwaffe capacity in the East.
- Germany has a navy with nothing better to do than to attack/blockade Soviet ports, meaning that whether or not other allies aren't fighting, they can't trade with the USSR anyway. So on top of lack of material assistance from allies --> No USSR ability to acquire foreign goods, unless via Siberia.
- It is not necessary for Germans to commit resources to the construction of the Atlantic Wall, nor to keep dozens of divisions in the West to respond counter any allied invasion --> more divisions in the East.
- None of the fighting in Africa or Italy ever happens --> more divisions in the East.
- USSR receives no intelligence assistance from British project Ultra --> increased Soviet fog of war.
The sum of the differences in Germany's fighting and production abilities in the two scenarios is MASSIVE and could easily have tilted a 1v1 war in their favor, and I believe it would have: Germany would have a small boost in men and material at the start of Barbarossa, but the difference between scenario and reality grow over time: more men and machinery available to start with and the greater/faster ability to replenish.
It's a double whammy - the scenario makes Germany stronger AND the USSR weaker.
Even if the Soviets still win the Battle of Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad was very closely fought, and I believe the advantages described above would've changed the result of this battle -- and the consequences of this are huge. The Volga is a key artery for the Soviet Union and German control of the river around Stalingrad is a crippling change in situation. Then, once Stalingrad and the Volga fall, it is likely that Case Blue's other thrust, into the Caucasus, is a success as well. From there, German victory is only a matter of time. The best the Soviets can hope for at this point is a stalemate where the Ural mountains separate each side. But at this point, the Soviets are little more than a nuisance.
Additionally -- Without other fronts or opponents to worry about, there's no reason to assume that the Germans wait until June 22nd to start Barbarossa. Launching even two weeks sooner might have made the difference between victory and defeat in 1941, as mud-then-winter did about as much to slow German progress as the Red Army.
But you forget that hitler suprise stalin with attack,so think twice
@@Atlantis1789 Stop at the Urals? He never reached them in the first place.
@@piramida3684i think it will be the same also
"Without the Help of America we would have lost" General Kruschev
amazing !!!! you just have said a cuote tha Krusche never said , you also have promoted Kruschev the grade of general !!!
Germany would literally won easily one on one on Russia..
@@loafbread1920 witout the 20 million slaves from Poland and the occupied europe , the Chekoslovakia ,industry ,the looting of trucks in europe , Germany could not even sept ay the treeshold
@@fergar9264 ruclips.net/video/EnQ_3anpWQk/видео.html
@@fergar9264 just use 🧠 so you can easily understand it
The Soviet Union was nothing like France, who surrendered when Paris was lost. Even if Moscow fell, they would go on. Stalin intended on throwing every single man, woman, and child at the Germans before surrendering.
Germany would have trashed Soviet if war was only btw them.
No single country can singlehandedly take on Germany.
Nurul Ansari that’s only because of their unique fighting strategies. Any country can be overtaken using blitzkrieg. I’m pretty sure if the soviets caught nazis off guard, they wouldn’t be prepared.
Beg to differ, the US lend-lease act provided the USSR with more than enough firepower to halt the Germans on the eastern front, during a time when the US (the people, not the Government) did not want any part of Europe's affairs. Buy the end of the war, the 3rd Armed Division of the US army was more than capable of handling any conflict or country wanting trouble, and that was just one Division. Remember and never forget that a country, with a constitution and freedom, not only defeated Nazi Germany, but, Imperial Japan. And should have finished with the Soviet Union.
USA could have. Germany had no way of attacking the US
@@shanewilson6879 True, but a lot of people forget that the strategic air war cut German production from 10-40%, depending on the year. In addition, all of those AA guns and fighters were diverted West. The kill ratio of German/Russia was sufficient to destroy all of Russia alone production and leave Germany with excess, so clearly, the Germans could have won an attritional war without the West interfering.
the usa would have demolished germany. usa couid beat germany just like they beat japan with one arm tied behind its back.
"They attacked Finland"
Me: *"Awww Snap!Here we go again,Winter war"*
A lot of people don't realize that Germany heavily relied on a lot of it's Allies troops
LOL, like the italians who couldn't beat greece?
@@JogenMogen To be fair, Italian soldier's weren't bad. They fought better than anyone in the mountains. Give them good leadership and weaponry and you have a good military.
@@LastRedStar They even lost to Ethiopia 😂
@@LastRedStar my point is, they needed more done to get them as good as the germans
and the soviets realied heavily on lend lease for trucks and logistics. Maybe not tanks though but definetly logistics.
17:31 why build 7000 tiger 2’s when you can build 56,000 panthers 😂
Truly alone (No Lend/Lease; US and Britain remain neutral) = Guaranteed Axis victory
There was no any significant help sent to the USSR in 1941-42. During almost half of 1942 there was no any shipments at all.
The real Lend-Lease help started coming after the Kursk battle in 1943.
Except from the russian winter where the German soldiers were not ready for it
nukes tho
ElAshtonio
They were so close to winning, even with the actual war.
1000 subs, No video. How they were close to winning
11:46 Tiger vs Bear?🐯🐻 Not Eagle vs Bear? 🦅🐻 The tiger is not a symbol of Germany. Besides, the tiger is the symbol of Korea over the centuries with the dragon.🐅🐉🐯🐲
이동연 I thought the same
Yes but you may know the Tiger tank.
Maybe that's why he used a Tiger for the Germans
@@n4ppin That's how I took it.
Eagle is symbol of Italy munezz
Wait wild Tigers still live in Korea?
Love when people says soviets could've win easily without the allied helps too, cuz they aren't support the soviets with anything useful, usually they say this "weapons, tanks etc."
Guys this is not about these, but about the bombing runs the allied did, the D-Day, the other side of the front all these things made the Germans weaker in both of the front, and i mean very weak, they had to fight both side with 50-50% men, meanwhile the other side effort was put to 100%, and it wasnt enough, they also bombed their facility's and sabotaged a lot of things, basically Germany had to deal with every bullshit that the allied did, and they did a lot. Expect soviets, they just run over the weaken German soldiers, but the soviets still struggled... Lost more men than Germany, like bruh
So stop saying "oh the mighty Soviet Union the best and strongest" no, they aren't, germany was...
Americans propaganda
French: " We'll win again this time "
Germans: *already at Paris*
French: " Wait, WHAT "
German: we have the army
Russian: we have the winter
Germans: we have the best military in Europe and world
Russians: we have to surrender (Russia surrenders)
Russia: (takes Berlin)
Germany: we can still win
OOOOOF!
@@bengofung2780 technically they could reconqer everything until Moscow.
@@jamesNov Lol. Looks like they didn't
soviets: ATTACK
Germans: Fritz are those children?
soviets: made 90% of children
Germans: nap time
U mean 90% were children in nazi army
Woman an childeren did help to make fortifications but they didn’t pull the trigger
Giving u the 69th like
Every German is a gangsta
Until the snow starts speaking Russian
Njörðr of the Atlantic 3 Words Siege of leningrad
why germany didnt annex belostok in our timeline germans annexed
8:32 gave me the chills...I felt like I was there
The German army in WW2 was probably the strongest comparable army the world has ever seen for their time. The fact they were fighting most of the world simultaneously and almost won says it all. The only reason Germany lost was because Hitler insisted on micro managing the war instead of letting his experienced generals call the shots.
Germany would have crushed russia and i Mean crushed them.
I disagree. The United States would have NEVER made peace with Germany. Never. We would have ground them into the ground in a long war with nuclear exchanges. It would have been terrible but the US would have prevailed.
@@AetherWorlds I used to agree that Barbarossa was flawed from the start. However the Originial plan Submitted by Werner Marcks might have worked.
@Ather: I disagree. Had forces not been diverted from Army group center and sent to help Army group South in fall 1941, Moscow might have fallen. That decision was made by Hitler.
Almost won? That and $2 will get you a coffee and a donut.
This is interesting. Have read a lot about the Eastern Front during the Second World War. It is these "what ifs" make one wonder how much things may have been different. Thank you for sharing it.
This could have conceivably happened. If Britain had sued for peace, which could have happened. Germany, and Soviet Union were always going to end up fighting.
Lend Lease was completely effective in 1942 and Soviets would not have won during the battle of Stalingrad without lend lease. Whoever in the comments saying lend lease wasn’t in full effect is lying