Whoa whoa whoa, Japan had a massive fleet, with the largest Battleships and Carriers along with a strong air force. There was no way the Russian navy could compete against the Japanese one, so I can't see how Russia can engage in a full scale invasion of Japan. They could sweep across Korea and China, installing Communist governments, but the Japanese islands would be extremely secure. And Paratroops need to be regularly supplied in order to be effective.
I don't think the logistics on are the Soviet Union's side. Operation Downfall would have involved 6 million soldiers, and predicted up to 1.7-4 million American casualties, and that was with Aerial Superiority, Naval Support and Armored support. A paratroop force numbering in the millions was just unheard of in WW2, requiring an enormous amount of vulnerable transport planes. Even if they built up such a force, those paratroops can't be supplied by sea with all IJN Battleships and Carrier patrolling it, so it'd have to be done by plane. This would require a Soviet air force of unimaginable size, and a infrastructure to send all the spare parts, fuel and munitions to maintain that air force that is so far away from the industrial factories of Russia.
That would have no supply routes. If you saw band of brothers remember that excluding bastogne they clear supply lines. Not to mention the Russian airborn troops were mostly used as plain old infantry.
You forget that likely the British Navy would help out in the pacific. Along with Commonwealth. (Such as Australia and ect) Plus, I disagree with this scenario because America stopped supplying oil to Japan before Pearl Harbor and this scenario acts like that happened AFTER the bombing which is backwards.
2:55 the embargo happened because Japan was waging war in east asia. I really doubt the embargo ends because the Japanese were nice and didn't attack the US.
They attacked because they were afraid of the Chinese reorganization, they were quite victorious in the beginning of the war but they knew that it won't last long, China still a large country plentiful of resources and their defences were becoming organized day after day, the embargo was a huge factor against the war on China and they somehow felt that if they attack pearl harbor the US would lift the embargo because of the isolationist majority and their naval/air superiority in the beginning of the war, was a wrong move, but not everyone agreed with that, they could still go on without the attack and they would ultimately lose anyway, more so with the embargo than without, that's why they did it the error here is the invasion of the USSR hypothesis, they not even bother to even consider such a thing, they were cautious about the Soviets, more than anyone else by the time and they had good reasons and Stalin also didn't even think about invading Japan, maybe Korea and Manchuria, but Japan? The Japanese would probably surrender to the Soviets in the end, but not unconditionally and would still fight a war against the British empire too, and in Europe the Soviets wouldn't invade all east Europe or anything like that, Finland stood out, Austria too, Italy and Greece wanted to join them but the western allies didn't let them, so, probably in this alternate timeline they would.
Something else apparent in this timeline but not mentioned is that according to this timeline Japan never attacks the other Western powers in the area. No fighting in Burma or Singapore or a push on Calcutta and all those troops get directed elsewhere.
@@Menckenperson considering mainland China, but would still be quite impossible, considering that the Japanese would need the southeast Asia colonies oil to advance or defend their invaded territory against China because of the embargo, which was why the Japanese empire took the fight to the europeans invading their colonies before attacking pearl harbor in the first place.
You're telling me the USSR, with virtually no navy in the Pacific, is going to beat the JAPANESE NAVY and INVADE JAPAN? Sure! Not to mention that Japan would've seized Pacific Russian ports & bombed the Red Fleet in much the same way they did at Pearl Harbor in our timeline.
@@filipv.1198 Hahaha yeah okay. The only thing paratroopers did in real life is weaken the enemy before an attack. They weren't used alone for invasions. Also the Russian airforce isn't exactly the best.
@@filipv.1198 Wrong, the Japanese navy would turn their sights to Singapore and Indonesia (just like they did in our timeline) and without American Navy to cut off their shipping, Japan keeps a constant supply of resources coming to the home islands. Japan would be able to hold off pretty much indefinitely. Especially with the chemical warfare they were researching at the end of the war. 1946 would be chemical hell for the Russians.
Hinzee I agree with this statement, and on land the Japanese would still have an overwhelming airforce to demoralize the Russians hundreds of miles before the the battle even takes place and if it did the Russians would have a hell of a time with air superiority that the Japanese holds,
I love your videos but this one has one major flaw. The Soviets did not have any kind of sea lift capacity nor the ability to protect it from Japanese air and naval if they did have it. They could clean the Japanese out of China easily enough if Germany was defeated first but it would take decades to actually invade the home islands.
@@Pikkabuu not necessarily japan may not get much trade but there will still be some willing to like Siam and a few others. And the US really only stopped trade of oil gasoline and machine tools. Not only that but Seeing as japan would be out of China maybe seeing as this is alternate history the US may never had embargoed then or maybe even stopped the embargo as China would no longer be under threat
@@DexWeapons Siam didn't have oil to trade. And US was the main oil supplier of Japan! So losing all that oil will starve the Japanese out. And why would Japan leave China?!
"What if Japan Never Attacked Pearl Harbor, while Stalin typed console commands to *Erase All Fleets & Coal Resources Japan Has* , and to *CREATE 100 SUBMARINES FOR USSR* "
@@gandar5097 That's the key, he wanted to involve the United States...just not in 1941, and definitely not on the Pacific Ocean. He wanted to invade the US from the Atlantic after defeating the British, while Japan invaded from the Pacific.
@@mdyoung1971 As Dirty Harry said in the movie "Bruce Almighty": Be careful what you wish for... punk! HItler learned the hard way. Wanting to fight the world is one of the stupidest ideas a man could ever have.
@@shindari Well, his first mistake was not going ahead and crossing the channel and taking out the Brits in 1939-40. We were in no mood to get into Europe's war, and Hitler knew this. It was Japan's mistake to attack Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941. We were starving them of oil that they depended on. So, in reality, Japan forced our hand and Hitler's hand. Furthermore, Hitler declaring war on the United States was a knee jerk response to us formally declaring war on his ally in Japan. However, he forgot one thing, he was already fighting a two front war with tiny Britain on the west and Giant Soviet Union on the east. He thought, erroneously, that would take a long time for us to get mobilized. That would give him enough time to finish off Russia, or so he thought. In fact, it only took 6 months for the first American to land in Europe...nowhere near enough time to finish off Russia.
@@mdyoung1971 Hitler didn't cross the channel, because he arrogantly thought that simply keeping them pinned to their island, with no allies, was enough to beat them. And it was. Britain didn't start making any noise in the war until the United States jumped in. Without America, the English and Russians would have remained pried apart on the map, fighting the same enemy, but unable to help one another. And neither country, by themselves, had the power to break into the fortress that the Nazis turned central Europe into. In this manner, Germany would have had all the time that they needed to force submission out of both powers. Even if that effort took the entirety of the decade (which it very well might have). However, the USA, and its' economic/ military chutzpah, turned the tide against the Axis. By simply getting involved as the "third wheel", America stabilized the Allied Powers, and enabled them to fight together, in unison. It was a mistake for Japan to get us involved. They'd have been far better off coordinating a two-front war with Russia, with Germany doing most of the damage in the western front. Japan's mistake might well have been the most important mistake in world history.
So how do the Soviets get around invading Japan with an intact Imperial Japanese Navy? Sure the Japanese army was not match for the Red Army, but the Soviets had nothing to compare to the Japanese fleet.
russian production would grind to a halt as german production goes mostly unhindered because no american bombers attacking industrial centers and thus allowing a greatly improved armor and air force production. germany with its intact luftwaffe and joint operations with japanese long range bombers will destroy russia's ability to rapidly produce tanks much like what america did to germany.
Alright I see. I was looking at annual aircraft production my bad, but the Soviet airforce would still be outnumbered as long as the brits were defeated.
I would like to point out that a Soviet invasion of Japan would be almost impossible to happen in less than a decade after the war with Japan starts, for the fairly simple fact that the Soviet Union both A doesn't have a powerfull enough fleet to beat the Japanese in open naval combat, meaning any naval invasion attempts or logistical supply convoys would be little more than target practice for the Japanese fleet, in addition to the fact that with both Japan as an enemy and Germany having to worry far less about a western front, a victory over the Axis would take many years longer. Possibly there wouldn't even be a total victory for either side, and something closer to a normal peace would eventually be negotiated after many millions more die. This all also doesn't take into effect that the British don't have to defend against the Japanese, and instead could keep far more attention on Europe and Africa, giving them more of a chance to actually still follow Churchills 'weak underbelly' strategy.
And Japans economy would have crashed way before those 10 years are up, so there is no need to invade Japan in the first place. And the IJN would be sitting in ports due to the lack of oil and couldn't do anything to prevent Soviet invasion. And Germany would need to worry MORE about the West as US would still join the war due to the Battle of the Atlantic and without Japan to worry the US can fully concentrate on Germany.
@@Pikkabuu Cody stipulated no oil embargo, which probably would have lead to a war on it's own somehow. But as long as the IJN could sail, no one could invade Japan; USSR didn't even have a seat at the Washington Naval Treaty. Still, it's hard to image the US not joining, even over something like Icelandic neutrality considering Roosevelt's proclivities. Err, wait... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland_in_World_War_II
@@highmolecularweightRDX there absolutely would be sanctions on Japan. Japan invaded china and the pacific looking for resources. It’s the best way to strangle the Japanese economy
Roger that. Another factor making it difficult or impossible for the Soviets to invade Japan: virtually zero equipment & experience in amphibious landings. Fighting the Germans they were quite close to their population & manufacturing base. Look at the thousands of miles the Soviets would have to cross to invade Japan! &, Stalin is now facing the German nightmare of a 2-front war. Not happening.
Well in our timeline two weeks after Germany was defeated Russians began travelling to the east coast for an invasion of Japan. Plus, Russia would be getting help from China and Korea and the British Empire (India, Australia and Canada) Judging that Australia was already beating Japan before the USA even showed up, it is entirely possible that with help from Russia and help from the Empire Japan would surrender. Plus, remember, the US was still supporting and would probably give supplies (combine that with Indian and Chinese manpower and we'd be unstoppable.)
Zombtroll69 really? I admit to not knowing a lot about Australia in WW2 but a quick look at Wikipedia shows that Australia didn't even declare war on Japan until 8Dec1941 (the day AFTER Pearl Harbor), less than 1 million Australians served in the military over the whole course of the war, and Japan was winning victory after victory until the Papua New Guinea invasion which was beaten by Australian AND US forces.
Zombtroll69 In this timeline Germany wouldn't have been defeated because without the US they wouldn't need to defend the west coast as much anymore and thus could provide more manpower, supplies, tanks, everything to the east front and put even more stress on the Russians. Australia's fleetpower during WW2 isn't really much of a threat against the Japanese fleet. Japan was a naval superpower during that time.
germany would never lost africa if america didn't help britain and thus italy stays axis allowing germany to not have to send troops and supplies south
Also america’s total war economy of flipping all factories into military production was incredibly key on the German front, it seems to say that in this time line Russia won with its man power alone which i do not see as truly conceivable the amount of man power to take on Germany and a mainland invasion of Japan ALONE would be a ridiculous task of the U.S.S.R
Not true. Hentai was created in the 1450's, during the Shogunate, and manga hentai, as we know it, was created in the early imperial days, but It wouldnt be so famous, It would exist anyways, and anime would be only propaganda, like all animes would be commie propaganda.
@JonatasAdoM RE: "Inside Hitler's bunker: 'What about the Japanese attack on the Yankees?'" Hitler and the German high command had no advance knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. They were just as surprised as were the Americans.
@@thewarhawk8203 Actually Japan would point out that Germany has been shooting at the Americans at the Atlantic for months before Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.
@DSW22 the USA did not attack German merchant shipping. The Royal Navy did not need America’s help to cut off Germany’s sea trade. But they did fire upon German U-Boats that attacked them on their way to supply their allies. Also, the Americans were forward positioning their fleet to help deter Japan from the US mainland. Seeing as how the USA lost many of their forward navy bases in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the conspiracy theory of “Roosevelt actively seeking a war” does not make any sense.
GAndreC well if the usa continued to help by sending supplies etc, then Russia would of became the super power instead of usa. Because it mentioned in the scenario the population of the usa wanted to stay out of the actual fighting.
it actually have changed nothing since the byzantine empire´s territory outside of constantinople was already conquered by the turks not conquering constantiople would just let the empire live a longer as a vassal of the ottomans who´d blockade the dardanels
STORM LORD not really. The Byzantine Empire was pretty much just their capital Constantinople, with the ottomans surrounding them on both fronts. So Europe would still be invaded and isolated from the rest of the continent. The only way the Ottoman invasion of the Balkans could’ve been thwarted is if the Byzantines held their ground against the Seljuk Turks 400 years back.
Without Manchuria and Manchuko, the Japanese would have no resources, and no oil. Their navy would not be able to run, and their war economy would die in a few months without supplies
@@patrickjin6610 The Allies, if the Soviets invaded all of Korea and mainland Japan - the Allies would try to stop the communists; they always hated the Soviets
Without US material help, it’s questionable that the USSR would have been able to hold back both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Remember that part of what enabled the USSR to begin the counteroffensive after Germany reached Moscow was fresh troops that were in the East guarding against a possible Japanese invasion that was no longer going to happen after Pearl Harbor. If instead the Japanese had invaded the USSR, the Soviets would have faced a war on two fronts and without considerable US materiel assistance.
Lend-Lease started BEFORE US joined the war. Also Japanese attack on Siberia would be utterly pointless and wouldn't stop the Soviets from transferring troops West. Just look at how meaningless Operation Arctic Fox was and remember that the Japanese had WORSE situation...
@@Pikkabuu without the US going to a war economy it wouldn't have had enough time to produce anything significant. The US was isolationist before Japan attack Pearl harbor.
@@Pikkabuuthe lend lease and help with industry came in ‘43 at it’s full might, and now, that the US isn’t even involved, it will be lower, and even lower cus they hadn’t gone into war economy.
Actually, the German assault only stalled because the Soviets sent in reinforcements from Far East Russia- the same Far East Russia that is invaded in the scenario. So... yeah.
Blue Cat You've gotta be a tad bit delusional to believe that the USSR would fall with Moscow. The sheer amount of territory and the volumes of fighting men would ensure that the war could continue after losing Moscow. The Russians still would have had Murmansk, St. Petersburg, Gdansk, Kiev, etc. Good amount of fairly large cities to draw fighting men from, and the Germans would have had to hold on to Moscow and Stalingrad through the winter, which they likely wouldn't due to supply problems.
Moscow was the center of Russian command, communication and infrastructure. Without Moscow, and the leadership there, what soviet leadership remained after the purges of the 30s would've been incapable of putting any kind of real fight. As for the other cities, St Petersburg, then Leningrad, was already under siege, Gdansk, then Danzig, had already fallen, as had Kiev. Moscow was the last stand for the Soviets, and without Zhukovs Siberians, who would have been fighting the Japanese in this scenario, it would have fallen, resulting in a blow they could have never recovered from.
Moscow was the most important transportatio hub of the war. Most supplies from the Urals and the northern ports went through Moscow. Without these supplies most sviet armies would be unable to sustain any defense or counterattack.
Deutschland einig Vaterland Oh shit I got Gdansk confused as a Russian city due to the pronunciation. Apologies for the poor geography haha. Regardless, Russia had a pretty good amount of large free cities west of the urals to mobilize men to beat back the Germans in the winter.
Blue Cat Moscow is just another city. Stalin would go on until every citizen of the Soviet Union was dead before he would surrender. Maybe if the Germans took Moscow Moscow would be the new Stalingrad.
Sum it up Britain: Help... U.S.A: Nope Britian: :( *Germany has killed Britian* Russia: come on man U.S.A: No... Russia: ok... *Germany has killed Russia for reasons IDK* Australia, China Norway Etc.: Please? America: No... Canada: Plez America: No Japan: Heh... America: -.- *Japan attacks Pearl harbor* America: Oh that does it *america has liberated the pacific islands over a few years* America: Here we go! *america has difficulty to liberate China with the help of Australia & Canada* Germany: wait a minute *china, America, & Australia liberate russia* Axis countries: oh no!
Actually, I think if Japan didn't attack the US, Germany and Japan may have won the war. Russia only survived because it moved its industry eastwards, but if Japan invades Russia they can't do that. Russia saved Stalingrad because Stalin moved his eastern forces to reinforce it, these forces were meant to defend Russia in case Japan invaded in the east. So in other words, I believe Germany and Japan would had defeated Russia together. And it would be a much worst fate since they utilized occupied nations as slave labor.
The problem I see with that assessment is that the Japanese army struggled mightily against the Soviets early in the war and if they had decided to forego the naval expansion south, they would have run out of oil. Stalin was okay with the ceasefire and the Japanese needed to focus on securing Dutch and British oil fields to sustain their military since America had cut them off. Their only chance was to strike the U.S. fleet hard and hope America wasn't willing to risk their young men to fighting the Empire when the chance of FDR sending troops to defend the UK was just waiting for an excuse.
Don't forget that Russia was also saved by the weather. Hitler timed his invasion in Russia wrong and most of his troop were killed from the cold winter. If he nailed it right, they might of had Russia.
+Steve Klug The japanese army did not "struggle mightily" against the soviets early in the war. I presume you are talking about khalkin gol, and this is always used as an example of what would happen if the japanese army and soviet army were to properly clash. (invasion of manchuria is disregarded given the state of kwangtung army at the time) When you look at the sheer numbers of troops and equipment involved at khalkin gol, it is no wonder why the japanese advance was halted. The soviets had the japanese beat on nearly every statistic of quantity usually 2:1 ratio. Even then, the japanese still inflicted more casualties on the soviets than the other way around. The actual significance of the battle of khalkin gol appears to have been lost in the west, with people seeming to think that it serves as a great example of a heroic soviet victory. In reality, the actual significance of the battle is that it was the first event that properly stunned and halted the japanese army. Before this, it was a string of victories for the IJA, usually quite heroic ones at that. However kalkin gol proved that the army was in fact not unstoppable and that yet again, the army had gone behind the back of the government and performed such a reckless action. Essentially, the entire situation had completely blown back into the IJA's face, as they not only lost the skirmish, but also the approval of tokyo for their plans. That is why khalkin gol is so significant.
I agree with you. If Japanese did not attack US. US would not join the world war. Hence germany would have won the western front. It was a matter of time until eastern front was conquered.
I think Russia was a bit over powered in this, as it would be fighting a two front war stretching its resources much farther than the real event, and the probability of the lend lease between the USSR and the UK actually happening would have been far more unlikely, and if it was put into effect it would have been far less effective than it actually was. Not to mention how the North African campaign would have ended badly for the allies without American intervention, which would have allowed for Germany to focus more of its resources in east
A two front war would only be a problem if all the fronts were dangerous. And there is no way that the Japanese could do anything meaningful against the Soviet forces in Siberia so the whole operation would be nothing like Operation Arctic Fox was. And what would happen to Lend Lease?! It started way before US joined the war in the first place! So what would happen in Africa then?
So if afganistan attacked ussr in ww2 it would be a two front war and ussr would collapse? It does not matter it can be three front war but if japan has no power to defeat.ussr on land then what should happen? Japan somehow walks from vladivostok to urals?
@@vuktodic1356 ??? Japan isn't someone weak power in the east, and eastern russia isn't just all siberia, russia still needs to defend a lot it's city neighboring mongolia and china
Exactly.. 2 pronged war for Russia, they will fall. They were able to push back the Germans due to concentration in the West and because the German industry was almost devastated. With Japan in the East and German in the West?. Goodluck to Russia, especially if the Central Asian colonies might rebel..
@@lordpeanut3245 Countries that Japan had problems conquering. Do you even know why the Japanese went to war against USA? Because the embargo cut the resources to sustain the war against China. Mongolia would have worked with the Chinese to stop the Japanese.
With Japan holding the Soviets resserves in Siberia, there's a good chance that the Moscow offensive would not happen, and with the extra manpower the Soviets had in the east was locked there they would struggle more to go on the offensive at all. Also without the US helping Britain bomb German factories German production would produce more than what it did, also German production increased by 3 times in 1944 than what it had in 1943, despite being bombed day in and day out by Britain and the US, imagine how much Germany would have produced in 1944 without the US helping Britain bomb Germany. And the lend lease part i am not too sure about, but if the US didn't give the Soviets lend lease, they would simply never be able to move troops as fast as they needed.
The Soviets did not have air superiority untill 1943-1944, and this was only due to German fuel shortages and more planes was needed to stop the British and US bombing runs on Germany (Which would not be relevant if US didnt join in on the bombing) Soviet bombers had minimal effects during world war 2, the only good thing they did was to bomb the Romanian oil fields. THe Soviets didn't have that much more manpower than the Germans, but as you said, many were stationed in Norway (Some 200000) Many in North Africa, which also leads to another thing, The British would never be able to win in North Africa without the US helping them, the same goes for D-Day, that would never happen. The Germans actually had more production capabilities than the Soviets, but they needed to use its production on 3 large fronts, the Soviets had one large front. If the Germans didnt attack during the battle of Kursk and instead went on the defense, the Soviets would be able to push the Germans back to Poland, but no further, then imagine if the US didn't help the British win in North Africa and joined for the invation of southern Italy (Which made Hitler send valuable forces to southern Italy which was ment for the battle of Kursk) Then the Soviets would probably fail in the Kursk counter offensive. In 1945 during the battle of Berlin, the Soviets had started scraping the barrel of their wast population, and was using woman to fill their gaps, women which was actually needed in the factories in the Soviet Union. Then you can imagine how weak The Soviets would be if they had to face every single unit used on the western front, that would no longer be needed there, because the D-Day landings never happened. The Soviets would be forced to halt their offensives because of the lack of manpower, and so would the Germans, and i would imagine that line to be somewhere around Kursk. And to the Japaneese troops, they would not do much to the Soviets troops in Siberia, but they would make troops have to be stationed there. Also tje Japaneese had a better navu and air force than the Soviets had, so that would probably used to their maximum effectivenes.
Where do you get your facts from? Germany had 1 million men on the Atlantic Wall, that stretched from Spain to northern Norway, 200000 men were strationed in Norway to prevent any British invasion of Narvik (Which Hitler feared but would never be possible). The German army sent 4 million during Babarossa, not 7 million. And no, the Germans can't transport 1 million men from Norway to Germany, because they only had 200000 troops there, and they could transport them back if they wanted to, but Hitler didn't want that. And yes, the British had naval superiority, i was only talking about the Japaneese having naval superiority over the Soviets. But The German Uboats still wrecked a lot of the British ships. And no, there was no 10 million in the Soviet army in 1946, there was 12 million in the Soviet army in 1945, and that was the abolute maximum as i stated earlier, because they also used a lot of women to fill the gaps of the army, something the Germans didnt do. In 1946 they had to send half their army back to the Soviet Union to fill gaps in poduction again, because their population was badly hurt by both Stalins famines, and the German invasion. The Germans had 5 million men in 1945, many others were dead or captured by the British and the US after the D-Day landings, the Germans would have had more if the US didn't join the battle, because there would never be a second front. And no, the Germans had plenty of airplanes in 1944 and 1945, but 1/3 was on the ground because of no fuel, and no spare parts (Something that also would be different of the US air force didn't help the British). And for one German soldier who died 5 Soviets did, which made the Soviet manpower irrelevant. The biggest problems was the mass produced T-34 tanks, but even their number wouldn't do much good if the total tank power of Germany would be focused on the eastern front as a defensive wall. The US didn't join the war all this would happen. The British would loose in north Africa, The Soviets would grind to a halt, and so would the Germans deep inside Russia. The British would keep bombing the Germans, but with a lot less effectivenes without the US. The Newest German Uboats would be fighting the British navy with great success, and would make i harder for the British to get supplies. The German Jet planes would do great things against the British because the US air force wasnt there to give the British more numbers in planes. The Japanese army would do bad against the Soviets, but their planes would hammer th Siberian troops hard. Stalin might be forced to pull some troops back giving the Japaneese some territory for saving the more important Moscow. But bare in mind, if the US didnt give the Soviets lend lease, the Soviets could never have produced that many T-34 tanks, they could never fastly move troops here and there as they did, and yes, Moscow would have colapsed hard.
@@luke2r2r true, but that had more to do with it taking a while for supplies to reach the Soviets. Supplies were coming in through Iran, which basically had to be invaded to secure the route. It had little to do with the U.S. entering the war.
If USA wasn't involved I don't think the Soviets would have won. There would not be nearly as much lend lease to Soviets or any at all. If Soviets had to fight Germany and Japan this assumption that Soviets would of won doesn't make sense. "Russian blood" doesn't mean automatic victory...
@@FishFireTBoy lend lease provided 90% of the machine tools the soviets needed to automate their industry at a crucial time period when the russian industry was on wheels moving away from the advancing germans. Without this equipment, no russian industry. There is no way they would of won without this.
Adam Baker I agree that the war would have taken far longer. But if America stays out of the war Brittain falls. The Germans can bolster the eastern front with out the conflicts with the US in Europe, the US winning the battles in the skies. US bombing missions etc. That's a huge change for Germany. They have more supplies less resistance and they'd have had the skies above Russia who wasn't an aerial threat. It's also important to consider what if Japan invades before Germany? Russia bolsters the east leaving the west more open for attack from the west. And the German Russia alliance could have put the nail in the coffin if Japan invades first... Stalin gets help from Germany and as Germany is already in country they'd have a much easier time taking the USSR. There's so many variables that we'd never no for sure unless the war had turned out that way. Russia could have been steam rolled or the war could have drug on another ten years. Keep in mind all the tech the Germans had that was almost finished when the war ended. If that war drug out more it could have made Germany even more capable. Videos like this are intriguing but they seem to focus on just a few points and don't evaluate the entire situation.
@@britishmapping9514 Australia will win the war if all of the continent is habitable by human, right now the Emus are taking 90% of the continent simply because Australian government can't effectively occupy captured territory The only way Australia can win is either making the whole continent more green or involving chemical and especially biological warfare
So given this is December 7th, the 76th anniversary of the attack on pearl harbor, I remembered this unique sci-fi film called Final Countdown about a modern Aircraft Carrier in the Pacific traveling back in time and finding itself on Dec 6 1941, in the end history doesn't change and the ship returns to the present. I always wondered what would have happened if the crew decided to intervene and alter history? They had enough advanced knowledge, tech, and firepower to wipe out the entire Japanese Navy, ending WWII in the pacific the very day it was to begin and the war itself in less than a week. What if America suddenly had access to technology almost 40 years ahead of them? How would the war have ended, would there have been a cold war, Korean war, Vietnam? Would America have become an economic powerhouse ushering in a new golden age for the world? Or would it have become a global Empire with no equal? How about it Cody, think this would make a good episode? Also please do a lore/history video for the starship troopers universe? Thanks.
Highly unlikely Japan would fall to the Soviets without American intervention. The USSR had a pathetically woeful navy in the Pacific, and the Imperial Japanese Navy was one of the most the powerful at the time. Japanese mainland colonies in China and Korea may fall but the Soviet could NEVER touch the home islands. It's basically the Far Eastern version of Germany attempting to get to Britain, it would be a nightmare to cross the sea and get into the Japanese home islands. Probably even a potential Battle of Japan.
The Soviets not only had a woeful navy. But the Soviets would have lost Air Superiority to the Japanese because they lost it to the Germans. Without US Aircraft and other Material support the USSR would have fallen. Without having to waste men and resources in the Pacific. The Japanese would have taken whatever they wanted from Russia. The Japanese victory in Asia would have been inevitable without the US's entry in WW2.
Also there is that problem where Soviets would not be able to stop Germans at Moscow in this scenario. What saved their butts were reinforcements from behind of Ural. Ie from eastern side of USSR... which in this scenario would be pushed by Japanese and would not be able to send anything to west. It seems that in this scenario author magicaly doubled russian forces, allowing east to reinforce against German invasion and at the same time west reinforcing against Japan invasion
Can you please do a video on would if the Republicans won the Spanish Civil War? I think this would have large repercussions for the world because the conflict was a proving ground for the armies of Russia,Germany, and Italy.
Powerful ally? Fascist Spain was an ally to Germany. All they amounted to was sending about 45,000 men to fight on the Eastern Front. If the civil war had gone the other way Republican Spain wouldn't be in a much better position.
Considering that without USA entering the war, there would have been little-to-no aid to the Soviets from the US, such as lend-lease and immense loads of supplies and machinery, I don't think that the Soviets would have won so easily. American lend-lease program and support to the Soviet Union was a very big deal, without it I rather think that Moscow would have fallen and for Soviets fighting on two fronts would have been simply too much, but that is just my opinion. Any thoughts on that?
Robert Kuuba In the video he never mention it was "easily". He said it would have been a hard won victory. The american aid just accelerated the process of wining. Didnt made the victory. The ussr could sustain themselves enough to contain and push the germans
The Lend Lease definitely helped the offensive but as soon as the factories we're moved behind the Ural Mountains the Germans we're finished as the Royal Navy and RAF would still beat Germany
Lend lease happened months before pearl harbor. And no, soviets wouldnt be fighting a two front war bc there invading the East coast of Russia is just stupid. The harsh environment and the lack of roads would have taken care of the Japanese army. Not to mention that they were still busy in China.
You guys seem to forget half of the German army was defending France. Without the US Italy would guard France and the whole German army will attack the Soviets. They came close to losing so many times. With amount double the amount of men attacking them they would surely lose.
The Soviets would still have won without American help, but it would have taken longer, fighting with Japan at the same time may be a different story, but then again, Siberia is a harsh place and I don't think the Japanese forces would have been able to push through when they lacked the mechanized divisions and tanks for that matter. I'd call this video doubtful, but plausible.
To act like the Soviets could easily push Germany back is just dumb. One of the biggest reasons Germany struggled to fight after the USA joined was that the USA helped open not only the western front but the southern push from Africa. Without the southern front Germany has more men to at least hold the line in the USSR instead of pushing into Siberia. This might even give Germany enough time to finish their own Nuclear research and be able to end the Soviets. That's without even considering that Japan would help out by holding a second front the Soviets would have to fight.
And you act like someone who lack comprehension issues. In the video they say clearly that not, but in end Russia did have resource to push back both. That is clear if you make a professional data analiz.
Hold on if "Germans cannot in theory mobilize the 1/3 rest of there army from Norway France and Germany in time to plan a successful counter offensive" How THE HELL CAN THE SOVIETS MOBILIZE FROM SIBERIA TO WESTERN EUROPE? That's ludicrous.
My favorite part of going back to these older videos is remembering Cody went through a phase where he spoke with a lower voice and took everything in the scenario very seriously.
One of the poorest 'what ifs' Ive seen. Not even close. You clearly over estimate Soviet capability. A more accurate version:1) The US still initates an embargo. However, instead of attacking the US, they avoid the Phillipeans(for now) and they do take the Dutch East Indies. Thus, for quite a time, they are free to continue their conquests in New Guinea and the other Islands-other than Guam, much like they did in reality.2) The US and Britian dont supply the amount of material to the Soviets-probably only 25% if that. 3) There is no Operation Torch in Nov 1942. Though the Axis loose at El Alamein, and would probably have been pushed out of Egypt by December, Axis reinforments would rush in. In addition, the axis would have probably iniated Operation Herkules and took Malta, thus making supply transport more safe.4)With no war against the US, there would be no submarine attacks and Japanese merchant fleet would suffer little. Supplies would role in and industry would be able to take off. 5) Would Japan join in an attack against the soviets? Probably not, they were still afraid of them.6) Lets say they do. Since they have nothing to fear from the Americans and the British are only in India, and the Australians are worried about their country(though contributing a few divisions to Africa and India). The agree to attack the soviets in 1944. The German were able to send material to Japan(no American subs and British subs were minimally effective). They send valuable items to Japan including models of the Pak 40, the 88/71, radars, etc. They send Japan Mark IV G models and Stg III G models in early 42 and a couple Tigers and Panthers in late 42. They also now fly regular trips to Japan. If not over land, then by BV-222, which if they dont fly the entire way, meet up with H8Ks and transfer men and material. The Germans spend 1942 helping Japan upgrade its industrial base in Japan and in Korea. They also help them design and upgrade their armour. Since they dont have to fear US subs, material comes in and they begin to successfully produce upgraded tanks and armoured vehicles in late 42 and all of 1943. 7)Since the Germans dont have to fear an invasion anytime soon in France, more divisions are sent to the east. Though Kursk wasnt the victory they sought, they are building up for a 1944 offensive. Since america is not in the war, the british bombing campaign isnt really that effective. Faced with increasing losses in the east and in North Africa, their production does increase significantly. They ARE able to build up a large force of reserves and wait for the spring of 1944-probably in the april time frame. The soviets are still getting smashed hard. Since the Germans dont have to have as large Home Air Defense , they are able to send more aircraft to the east-probably an extra 1500 or so-enough to cause more damage and inflict more soviet air losses, thus cutting the minimal contributions of the soviet airforce even more. 8) In the this scenerio, the Russian roll west is slower as the germans are able to throw more material/armour, aircraft, and men into battle. The FL would probalby be at the Dnieper in the south with Kiev still in German hands, following the river north through Gomel, to around Vitebsk, north to Estonia/Peipsi lake. By this time, Roumania and Hungary fearing a drive into their territory would have upgraded their forces/better quality. In a 'what-if,' the germans dont refuse to sell or license weapons and technology to their allies and they assist in the upgrade. Theirs takes around 8 months. Thus by April 44, they would be able to better asssist-especially as Roumania would still be very active in the war9) In North Africa, the axis reinforce into 1943, so where do we go? By this time, Italy was finally starting to produce better equiptment. Their P26/40 is finally in action as the P27/42. Though they dont produce a lot right away, it is enough and they are being sent to North Africa-though not used until around April-May 43 as they are building up and training. They also field large numbers of Sm 90/53s(and on better chasis) and Sm 75/34 or 75/46, and in the first quarter, Sm 105/25. They would have fully fielded the Mc-205, Re2005, G.55 and other advanced aircraft. While the British still have to sail thousands of miles to reinforce and only a fraction got through, the axis didnt. The axis (speculating) would build up in the first quarter 43 for an all out offensives in April or so. This offensive would field Tiger tanks, Mk IV G, Stg III and Marders, plus Italin P27/42 and their assault guns. The axis airforce would be much larger and far more effective. In addition, Italy sold to Roumania and Hungary. They would field the P27/42 vs the Mk IV and use that while they worked on the 44m Tas, which due to German help would start much sooner than it did. They would also field more and effective TD and ASG by 1943 and 1944, among them, the Italian Sm variants. 10)As I said, with German help, Japan upgraded its military. Though the US didnt invade North Africa, the Germans still captured bazookas from the British in the desert and already had their version fielded by late 43, and thus, by 1944, Japan did as well. By 1944, Japan was confident.11) The plan was simple: Japan would attack the far east in february 1944. their objective was Vladivostok, the far east theater just under the Amur river and all of the Sahkalin Islands. They would also drive about 100-150km west from the Mongolian front to create a buffer. To assist, the intact Japanese fleet of battleships and heavy crusiers would devestate Soviet defenses around Vladivostok. They would have the ability to use 36+divisions in the eastern assault and would be able to keep 12-18 divisions facing the west. They would draw off the soviets strength. Stalin would reinforce just enough to slightly weaken the west. and 2 months later, Germany and he axis allies would attack.In short, the soviets barely defeated germany in real life. With no allied pressure, they probably would not have defeated germany alone. They would have bled to death by the time they reached Danzig/Pozan/Krakow/Roumanian border. To ensure, a large Japanese attack in the east would have drawn off close to 2m soviets and 100 divisions, plus at least 3000 tanks and 1000 asg and several thousand aircraft. People seem to think the soviets would roll over the japanese. They did in aug 45, but at a cost. If Japan was stronger in all areas and it was 1944, they soviets would not. What the soviets would probably have to do is build up a defensive front to protect against further thrusts west/lake baikal. A 1944 offensive would have been very costly to the soviets to the point of by the fall being at may 45 levels of losses. The germans would not have won the war in 1944, but they would have crippled the soviets to the extent of Dec 41 material. IF the germans would use their He-177(working now) to hit soviet factories and low their production, the soviets would barely be able to keep up. If Stalin got pissed at their failure and purged again, the soviet generals might have couped. I would predict a Victory in North Africa by July or Aug 1943 and By Jan 45, Axis troops would be within 100k of Moscow(again). In the pacific, Japan would be better armed as well and with no us forces would be better armed in India. They would not have of course taken India, but mearly advanced up to 200km inside, stopped, and built up a defensive line/barrier. They would have then finished off the chinese coast in 1944 and concentrated on defeating chinese regular forces and chinese communists, but the chinese would have little to no US help and minimal british help. By 1946, they would be driven way west, if not destroyed or severly mauled. So, no. The soviets would not have rolled over europe. They would be on the brink and fighting for their survival.
Agree. Embargo will not failed because if this is the last thing that FDR can do, it will be enforced. So Japan will have to invade Malaysia and Indonesia for resources (while bypassing Guam, Phillipines) hence no way will they invade Soviet to start a 3 front war, particularly this is little resource to capture (at that time). So whatever Soviet did in 41-42 will be the same. So the real question should be 1. Can Soviet survive 2-3 years without US aid - probably, but not with much counter-attack capability, just stalemate. 2. Can Britain survive 2-3 years without US aid - probably, as their convoy system was improved 3. Can China survive 2-3 years without US aid - yes. The aid granted to China was very little, and remember they fought alone for a few years already. So it might end up like WW1 attrition scenario until some major
I dont think the soviets could've invaded Japan I mean, the Japanese had one of the largest navies in the world. And what did the soviets have? Millions of troops, a very small navy and no experience in invading islands. There is a reason Japan has never been invaded. Also all of Japan's navy should've been intact. Imagine what Yamato, Musashi and Shinano (as there is no Midway battle, she would be completed as a battleship) would do to the landing crafts, the Russian ships and their forces on the shore. Not to mention all the other ships and the 6 fleet carriers. And, for the US, helping Japan would probably be the best choice if they don't want more communism. So yeah, I don't think Japan would' ve fallen...
they would have done a mass paratroop drop into Japan immediately, ignoring the islands and try to get supplies through on boats and airdrops while living off the land. Millions would have still died though and this would probably have failed, but by then a pacific fleet to match the Japanese would have been constructed
That would have been a disastrous airborne operation. They wouldn't have enough for airdrops alone to sustain the paratroopers and any boats would be running one heck of a gambit.
Cammie, if they where actually able to make a fleet, it probably wouldn't be in the pacific as that kind of operation would be bombed to hell and back by the Japanese, if not just bombarded by their navy. And, the navy they would need to make to match japan would take years to make, along with of course the long under supplied trip half way across the world to reach japan where the fleet would most likely be sunk like a repeat of 1905. And as Fuzzy stated, an airborn paratroop would be disastrous, as they would run out of bullets and food if their transports wheren't shot down before the soldiers could jump out.
Cammie Ward that would have been a devastating defeat for the soviets,japan had more than 45 million soilders in their island and their emperor had no thoughts of surrender,most soldiers and even civilians would fight to the death,and if they occupy any land,they would easily be overwhelmed by the decades of gruella attacks.
Boy, he sure breezed over the whole "entire Japanese Navy Untouched, and Russia has no Navy" thing without so much as a side note and just assumed the Soviets could walk into Japan. Ask the Germans how easy it was to just march into Britain. I turned off the video as soon as he ignored that point. The entire video just lost all credibility by skipping over that.
I always enjoy contemplating what if’s in history. Especially WWII. This is a good one to contemplate. Now if the United States stayed completely out including no military lend lease I’m not so sure the Soviet Union could fight a two front war against Japan and Germany. It didn’t have the navy Japan had. Maybe China and Russia could have done it alone. They both could lose millions of people and still have enough to overcome as long as they had the weapons. You really need to be an expert military tactician to figure this out.
A two front war is only a problem if both fronts are dangerous. There is no way that the Japanese could do anything meaningful in Siberia. And why wouldn't US want money?!
@@Pikkabuu well, it was a land grab. They could, and the soviets don't survive a two front war, not in '41. At their weakest point, and still establishing industrial basins in Siberia and the Urals, this would shake logistics and production up beyond Soviet perseverance. Best case scenario would be the soviets coming to peace terms with the Axis.
@@WestCoastOnePride Please explain how the Japanese could meaningfully invade Siberia when they already failed in it in 1939. And why wouldn't the Soviets survive?
@@Pikkabuu I am fully aware of their failed attempt at Soviet-Japanese war, that was easily beaten off, and embarrassing defeat for Japan. U have to remember, in winter '41, Soviet manpower and production were at an ALL TIME LOW, the 250k men used for the counter offensive of Moscow does NOT MATERIALIZE with a Japan second front, with critical ports as obvious targets, this would have been another choke point for lend lease, remember, Iran was Not occupied at this point, it's sheer attrition, remember, in summer 1942, with as little IF NOT less then Japan, axis armies, IN COORDINATION with Germany, made their own gains against the soviets, it is simple attrition. Even half the Manchuoko puppet army, with a few solid Japanese divisions, would offset ANY REINFORCEMENTS shifting, as well as throw off newly established oncoming industrial centres replacing the occupied ones that were torn down and reshipped. I do NOT THINK the Germans take Moscow in 1941, but surviving past summer for the Soviets would be a miracle. With Moscow taken, it is up for debate rather Stalin would sue for peace, continue the struggle from the Urals, or even be a victim of a coup, which sounds far fetched, but remember, after Barbarossa took place a few weeks into it, when the politburo and red army command went to his retreat, he thought he might actually be arrested. Stalin was paranoid and CONTENT on holding power, I think a peace agreement would have been established, leaving only the soviets the Urals and Eastern Siberia, after Japan carved out here area. Now if u want to question what purpose Japan had for invading the USSR after being so soundly defeated, u must remember the Imperial high command although respected the soviets, especially after that humbling trouncing, also KNEW they were an enemy, by basic opposing ideologies. Gaining those ports and some other relative land, albeit essentially barren of resources, as rich as Siberia is today in natural resources thanks to the technological and inventive innovations of today, we now know Siberia is RICH. But their lies the problem: the lack of coordination and long term thinking of the Axis. I will tell u this, with a second rate Soviet union, america would have had to found reason to join the war very soon.
@@Pikkabuu Because We have Brains. I Stand with What he said as an American. If Japan hadn't attack Our Harbor, No way in HELL would I sent our men and women to go die out continents away from home
This may be a possibility, but the whole reason the Soviets held off the Germans from taking Moscow was them sending all of the fresh troops from the East, over to Moscow. Stalin didn't detect a Japanese invasion, so he put all of his resources on the Western front. With Russia fighting a two front war and the Germans not having to fight the US, I entirely disagree with your timeline. Without America, Germany still controls North Africa and Italy easily. Japan focuses predominately on Russia. Stalin fights a two front war and D-Day never happens and France is never liberated. I think you got this wrong.
Except in late 1941 Germany dosn`t control North Africa. Axis forces (mainly Italian) in this theatre have at this point been pushed back to the Tunisian/Libyan border, outnumbered and on the defensive. Not defeated though and commanded by an excellent general in Rommel.
They dont need to win with the Japanese the far eastern front will end in a stalemate you forgot japan was in war with China to a nation ho have even more mapawor then the Soviets japan will end being over run or by the Chinese Soviet troops or to consume all of there resources protecting there front. Soviet will still pull the troops from Japan border to defend Moscow this will be the best moment Japan to attack and even if they have all that oil is pointless if they dont have where to put in, you make the navy go on land?. Soviets and Chinese governments are been friendly if Japan is in war with booth of them they would be forced to cooperate. Chinese troops would be trained by Russian general's to fight in Siberia and they would be shipt to Siberian Russian front with Soviet equipment they would hold the front until more prepared Russian troops will reinforce the front. The Chinese manpawor and the Soviet production will over run the Japanese troops. Evryoane keep forgetting about how Japan was in war with China already a nation with even more mapawor then the Soviets they lack competent leadership and equipment with this 2 disadvantages being solved by the Russian officers and Russian equipment China woul become the Second Soviet Union for Japan and being in war with the actually Soviet Union this would mean to much for Japan . The eastern front will end the same with Stalingrad lost and battle of kursk still being lost by the Germans beacuse Britain would start the invasion in Sicily. Rommel will still lost in Africa even if America dont invade northern Africa Rommel will steel retreat American invasion just speedet the process. This is the cruel truth people usually forget about the people ho lead this countrys Stalin will just throw more people, Hitler will make the same mistakes , Chan cai check ( i dont now if i write his name good) will be forced to cooperate with Soviet Union so he can survive (he will become a tiny Stalin throwing people into Japanese)
Robert Sneddon In 1941 Vichy France the German puppet still controlled the rest of north Africa it was the Americans who made the landings in 1942-1943 that squeezed the axis out of africa
There is no way that this scenario would ever happen, the soviets struggles to keep the Germans at bay. You are complete understating the commitment America made to keeping the USSR afloat once it entered the fight. What use is manpower when you don’t have the necessary weapons, uniforms, basic supplies, and transportation to give to these men. I’m not saying that the Russians would capitulate quicker, but something like this would never happen.
I think there would be a ceasefire then, afterall most of American supplies came after battle if Stalingrad , one of the most crucial battles in WW2, they had already secured Moscow, for japan - let us say good luck to them because marching through Siberian wasteland with low supplies and limited oil isn't a good idea.
Shadith Akistaenia also watch extra credits first episode on the battle of Kursk to get an idea of the level of material support the allies gave to the Soviets
@@suhas6508 Railway is a thing, the Japanese Manchuria border was 1,500km and the majority of that the Russian railway was 30km from the border. I think the Japanese moving in slowly is fine after that. The Germans only took about 50% of Russian horses, 60% of its farm animals and 40% of it's farmland and its most fertile but I mean yeah they could afford to loses 10% to the Japanese with a limited advance yeah I don't think so not to mention losing it's biggest supply ports for lend-lease in ww2 but somehow they would win no way mate dreaming. Not to mention Germany has 5million more men and 16,700 tanks, 40,000 aircraft to fight Russia. Russia would need over 50,000 tanks they had 20,000 when ww2 finished but now there in a two front war. They would need about 160,000 more aircraft they had in our time line 30,000 at the end of the war and now it's a two front war with the Japanese who had 70,000+ aircraft and lost 20,000 to 50,000 to America 20,000....
@@brianlong2334 I cannot see how japan is gonna invade through bloody cold Siberia with no oil supply as they are under embargo from usa , do you know that for every panzer 4, there 4 Shermans,6 to 10 t-34 and the Japanese tanks are far no match to the one of USSR , USSR had 32 divisions in Siberia in 1941 while japan had 20(no sure) while 27 of Japanese divisions were fighting in china, which they couldn't take ( a country far far less developed than USSR) in even like 9 years, most of historians agree that lend lease (of usa ) wasnt decisive ,since much of its supply came AFTER battle of Stalingrad , the most important ports then would be Murmansk which the axis couldn't took away. As far as I think, I would be a stalemate Anyways , the usa would have entered the war sooner or later since hitler wrote in his second book that he would attack usa in 1942 since he expected usa to enter war anyway since it was a staunch ally to British It is alternative history, it didn't happened , do we really need to talk about it?
This is the first time I've outright disagreed with your take on something. Russia sustained staggering losses in their defensive phase of the war. If America had not gotten involved, Russia would be less supplied, facing a stronger Germany that was suffering less losses in Africa, AND fighting on a second front against a military that had already seen minor victory against them in the past. I feel like the odds of Russia coming out of that alive are quite slim- nearly impossible, even.
Wait, the USSR was losing equipment. The US gave them equipment to help them out. If the US didn't give them equipment, then the USSR would fall and Germany and Japan will still win.
US already started sending Lend Lease material to the USSR the moment Germans attacked! Also you act as if the Soviets didn't have any industrial capability...
The america lend lease only start effect by the siege of leningard and if u think it wont do much you absolutely wrong. The lend leas actually really helpfull to feed their soilder and people since actually soviet have food problem and the lend lease solve it for them without it the troops will be severly hungry and have worse equipment and outdated planes. At the worst case a revolt may happen because of famine.
Another important & often overlooked aspect of Lend-Lease was American steel going to the Soviets. Those 10's of thousands of Soviet tanks that pushed back the Wehrmacht? Many began their journey in Pittsburg.
The lend lease was vastly overrated, the vast majority of it didn't arrive until 1943. It would've taken slightly longer but the USSR still would've absolutely won without the lend lease
I'm not entirely sure Russia could have turned back Germany if they were fighting a war on the other front with Japan. That would effectively shut down the Pacific Route, which accounted for about half that lend-lease to the Soviets. Just as importantly, no US entrance might mean no expansion of the US Lend-Lease to the absolutely ridiculous levels it hit. With the historical Lend-Lease, the Soviets punching out the Germans, 1v1, no doubt. Without it, things get a lot dicier. Throw in Japan on the backside and an effective interdiction of the largest lend-lease route, and the Soviets would have been in a terrible position. Honestly, I'd give the war to the Axis if the US stays neutral and Japan decides to go to war with Russia.
Well, the lend-lease was about 7% of the Soviet production, also keep in mind that the URSS kept important forces in their border with Japan by the time of Operation Barbarossa, more than enough to deal with the Japanese (33 divisions, 15 brigades and 13 fortified lines covered each by a brigade for the USSR against 13 Japanese divisions in Manchuria and 21 divisions in China, not taking into account the difference in armored units or heavy artillery). The only way the Japanese could have posed an effective threat was attacking with all units on the Vladivostok direction (which was fortified), and that would have meant withdrawing from China with the Chinese united front being able to retake a lot of territories and successfully contact with USSR with a land border, which means that USSR would then send a lot of equipment and military help to the Chinese and then counterattack from the Khalkhin river, while the Soviet fortresses on the Amur river keep the Japanese fixed (take into account that Japanese divisions lacked heavy artillery above 76mm, when USSR divisions included 105mm and 122mm, and had heavier pieces attached to corps command). Also, the USSR could still receive Lend-Lease by Persia (a route which was actually used) since they conquered Persia within two days after Persia joined Barbarossa.
Podemos URSS Around that time, Soviets had terrible leadership, poor equipment, and No Navy to hinder Japanese Operations in the Pacific without it being curb stomped by Yamamato.
Actually, the best soviet general was in siberian fast east when barbarosa begin, so japan would deal with the general that made the "soviet blitzkreig"
So your telling me japan didnt have a navy and ussr just spawned one in the pacific not to mention that a hapanese and a german force would beat the russians considering the fact that a d day didnt happend getmany would have more troops!
All the Soviets wpuld have to do is keep the straits they use to invade open. Once they had air supremacy, that would be relatively easy, and that's assuming the British aren't fighting the Japanese to get the colonies back that Japan would have almost certainly gone after.
@@nigblack552 lol what? I'm a history major, u r completely wrong. British lost over 135 capital ships during the battle of the Mediterranean, u wanna learn about history, I will give u my email, u clearly need better education.
@@MrPro897 The difficult part was co-ordinating it in order to minimize losses. The Soviets didn't give a fuck about casualties. I'm not saying it would be easy, I am saying it would be do able.
Your prediction is way off. The Soviets had almost ZERO Navy during WWII. Yet Japanese Navy was even stronger than the British Navy. Any Russian forces that's trying to land in Japan would have been send to the bottom of the ocean. They wouldn't have the capability to invade Japanese homeland or other islands territories. Without American involvement in the WWII, Soviets might be able to stop the enemies from advancing in both front. But I don't think they'll ever be able to conquer as much Europe as they did in our timeline. They might end up still lost some territories to the Germans and Japanese.
On a side note, it's interesting to point out that prior to WWII, the one war scenario American military plannists feared the most was an anti-American coalition of Japan and... the UK. Yes, due to their combined naval might which would have owned whatever the US could put against them to defend the likes of Guam or Hawaii.
Japan itself was stretched thin in China and couldn't sustain the attacks against the British in Burma. Japan never had a great chance of invading the east of Russia.
US and Japan had the best Navies for both sides due to how they used aircraft carriers. The British and Russians would've gotten creamed by the Japanese if they actually had to take on their aircraft carrier fleets without the help of US naval support.
I think you greatly underestimate the impact Germany fighting a two front war had. It is highly questionable that the USSR wouldve been able to hold off both a full nazi germany military and japan keep in mind that all germany had to do as take stalingrad and it was likely that Moscow would fall. Germany was damn near close on doing that even with fighting a two front war
Ask Napoleon about what taking Moscow did for him. A german full victory was highly unlikely and would have needed more support of the baltic people and Ukrainans, whom the germans antagonized in their occupation. A Soviet victory without US support would also be unlikely, so probably it would come down to who collapses first, like in WW1.
@@_Muzolf Stalin is a fool, he was begging for Hitler to sign a peace treaty, before the attack on Moscow, he promised to return treaty of Brets Litovsk. Imagine if Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad fell along with siberia, the morale would collapse so low.
@@MoldycheeseJr So? If anything, Stalin being out of the picture would have meant that someone more sensible and competent could have gotten into power. Also, its rater dubious that he would have stayed in Moscow, he was a huge coward who was actually hiding from his own people when the german invasion started, thinking that would be the time he would get deposed.
kenneth Vargas the Soviets strength was in ground troops and creating explosives so they could beat the Nazis but would be unable to beat Japan unless they used their oil supply in Alaska (which I think they still owned) to make more weapons and bombs, like nukes.
Malachi Brown no the americans had bought alaska i think in 1862 from the russians so no alaska pipeline there, but the real issues for the soviets (which everyone keeps ignoring) is the naval battles. Yes the soviets had massive amounts of tanks men and planes, but the soviet navy was pitiful at best. To invade japan a navy is needed.
Xavier Lauzac Not really, you cannot invade something like Japan without having superiority in the Air or Seas. Just ask the Germans on how easy it was to invade Britain, and don’t forget that the Soviets lost the prior war against the Japanese
Xavier Lauzac Stalin was incompetent, but not incompetent enough to try and invade Japan in the way that the video says it could be done. The prior war already showed much of it, and the current state of Japan would make it even worst for the Soviets. The Japanese were suicidal, and were fierce fighters and had real resistance. Where most Germans didn’t and neither did all of the fascists really, The Japanese were nothing near the casual axis powers the Japanese were powerful were proud of their empire and had different reasons as to why they joined the Axis. A invasion of Japan would be a huge fuck up and would be a very bad decision to take, even for the Soviets since the Japanese people would’ve never surrendered to the Soviets or to communism and your average Japanese person in that era would do anything to hit a annoying communist. It’s even more complicated then that, but a invasion of the Japanese mainland wouldn’t of necessarily been stupid but it would’ve brought a huge human lose and it possibly could’ve been more then most war fronts if a invasion happened because of many reasons.
The soviets wouldn’t have been able to beat Germany because the reason the Germans didn’t conquer Moscow was because soviet divisions from Siberia went to fight germany, in this timeline those divisions would be fighting japan so Germany would eventually win after taking most of ussr factories in the west
The reason the Germans didn't conquer Moscow was because Hitler redirected Army Group South to take the oil fields to the south first, and then swing back around to take Moscow. This allowed the Siberian armies to arrive in time to reinforce Moscow. Had Hitler allowed Guderian to simply push onto Moscow, they would have taken it.
Incorrect, Ussr had already declared war on japan with the general Zhukov and was in a victory course, no division from siberia was needed to defeat japan
LOOMINARTY CONFIRMED??? What exactly would taking Moscow bring the Germans? Not much, imo. Napoleon took Moscow which didn't change the course of the war a little. All that taking Moscow could've given Hitler would be an even colder winter and the Soviet troops would probably fight on.
I too, LOVE this style, and this channel really pulls it off! (although there were maybe 2 audio spikes that bugged me since I was listening loud with earphones to soak up all the awesome)
Interresting version of history, but I have to disagree. Russian would have take more losses in two-front war. It would have lost, would Russia even survive. I don't know. But your video. Could you do alternate history video about East-Rome, the Byzantine Empire what would happen if that would have stayed a great power?
So, how do the Soviets invade Japan again? The Soviets would have even more going against them than the Nazis did trying to defeat Britain. The Imperial Japanese Navy would be a going concern in this timeline, and the Royal Navy wouldn't have the capability to beat them on their own.
@L Me It would go rather well for a Japan that 1.Never got embargoed by the USA 2. Has the defensive advantage 3. Has carriers you can't sink in the form of Islands| 4.Supply line advantage 5. Isn't occupied fighting the US Navy Singapore was supposed to be the Pride of the British Empire, an Impregnable fortress, it was taken within a week. "The Full might of the Royal Navy" would have to go through either the Pacific Islands or the straits of Indonesia both of which would have several Hornets Nests worth of Japanese defenses. Both of which would have Japanese soldiers and officers familiar with the area, terrain and weather while the Brits would not, at least unless they employed locals which would be furious if not outright rebelling against them in a war where the UK starved more of them longer than the UK already did irl.
@@Soundwave3591 Except it never would have been. The combination of the Kriegsmarine, the Italian Navy, and the VIchy France navy AND the Imperial Japanese navy would've been too much for them. Even if they do throw all their might at the IJN, then guess what? Germany pulls a Sealion. There's no way in hell Russia would defeat the full force of Germany AND Japan on a land war alone. That's a two front war, and it would devolve into stalemate at best.
I like most of these, but this one is a bust. To many problems. Like the need to take the Dutch East Indies for oil and rubber. Which was the real reason they attacked the US. Not out of anger, they were not going to leave the massive bases at the Philippines across their supply lines. And if they had attacked the Soviets, better believe we would have flooded more supplies to Siberia. Does anybody think Japan would have ignored that? And the increase of "American Volunteers like the Flying Tigers? And the massive build up of US forces in the Philippines? Even without Pearl Harbor, we would have been dragged in because we were holding a large part of the Co-Prosperity Sphere.
Nah the US wouldnt be dragged in if it was not attacked US population didnt wanted a war, especially agaisnt the Axis that were fighting a war agaisnt the Soviet Union
@@06diogoleitao41 why? There was no oil or rubberl in the Eastern USSR. However, there was oil and rubber in the Dutch East Indies. And more than anything they needed oil and rubber.
@@0311Mushroom But thats the point of an alternative timeline duh? Like I can give a reson of why invading the soviets first, if you can get rid of them first then you attack the duth or the British colonies but thats the point of why the Axis lost there was no cordination
I think there's three big problems with this. Firstly, why would Germany have just lost? Germany could have focused fully on the Soviet Union and wouldn't have to really worry about backing the Italians up in North Africa. After all, the US sent troops to Africa and later Italy in 1943. Had the US not been involved and not been selling tons of weapons to the allies, then they would have had beat the Italians out of North Africa, which means that Germany would have had a lot more supplies for the Eastern Front. Secondly, on the topic of supplies, the US wouldn't be so involved with lend-lease. One thing people forget is that the Soviet Union depended heavily on American imports. Not only weapons, but clothing. About 38% of Soviet winterwear was produced in the United States (or with American raw materials like wool). Whereas the Germans didn't have such supplies and would be at a loss because of the harsh Russian winters. Last, Japan had one of the most powerful navies of the time. Probably the most powerful in the Pacific (as most of the British fleet was in Europe, and the US had their fleet separated between oceans). Russia, notoriously known for a incredibly weak navy during WWII, would have never been able to launch a full scale invasion of the Japanese mainland, let alone, Japan islands. Japan also had a very good air force, much more than the Russians. And remember, the Russians depended heavily on US imports, so with the US not really engaging lend-lease with the Soviets, then you would see Japan defending their islands very well. Sure, Japan would probably lose China, and Korea if Soviets had some how beat the Germans. But here's the thing. Had the US still supplied Japan with oil, then wouldn't Japan have seen more success in China than before? Without having to focus on the Americans, they could have expanded deep into China, or even to a point of full Kuomintang capitulation. And another thought is that the US would be more likely to actually support Japan than support Russia, especially if Russia had beat the Germans and taken over a lot more of Europe under their sphere of influence. If I had to say what would have happened if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor, at least in my opinion, I would have seen a partial axis-victory, especially if Japan and Germany were double teaming them. The Soviets would not have the lend-lease from the Americans, and as a result the Soviets would have been terribly prepared. It would be a hard war, both sides would lose lots of people, but at the end, the axis would most likely have been able to inflict enough damage that the Russian people would have no longer supported such a devastating war. Especially if you consider that most of ethnic Russians lived in a very concentrated area. Remember, when Germany invaded the region of Ukraine, the ethnic Ukrainians saw them as liberators. Non-Russian ethnic groups in Eastern Russia would have most likely supported a Japanese invasion too. Siberia, Central Asia, GU, and so forth, with the exception of Russian ports like Vladivostok (which Japan would most likely easily capture and hold). Once the Soviet Union were to fall, I could see a peace between the axis and Great Britain. The people of Great Britain already were not in favor of the war (looking at you Chamberlain), and seeing first France (considered a military power house), then the Soviet Union (considered a backwards military power house), fall, I could see a peace deal resulting in most of Western Anglo countries seeing very little change, and most of Eastern Europe different.
Japanese would quickly get stuck in Eastern Siberia, all they would achieve would be maybe capturing Vladivostok and the eastern seaboard. Eastern Siberia would be a nightmare to invade, especially for the Japanese who lacked the equipment the Germans had
Solaxe, capturing Vladivostok circa 1941 would pretty much gut the Soviets. That was half their lend-lease pipeline. Not to mention, the Soviets only held by bringing their troops from Siberia in the first place. If Japan managed to tie down those troops and take Vladivostok, Germany would have a good chance of actually knocking Russia out of the war.
ok, the blunder of Germany's nuclear program had nothing to do with the US. The reason Germany could not bring a nuclear bomb to the scene, was because in 1943, the Norwegian resistance, backed by the British, sabotaged the Vemork Hydroelectric Plant in Operation Gunnerside. Why is this important? Vemork was producing heavy water, a material that was needed to get a nuclear reaction going. With the loss of heavy water, the Germans were unable to make a nuke in time.
This is pretty unlikely. The only reason the Soviets invaded east Europe was for buffer states between it and Moscow. You mentioned this yourself Cody. Stalin's principle of socialism in one country.
The soviets was horrible anyway they didn't care so much about a buffer as they did about spreading communism. And that's clear when they invaded Afghanistan. Helped the China's get rid of their government. Helped Cuba over turn their government and many more if people think it was to keep the western powers from Moscow they are Wrong all it was about was communism
Like you can't say that they wanted a buffer between western powers that's why they invaded āfghenstan. no it wasn't about anything apart from communism
Manoj Anton-Rajkumar they needed a buffer zone (east Europe) because there was a plain to Moscow. The rest of the country is bordered by mountainous geography.
most definitely soveit russia would have lost too much manpower, had virtually no navy, and fight a two front war i.e Russia would have capitulated to the Axis powers possibly in 1943 or 1944.
@Olga Voronkova you guys seem to know less, in fact w/o the lend-lease of the americans, the soviets would lose in the western front even w/o japan. The only thing that kept the germans from moving to moscow was the russian winter and the american equipments. If japan was able to attack from the east then it would certainly fall faster. Chinese soldiers were struggling against the japanese and it's own political ideologies, they can't even push the japanese even if japan attacks the soviet union.
@Nis, You mean the backwater 1 million personnel in the west meanwhile Soviets were fighting the best and more numerous in the East?Also sending more men east would have stretched even more the supply lines and they were already breaking
@Nis, Axis powers outnumbered the Soviets.Axis had initial army size 3.8 million men vs 2.9 million Soviets.Initially Germans had quality advantage but later in the war it was the soviets that had more quality both in equipment and personnel.And hitler was already in war with the allies before he attacked the Soviets.It was the Soviets and Germany that they had agreement in non aggression and cooperation so it was nore likely Soviet Union+Germany vs Allies
Ah I gotta disagree with this timeline. One major factor being as that Japan had no intentions of going to battle with the Soviets. In fact, they made sure not to attack any convoys headed to the USSR, to prevent any accidents. Japan wanted to go south, not north. The very reason why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, was because the US had allies in the south pacific. A better timeline, would be Japan bypassing the Philippines. Remember, Japan attacked the Philippines on December 8th. Right after Pearl Harbor. Japan's goals was South Pacific oil, not the icy tundra of the north. So this timeline completely falls flat, because it totally ignores Japan's very war goal of the Pacific in the first place
The IJA wanted to move North. IJN wanted to move South. Also the Japanese knew that they couldn't leave the Philippines behind their lines as US would eventually join the war against them.
|World War Two In a Nutshell| Germany: Hey Russia, want to make sure that we don't kill each other? Russia (USSR): Um, sure? Germany: Austria, JOIN ME, LET US UNITE THE GERMANIC COUNTRIES!!!! Austria: S-S-Sure, chill. (Germany Annexes Austria) Germany: Czechoslovakia, Gib Clay. Czechoslovakia: Um, No, please, l-l-leave me alone... Germany: Then we have to do this the hard way... Britain and France: Stop, you can't invade Czechoslovakia! Germany: I'll be peaceful after. Britain and France: Alright then. Czechoslovakia: I thought you were my friends, Noooo! (Germany Takes over and annexes Czechoslovakia) Germany: I feel the POWER! (Meanwhile in Asia) Japan: I just killed China. Yay! Russia: O-O-Ok... (Back in Europe) Germany: Hey Russia, I'll take Poland, got my back? Russia: Sure. Poland: Um, what? Germany and Russia: Goodbye Poland Poland: NOOOOOO! (Poland is Invaded and annexed) Britain and France: What?! Britain and France: We declare war on you! (Britain and France declare war on Germany) Viewer: Why not Russia? Russia: No one can invade Russia without paying the price.... Viewer: Okay.... (Back to the Story) (At First it's known as the "Phony War" as no one invades each other, that was about to change) Germany: I'll invade you, France! France: Oh no... (Germany Invades France) France: Could use some help. Britain: I got your back. (Months of fighting occur) France: THEY NEARLY GOT PARIS! (Paris is captured) France: NOOOOOO! Britain: It'll be fine, buddy. (British and French forces are pushed back to Dunkirk) Britain: We need to evacuate. France: I'll come back for you... (Southern France becomes a Puppet) Free French: Mhmm, Vichy isn't the true French. Vichy France: What, No, I am true France. Free French: You're only a puppet! (Battle of Britain Occurs) (German Loss) Germany: Grr, I'll bomb you! (Germany bombs Britain heavily) (Britain would be hanging on a threat of rope) Japan: Time to get the US... Italy and Germany: JAPAN DON'T! (Japan Bombs Pearl Harbor) Italy and Germany: Good job, you've doomed us... USA: JAPAN, YOU ARE DEAD! Japan: Oops... Germany: Time to destroy Russia! Napoleon's Spirit: You should've learned from my mistakes, you are doomed now. (Germany Invades Russia) Russia: Germany, prepare to DIE! (Leningrad is captured) Russia: NOOO! (Russia is pushed back, but resisted at Moscow) Germany: I'll get Stalingrad to get the Oil there. USA: OIL???? (Sorry, bad joke) (Germany pushes to Stalingrad) (Germany is pushed back) Germany: Nooo! Japan: I'm loosing! Italy: They've landed on me! (Germany get's pushed back to Poland) (Normandy Landings Occur) (Germany is being pushed back on all Three Fronts) Germany: Japan, Remember me.... Japan: GERMANY NO! Germany: I had a good run... (Germany collapses) Japan: It's just me then... (Hiroshima is bombed by the Atomic Bomb) Japan: No....My People....Genocide.....YOU MONSTER! USA: It's the only way to prevent more loss of life, sorry. Do you surrender? Japan: No. USA: I'm, sorry... (Nagasaki is bombed by the Edit: Plutonium Bomb) Japan: Fine, I surrender.... (World War Two Ends) I hope you enjoyed this simplification of WWII, I left a lot out, I know. Such as the North African Campaign. I'm sorry if I left things out. Anyway, have a good day! Edit: Holy, Thank you for the likes!
The real reason Japan surrendered was because the Soviet Union invaded their territory in Manchuria and they were scared that the Russians would invade the Japanese home islands thereby turning them communist and doing the things that Soviet soldiers in occupied territory did. (No need to elaborate).
@@matid9687 Think about it. The biggest nail in the coffin for the Axis was fighting on multiple fronts with the Allies. Without US intervention there probably won't be a D-Day, and the African front would never have received US reinforcements that pushed the Allies up from Africa into Italy. It will be the Soviets fighting on two fronts, not the Germans. And the British would be too focused on fending off the Germans in the English Channel and Japanese in Asia to provide that much assistance.
@@domnicdial9405 However there're more things to have in mind too, the US intervention actually wasn't the fact of the loss of the Afrikan Korps, yes, it made it faster, but Rommel had already spent all his resources in a pointless campaign to Egypt which didn't ended well and the UK was already defeating them back to Libya. Also remember that the japanese forces haven't much tanks and even they were underdeveloped against light tanks of the USSR like the BT-5, of course we cannot deny that Japan without Oil will struggle to beat the Chineses and fighting the soviets will just make the wound even worse. There were 200.000 troops on the Far East and after the Khalkhin Gol incident where the japanese intelligence show it's awful work it might be the USSR who would won on Manchuria, yes maybe the russians could be defeated at Moscow but after that really nobody knows if the USSR would surrender or just kept fighting until the last stand (by the time the Battle of Moscow began most of the industry went to the Urals.)
You forget the us literally fed the entire Russian army after we joined the war And supplied them with essentially their entire supply chain equipment such as trucks tractors etc the Russian army would starve without the us and if they somehow got food there tanks wouldn’t be able to attack as quickly they did after barbarosa failed because they wouldn’t have fuel trucks without US Russia would crumble
Not really since the soviet union is already a industrial power and have enough resources to fight against the japan and germany Also china will probably join in and become a soviet sattelite. (except that thier economy will collapse after the war)
@@lettuceman9439 best joke i've read today. Im British and its not hard at all to say if the USA didnt enter the war mainland europe and Russia would have been steamrolled.
@@daniejam10 well the soviet economy after the war would have collapsed after the war but they still have a bigger industry and manpower than germany and if japan were to go with the army doctrine good luck going through siberia and mongolia.
I'm sorry, but there is simply no way the Soviets could have taken both the Nazis and the Jappanese. Yes, they had incredible manpower and incredible production, but they would have no chance ove matching the Jappanese Navy, and Germany would have been far harder to conquer had it not been fighting a war on two fronts. The Russians can keep falling back deeper into Asia to avoid losing, but they simply would not have been capable of not only single handedly taking out Germany, but also simultaneously deploying troops all the way to Japan on the other side of the word, with supply lines thousands of miles long. It's just not feasible
Tigger The Tiger Not true. Japan didnt have the equipment nor the supplies and supply lines to support their armies in Siberia. They would starve or freeze to death even with no Soviet forces protecting it. Siberia has a small amount of resources and Japan wouldnt be able to fuel his army with that small amount of oil. The war would however last longer. Probably 1-2 years with Europe being dominated by Communism. France and Italy would be freed by the British while the rest would be conquered by the USSR. With much more casualties ofcourse. Japan would get defeated after Germany and Japan would be partitioned by the British and Soviets.
The Soviets didn't even have a navy so they could never have successfully launched an amphibious invasion against the Japanese, who had one of the world's largest and most powerful naval fleets.
Spike Spiegel The Soviets did have a navy and some/many of them came from the Lend-Lease. And especially the British Lend-Lease:www.naval-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet-navy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Navy#World_War_II:_The_Great_Patriotic_War_(1941%E2%80%931945) Also. The Japanese had a big and powerful navy but they lacked the industrial capacity and the raw materials to make more of those ships and thus every ship the Japanese would lose by fighting the British and Soviet navies would make their fleet smaller, weaker and make their mainland less-defended. The Soviets and British could produce at least produce twice as much as ships as the Japanese. Maybe even 3-5 times since the British and the Soviets were huge countries full of resources (talking about the British Empire instead of Britain itself.)
In the East they don`t have to. All the Russians need to do is to do is keep pulling back while destroying everything of value and use guerilla tactics to disrupt supply lines while concentrating on fighting the Germans. Its a LONG way from the Chinese border to the Urals and if the Japanese are not fighting the British in South East Asia then the Axis is going to be in serious trouble in North Africa .
The USSR fighting a two front war would never defeat both the Japanese & the Germans... never! The USSR received much of its war material from the United States via the US west coast to Vladivostok only because the Japanese had entered a nonaggression pact with Stalin & therefore allowed shipping to pass without incident. That would have never happened in your alternate timeline. No, Russia would not survive.
USSR would never fight a two front war as the Japanese were not so insane as to invade Siberia. And even if they did the invasion wouldn't do anything and so wouldn't draw any Soviet attention just like Operation Arctic Fox didn't draw in any Soviet forces as Arctic warfare with limited infrastructure and problematic logistics is hard and the Japanese would have all of those things up to eleven. And you do understand that the Japanese didn't attack the US shipping heading to USSR as Japan didn't want to piss USSR off. So basically in this case Japanese wouldn't attack US shipping because they didn't want to piss US off. So the end result is still the same. So no. Japanese invasion of Siberia wouldn't do anything and would only destroy Japan as Japanese would starve out of oil.
the value of lend-lease towards the ultimate outcome is always overstated. most of the lend-lease aid did not arrive until 1943, after the battles of moscow and stalingrad. the paper The USSR and Total War: Why Didn’t the Soviet Economy Collapse in 1942 by Mark Harrison states that "The pressure on resources was somewhat alleviated by foreign aid, which added approximately 5 per cent to Soviet resources in 1942 and 10 per cent in 1943 and 1944.". Geoffrey Roberts maintains that "The Soviet Union could have defeated Nazi Germany on its own, but it would have taken it a lot longer and at much greater price and, of course, it would have taken the country much longer to recover after World War II...". lastly, with trucks as an example, it should be noted that, according to an article in "Journal of Slavic Military Studies" Vol. 10, June 1997 "Motor Vehicle Transport Deliveries through Lend-Lease", imported trucks only consisted of 5.4%, 19.0%, and 30.4% of total park at the beginning of 1943, 1944, and 1945, respectively. the far-east ports constituted half of the shipments. it was the preferred means not due to ability but due to cost, and for that reason the arctic route and persia routes would have been brought to more prominence despite their greater length. furthermore, it should be noted that only non-military goods could be shipped via the pacific route. obviously foodstuffs and peripheral supplies are not useless, but it should be noted because it means that the flow of military goods would not have been interrupted. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union
Germany: Hey ally, I'm invading the world's second most powerful country, want to help? Japan: No, I'd rather just attack the world's numer one country. Because that makes sense.
Germany: Hey ally I'm invading the world's most powerful country, want to help? Japan: I can't, the Americans blockaded my oil, so now due to socio economic reasons, and the fact that we don't have much oil on the home islands, I need to attack the U.S pacific fleet in Hawaii to continue the path to making Japan as self sufficient as possible.
Greenlandia is right, Japan's true threat was America not Russia. They took the islands to serve as a buffer zone between them and America. Most of the islands they took had no economic or social value but it did have a strategic one.
well actually a lot of the Islands, and places they took were useful, like Indonesia had tons of Oil, so that's why they took it, and they knew it would risk war with America. Japan had like no oil, because only 5% of the land is usable for Farming, and less for oil, so they needed to invade lands like Korea to get oil from there.
Germany(talking of soviet) : ok japan Ich attacked the stronkest country on earth. Vi can win if Ich attack from west and du attack from east Japan(thinking that germany attacked U.S.A) : k German-san. is of gud prann. ı wirr attack from east
There is no chance the Soviets could invade japan. Japan had an extremely powerful navy, and the Soviets had a tiny one at that time, with no aircraft carriers. Japanese carriers could easily destroy the tiny Soviet Pacific fleet
The Americans could only begin island hopping when their navy had overwhelming superiority over the Japanese. How could the Soviets invade? Sure they’d capture japan’s Mainland colonies, but they could never touch the home islands.
I agree. Soviet invasion of Japan (if the US didn't the war) is as Alien Space Bats as Operation Sealion. Replaced Germany with Soviet Union (strong army, weak navy), Britain with Japan (strong navy), and Operation Sealion with Soviet Invasion of Japan...and you would see the similarities.
T K the Japanese did have carriers. Their construction speed was way slower though, compared to the USA. But since in this alternate timeline there is no oil embargo, Japan's Pacific fleet would be vastly superior compared to Russia's fleet. A homeland naval invasion would be impossible.
There was a battle before WWII that was between the Red Army and the Japanese Imperial Army. That battle was extreme influential not only because it helped Zhukov become a key figure in WWII it also scared the Japanese into having no land combat against the Russians. Assuming in this scenario the battle would still occur with the Soviets absolutely dominating (which it most likely will) I highly doubt the Japanese would fight against the Russians to help Germany. They didn't even do that in our timeline and that was with Germany declaring war on the US to help push Japan to declare war on the Soviet Union.
Schatten der Pickelhaube well don't ask him this as this guy seriousely belive the SU could naval invade the Japanese and defeat the germans without any aid and so on. But i will tell you this. The germans did take the city and it had no effect. After months of fighting and thin supply lines it wasn't worth fighting for it in the first place
The Germans could never have one the offensive into Russia, not alone. They required the support of Japan's army to open a second Russian front from Vladivostok in the east.
Schatten der Pickelhaube If they did the oil fields in the southern part of Russia would have been taken. Russia would have to rely on Western oil. If Germany could continue to attack Russia the winter would halt the German Forces of a time. Without oil Russian Tanks can't run and Infantry would be sent into meat grinders. But ultimately Germany would be crushed by the US and Western Allies, as Germany is pushing deeper into Russia and it counties into Moscow. Simply put: Germany was destined to fail in Russia, The Battle of Stalingrad would allow German forces to the south to get the Russian oil Fields, this would hurt Russia but not for long. In our Timeline Germany simply didn't have enough troops to stop the the Western Allies from doing D-Day, or to stop them in Italy. In this Timeline the same thing happens, Germany is invaded in 1944 with no Renforcems to speak of, The Allies take Berlin and Force Germany to Surrender. WW2 is done, Democracy Wins Communism is smaller and not any threat in this timeline. To Somme up: Germany loses either way, but the Western Allies control the Peace and post War Germany and maybe Poland too. Communism is weaker, and Japan is still Nuked, Korea is Whole, and Democracy Wins in the end. China is up to u.
Nah, Japan didn't surrendered because of the nukes. The leadership knew that they lost the war but hoped to negotiate a conditional surrender (while the allies wanted an unconditional one). And for this they hoped that the USSR would act as an arbitrator between the allies and the Japanese, but their plan fell to dust when the USSR declared war on Japan in 1945 and seized Manchuria. So this is when they considered to surrender. Remember that back then nukes weren't that powerful. Japan was already bombed day and night by the allies, and conventional bombs caused far more destruction on the island. For the high command, the only difference in their daily report was that "one city was razed, this time with a weapon of a new type", but imagine this new as a part of all other news of cities razed with conventional news!
Micheal Carney Actually it was the Soviets. Along with what was mentioned before the Emperor feared what would happen if the Soviets pushed far enough to japan and actually had their way, which would lead to the death of all the higher ups including himself. They surrendered in order to save themselves, they didn’t give a damn about their people
USSR rules? With US isolation in this timeline, only UK may receive some US aid with price.(cash and carry), part of US aid may turn for Russian via UK. Also, an isolated US wouldn't get moblization their power of industry, that's means there only little US aid avaliable for Allies. Without massive US aid, USSR would have only little foreign aid from UK, then: No more US made weapons such P39, P63, P40, B25 and US tanks. No more made in USA boots and SPAM canfoods for Red Army soldiers, what should they eat and wear? No more trucks to transport everything to the front, USSR have to product their trucks and reduce production of weapons. No more US aid fuel for USSR aircrafts and tanks. No more US aid locomotives, Soviet have to reduce tank production to maintain railroad transport capability. Without Ukraine and US aid foods, what kind of foods that Russians left? Without US built Liberty ships, how to send Red Army across any sea to invade Japan? Without US to defeat IJN, ocean and sea are untouchable for Russians. How to defeat both Nazi and Japan without US aid and US attacks against Axis countries? Even worse, if Japan have war with UK in this case, UK may lose India and Australia due to IJN is overwhelming against RN in India Ocean and Pacific Ocean, UK couldn't protect India, Malaya and Austraila from Japan without US help. Then in China, Chiang Kai-shek would be overthrown by Japanese and China would be turned into puppy state of Japanese Empire.
IJA didn't have enough force to control China too, but they'd insisted war against Chiang Kai-shek China. So, they need puppies like Manchuria and Wan Zhou-ming China. IJA couldn't control Australia with full strength, but enough to take coastal cities and industries, then knock Australia(and New Zealand) out the war. In this case, how many IJA units and time avaliable to invade ANZ depend on A. How long could Chiang holding his regime in Si-Chun? B. How long could Australian Army defend in New Guinea? C. Where IJN fleet going to battle?
Plus the important parts of Australia is mainly on the coast. They could just take the coastal regions. Anyway if Japan attacked Russia. Japan would not invad Australia. They would need to keep they're strength in Russia and China. You can't over stretch your army. I don't even think Japan wanted Australia in the real WW2.
Does this include no attack on the Philippines either? It makes no sense that Japan would have left a strong U. DS. military force in the Philippines. They would have had to attack it and thus the U.S. would have declared war on Japan - then the same timeline. Like most alternate timeline theories, the mistakes made in creating them include not realistically considering geography, economy, and national will. It's too easy to have a conclusion in mind and then just create any scenario that gets to it. This is called "casuistry" which is a specious method of reasoning and not the ability to play a kazzoo.
The Japanese did not HAVE to attack the Philippines. They chose to. Now, yes, it makes some strategic sense because the Philippines CAN BE used as an interdiction point between Japan and the oil from the Dutch East Indies. But would the US have taken the provocative step to try to stop Japanese oil shipments militarily? I highly doubt it. The US hadn't attacked Germany even though Germany had overrun France and was attacking Britain. I see no reason why that calculation would change with the Japanese attacking the Dutch and British colonies in the Far East. Verdict: Japan could have avoided US involvement in the war, at least for a period of time, if they had avoided attacking any US possession and that would absolutely have altered the timeline of WW2 significantly, though not necessarily the eventual outcome.
@@crowfeedreactions Speculation is fun but is ultimately unsatisfying. What actually happened is inconveniently always there and ruins all of our brilliant alternate plans and scenarios. I think that the Japanese had to do exactly what they did for numerous reasons, many of them sociological and psychological, just as the Nazis had to do what they did.
@@Glicksman1 I think that's a very rigid way of looking at history. Yes, there were reasons for what they did, but we believe their choices were inevitable because we know what choice was made. They still COULD HAVE gone a different direction and then we'd have the same opinion about THAT choice. Yes, alt-history is fun to speculate about. That's the whole point of all this.
@@crowfeedreactions No, it's not rigid to study and come to an understand something about a particular nation and culture in a particular time and what they did as a result of it. That is called studying history. Of course, what is history COULD have gone a different way and it's interesting to speculate what MIGHT have happened. I think that's obvious.
Kev3004 Just so that you know Power Rangers needs Super Sentai to exist and if it wasn't for Super Sentai Saban would had never wanted to adapt it at first place to make Power Rangers. These days those two franchises need each other so there is no reason to act all smug and arrogant towards forms of Japanese entertainment. Oh and you might have forgotten that original Godzilla movie from 1954 is classic and among anime there are beloved classics like Cowboy Bebop and Trigun that I am sure you have watched from Cartoon Network's Toonami block. Don't be ignorant asshole, be open minded.
yeah, this obsession with Russia is ridiculous. Even if their industry and efficiency got better towards the end of the war, there's no way they'd be able to combat an unhampered Germany AND Japan at the same time, let alone conquer both. Numbers doesn't mean everything, we've been taught that through countless times in history, and even for the Russians, there's only a certain amount they could chuck out at most Russia would get as far as around the German/Polish border before stopping to a stalemate halt, as Japan continually bites their backside in Siberia, Mongolia and Russian interests in China. Japan, especially in such a vast and unforgiving landscape, would likely lose and/or abandon their Siberian claims, possibly get pushed back from Mongolia into Manchuria the war would likely have to end as a truce from there, because all sides would be so exhausted, and an uneasy similar like cold war would immediately ensue. Russia might still conquer more overall then our timeline, and would still hold considerable power, but they wouldn't have 'won' let alone easily
Exactly what i was thinking. No one else here is thinking logically. Your explanation makes the most sense, however i could see a soviet british alliance to finish off the axis as a possiblity. At some point the U.S. would probably be incentivised to join the war but even if not the war would have still been won by soviets/british
I feel it is worth Stating that the USSR had already stopped the German advance on Moscow before the US entered the war. People really tend to oversell the Germans, they were already in trouble long before the US got involved in any meaningful way. Supply problems, lack of manpower and simply being overstretched trying to occupy effectively ALL OF EUROPE meant that had the USSR had to face them alone (which they wouldn't have, as the UK - WAS - still in the war) while it might have taken longer, Germany still would have lost. Furthermore, they'd already given Japan a bloody nose in Mongolia in 1939, so Japan was quite hesitant about challenging them (hence why they turned South against the US and the European colonies.) And again, the issue of supplies and pre-established commitments comes up: Japan was already deep into a Land war in China, which was sapping manpower and resources as it was, pulling more assets out to throw at the USSR would have only hurt them. Not to mention the USSR didn't even need to send their best equipment to face the Japanese, they steamrolled Manchuria on 1945 using BT tanks from the mid-30's, as they were still effective against Japanese armor.
@@Soundwave3591 the point is though, I never said the Germans would succeed in conquering the Russians, and while I agree they were being pushed back before the US joined the war, If the US in this case never joined the war, they'd be no D-Day or Italian allied front, which can't be denied would've given at least somewhat of a pressure release valve for the USSR. However, the USSR still needed a solid 4 years against the Germans, especially when the Germans were putting the most effort against them as they were ideological arch enemies, plus at least European Russia was a main part of the Lebensraum ideology. Imagine in this scenario, If there were no D-Day or Italian front however. The only other front they'd have to deal with would be England, which was largely more a defensive war, otherwise more a thorn in their side at most The entire Nazi Empire would therefore be almost entirely divided into Russia therefore, including all their defenses. In this timeline, If it still took the Russians a good 4 years to push back the Germans completely, in this timeline they'd either not be able to get to Berlin, or they'd simply exhaust most of their units, even for Russia. Considering in our timeline Russia has by far the most causalties, both by raw numbers and percentage of population, including areas in Russia still reeling back from that, despite fighting an enemy that had 2 major fronts and 1 minor front. In what world would they win against an enemy with only 1 other minor front? No Operation Torch in N Africa in this timeline either As for Japan in Asia? Yes, they got pushed back in Mongolia relatively early on, but they didn't go South because of that, their grand plan since and planned after the attack on Pearl Harbour was to go into SE Asia, towards Australia and India, as SE Asia has the much needed rubber they needed in the war, and oil elsewhere as well. These two things were the resources that the US sanctioned them on in the first place. With this in mind Mongolia would've only been a minor setback, and when you mentioned that Russia easily took Manchuria in 1945? Likely mainly because Japan was being attacked on its mainland soil for the first time (since Okinawa and Iwo Jima) in this timeline, If the US never joined the war, they too would have undivided attention in Asia (non US Pacific would be pretty piss easy to take, and Australia on its own would be a thorn at most, as England was to Germany) Ergo with Russia taking on an undivided Germany, If they diverted troops to Asia as well, they too would only hurt from that, especially when they'd have to cover a lot of territory against Japan
Except that the soviet union will probably be backed by china if that happened and the sheer industry of the ussr and a cooperation with china's manpower.
@@amossivan3819 to be fair, 1. The Americans still have the lend lease in this timeline (nobody said anything about that) 2. Siberia is a frozen hellscape far worse than the west. There are even parts where radio communication is practically impossible and that are also completely uninhabited separating little towns. So siberia might be an issue. Now while I don't agree with Cody's scenario completely (Japan couldn't be conquered by the Soviets due to a vastly inferior navy, but Germany I can see) Japan would maintain an empire in the pacific and Southeast asia (with only perhaps Vietnam breaking away)
@Humanity Galatica Japan + Germany + The other axis nations... do you expect me to think that the USSR will, like in the video, get cheat codes and make its workers work faster? I know it's rich on raw materials, but it doesn't have limitless manpower
@Humanity Galatica you do realise they can't just do that, right? With nothing pressuring the germans from the back, they'll focuse more on the invasion on the USSR. The USSR is done because all they can do is throw people in the fire in hope of preventing it to spread
I hate to say it but... You are clearly off your rocker thinking that the Soviets couldn't stop a push on two fronts. *Considering they did a push on 3*
Russia came to the brink of collapse and would have lost without US aid even just fighting the Germans. Fighting in both the East and West would have been untenable and they would have essentially collapsed after Moscow fell to the German blitz.
For example in Stalingrad the soviets brought in divisions from Siberia to defend, and those divisions were crucial for the victory. So if Japan attacked, they wouldnt have been able to move those divisions, further weakening the red army in the eastern front. Also the US lend-lease act was crucial for soviets, and without that and without any invasion from western europe and having to also fight the japanese, the USSR would have lost the war
then the war would have been much more dragged out because the US had plans to invade Japan if the Manhattan project didn't work causing the war to continue on for another 6 months at least
NovaThief most people would say that cold war would most likely turned into ww3. But problem with that is USSR had no chance against to actualy defiet USA in conventional war (because of weaker navy) so yeah USSR might have been less agresiv and more defensiv in that timeline.
Why is this assuming the soviet union would have won? If the US never entered then Germany wouldnt have been split up. America was still fighting ithe north afrika corps in 1941. It would have allowed to send even more Wehrmacht to the eastern front. Not to mention the Germans wouldnt have to waste their tiger and king tiger tanks on the western front. Now add to it that the Japanese would have the Russians on two fronts, they would have definitely lost. But yes if the soviet union did somehow manage to win ( they wouldnt ), the ending result would probably he as how you described.
keep in mind that one of the reasons Russia won the war is because they did not have to garrison their eastern frontier. with the Japanese threat, there is no way Russia is able to push back the Germans all the way to Berlin. the war would most likely grind to a stalemate. also why didn't you even mention china
No. The Soviets had full forces in the East all through the war! Also please explain why the Soviets wouldl keep massive amount of troops in the East fighting the Japanese if they were losing badly in the West.
Lets just all agree that the Commonwealth is the best and we were all there, even if the video COMPLETELY IGNORED AUSTRALIA FIGHTING THE JAPANESE FOR 3 YEARS BEFORE THE US SHOWED UP!
If Japan never Attacked Pearl Harbor and the plans still existed, then Alternate History Hub would be making a video "What if Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan"
There also would've been a state of Jefferson. The State of Jefferson advocates had support for the cause until Pearl Harbor was attacked, where everyone shifted their attention to that.
@@tommark3015 But they would also not have completly lost. The Front is simply to massive. Germany would have probably taken most if not all of the western soviet union and the japanese (if they join) the sibirian coast. But I think the japanese would have never been able to join because the oil embargo was devastating. The japanese high command calculated, that they would only have about two years worth of oil with the american embargo. So the would probably use their oil reserves to finish of china or attack the western colonies to get the ressources.
@@thatguyinelnorte yes there was no oil embargo in the video, but its just not realistic that the USA would let the japanese do whatever they want. So realistically i still think there would have been one. But thank you for the correction.
I feel like you severely overestimate Russia’s ability to win the war. The Americans weren’t sending supplies to the USSR until they fully allied against Germany. Stalin himself said that moving past the border would break the russian war machines back.
I think that I disagree with this scenario. I have my doubts that Russia could have carried out a two-front war for very long. With the Germans attacking from the west and the Japanese attacking from the east, Russia may have indeed lost. In that case, all of eastern Europe, Eurasia and Asia would have fallen to Fascism, not Communism. I think that is a more likely scenario.
Hell, even _without_ the Japanese participation I seriously doubt a non-American-involved invasion of the USSR would have ended up more or less triumphantly for Germany. The land lease agreement is given way less credit than it deserves; nto surprisingly, by the Russians themselves.
However, the German and Japanese forces would not need to quickly end the war with the Soviets due to oncoming Allied invasions and could entrench during the winter, allowing for proper resupply for a Spring Offensive and a lengthy, but eventual victory against the Soviets.
In a two-front war, the Soviet Union would've lost, but they could always just abandon the East. Siberia isn't as profitable as Western Soviet Union. Most of the population is also in the west.
What if King Harold Godwinson won against William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings in 1066? In this scenario, Harold manages to keep the shield wall in check and none of his troops get lured out by the Normans, which then results in a Saxon victory because he was waiting for all of his reinforcements to arrive first before he would take the Normans on and defeat them. What would this alternate world be like?
The Saxons would've held out had Harold's men decided to not chase after Norman infantry who ran down the hill (That was one flaw in his strategy of fighting alongside his men, he couldn't run over to his men on the west/middle/east flanks to tell them to pull back considering he was trying to hold his section of the line in check).
Supreme Leader Snoke which led to the Norman Knights (well not really they had another word for it which meant "soldier" but I can't quite remember it right now) charging the saxons who were not in the protective shield wall.
Of all the alternate history videos I've watched so far, this is the one I disagree with the most. Without the Lend Lease program of the United States, I don't see how the Soviets could possibly hold off the Germans, especially if Japan opened a second front for the Soviets to deal with. Two inferior armies can beat the far superior one if they have them surrounded, forcing them to split their forces.That was the case with the Germans in WWI & WWII. But the British and Soviet militaries were both too inferior to the Germans'; primarily because they lacked resources. The vast majority of the war machine against the Axis powers was the United States. Without that war machine, they had no chance. Without the United States in the war, the Japanese could have freely moved their naval fleet to the Atlantic to work with the U-Boats against the British fleet, and that likely would have lead to and invasion of Britain and a complete collapse of it's empire. No Western front, so hundreds of thousands of troops can be moved to the Eastern front; by by Soviet Union. The Soviets simply don't have the supplies to accomplish holding off the Japanese and take over most of Europe. The Soviet Union would be completely gone. It doesn't matter how many soldiers you have if only half are armed going into battle against more elite and far better lead troops.
I think the japanese would focus first on east and southeast asia before they get serious on invading russia since east russia is underdeveloped and not that inhabited compared to west russia and so theres less resources for japan to invade for.
I agree with you...with out American help....Japan takes over Asia....all the way to India and with all of that manpower...China and India they take over Siberia. The British with out the Yanks are boxed onto their Island. The Russians with out American steel, food, munitions and vehicles aren't able to build all of the tanks and equipment they needed to fight the Germans. Plus with no Amercian involvement the Germans develop the bomb and use it to make England sign a treaty and use it on the Russians to even the odds for their troops.
Not to mention even if there were Russian successes, the Germans could put FAR more resources into counter offensives. Without American involvement and with Japanese pressure in the east, the Germans would've likely at least broken through at Kursk. I still don't see a total Axis victory happening but they could have definitely forced the Soviets to the negotiating table.
I call BS. If the U.S. had not entered the war, the Soviet Union and Britain would not have defeated Germany and Japan. Even with the U.S in the war, Stalin was on the verge of negotiating a treaty with Germany. D-Day was a response to Stalin's ultimatum that the U.S and Britain open up a western front or he would pursue peace with Germany - and that is with the U.S in the fight, and Japan not at war with the Soviet Union.
US would still join the war due to the Battle of the Atlantic. And even if it didn't then please explain how Britain and the USSR couldn't defeat the Axis, because both did historically beat the Germans before US did anything. And Japan cannot start a real war without bringing US into the war too, and invasion of Siberia is nothing more than a suicide-by-cop. And please provide evidence that without Overlord the USSR would sign peace with Germany.
Whoa whoa whoa, Japan had a massive fleet, with the largest Battleships and Carriers along with a strong air force. There was no way the Russian navy could compete against the Japanese one, so I can't see how Russia can engage in a full scale invasion of Japan. They could sweep across Korea and China, installing Communist governments, but the Japanese islands would be extremely secure. And Paratroops need to be regularly supplied in order to be effective.
ltflak Airborne divisions?
Russia bias?
I don't think the logistics on are the Soviet Union's side. Operation Downfall would have involved 6 million soldiers, and predicted up to 1.7-4 million American casualties, and that was with Aerial Superiority, Naval Support and Armored support. A paratroop force numbering in the millions was just unheard of in WW2, requiring an enormous amount of vulnerable transport planes. Even if they built up such a force, those paratroops can't be supplied by sea with all IJN Battleships and Carrier patrolling it, so it'd have to be done by plane. This would require a Soviet air force of unimaginable size, and a infrastructure to send all the spare parts, fuel and munitions to maintain that air force that is so far away from the industrial factories of Russia.
That would have no supply routes. If you saw band of brothers remember that excluding bastogne they clear supply lines. Not to mention the Russian airborn troops were mostly used as plain old infantry.
You forget that likely the British Navy would help out in the pacific. Along with Commonwealth. (Such as Australia and ect) Plus, I disagree with this scenario because America stopped supplying oil to Japan before Pearl Harbor and this scenario acts like that happened AFTER the bombing which is backwards.
2:55 the embargo happened because Japan was waging war in east asia. I really doubt the embargo ends because the Japanese were nice and didn't attack the US.
The embargo is why japan attacks the us. No embargo, no attack. Unlikely, but its needed so the situation happens
They attacked because they were afraid of the Chinese reorganization, they were quite victorious in the beginning of the war but they knew that it won't last long, China still a large country plentiful of resources and their defences were becoming organized day after day, the embargo was a huge factor against the war on China and they somehow felt that if they attack pearl harbor the US would lift the embargo because of the isolationist majority and their naval/air superiority in the beginning of the war, was a wrong move, but not everyone agreed with that, they could still go on without the attack and they would ultimately lose anyway, more so with the embargo than without, that's why they did it the error here is the invasion of the USSR hypothesis, they not even bother to even consider such a thing, they were cautious about the Soviets, more than anyone else by the time and they had good reasons and Stalin also didn't even think about invading Japan, maybe Korea and Manchuria, but Japan? The Japanese would probably surrender to the Soviets in the end, but not unconditionally and would still fight a war against the British empire too, and in Europe the Soviets wouldn't invade all east Europe or anything like that, Finland stood out, Austria too, Italy and Greece wanted to join them but the western allies didn't let them, so, probably in this alternate timeline they would.
Something else apparent in this timeline but not mentioned is that according to this timeline Japan never attacks the other Western powers in the area. No fighting in Burma or Singapore or a push on Calcutta and all those troops get directed elsewhere.
@@Menckenperson considering mainland China, but would still be quite impossible, considering that the Japanese would need the southeast Asia colonies oil to advance or defend their invaded territory against China because of the embargo, which was why the Japanese empire took the fight to the europeans invading their colonies before attacking pearl harbor in the first place.
I 99% sure cody didnt have the embargo in is because why would japan need to attack the USA if the embargo never existed
You're telling me the USSR, with virtually no navy in the Pacific, is going to beat the JAPANESE NAVY and INVADE JAPAN? Sure! Not to mention that Japan would've seized Pacific Russian ports & bombed the Red Fleet in much the same way they did at Pearl Harbor in our timeline.
Paratroopers and bombings maybe?
@@filipv.1198 Hahaha yeah okay. The only thing paratroopers did in real life is weaken the enemy before an attack. They weren't used alone for invasions. Also the Russian airforce isn't exactly the best.
Yeah but in time Russians would outproduce the Japanese, and then easely crush them
@@filipv.1198 Wrong, the Japanese navy would turn their sights to Singapore and Indonesia (just like they did in our timeline) and without American Navy to cut off their shipping, Japan keeps a constant supply of resources coming to the home islands. Japan would be able to hold off pretty much indefinitely. Especially with the chemical warfare they were researching at the end of the war. 1946 would be chemical hell for the Russians.
Hinzee I agree with this statement, and on land the Japanese would still have an overwhelming airforce to demoralize the Russians hundreds of miles before the the battle even takes place and if it did the Russians would have a hell of a time with air superiority that the Japanese holds,
I love your videos but this one has one major flaw. The Soviets did not have any kind of sea lift capacity nor the ability to protect it from Japanese air and naval if they did have it. They could clean the Japanese out of China easily enough if Germany was defeated first but it would take decades to actually invade the home islands.
Soviets don't need to invade Japan as without taking the resources from the South Japan wouldn't have the resources to wage war!
@@Pikkabuu But they would still have enough naval capabilities to have trade and air forces to protect it and their seas.
@@DexWeapons
The Japanese aren't going to get oil from anywhere as none will trade it with them!
@@Pikkabuu not necessarily japan may not get much trade but there will still be some willing to like Siam and a few others. And the US really only stopped trade of oil gasoline and machine tools. Not only that but Seeing as japan would be out of China maybe seeing as this is alternate history the US may never had embargoed then or maybe even stopped the embargo as China would no longer be under threat
@@DexWeapons
Siam didn't have oil to trade.
And US was the main oil supplier of Japan! So losing all that oil will starve the Japanese out.
And why would Japan leave China?!
"What if Japan Never Attacked Pearl Harbor, while Stalin typed console commands to *Erase All Fleets & Coal Resources Japan Has* , and to *CREATE 100 SUBMARINES FOR USSR* "
Lolz
/detonate japanese_fleet
/spawn submarine_100
IJNavyAkagi
focus.autocomplete
Manpower 100000000
Research all
Nuke 9999
The Soviets actually had a massive sub fleet, it was however mostly in Europe and thus ineffective...
What if the Jews in Europe were never murdered in concentration camps?
Germany: We can still win the war.
Japan: We just bombed the Pearl Harbor.
Germany: *YOU WHAT!?*
Usa: WHAT THE HELL
Germany: ah shit
@@gandar5097 That's the key, he wanted to involve the United States...just not in 1941, and definitely not on the Pacific Ocean. He wanted to invade the US from the Atlantic after defeating the British, while Japan invaded from the Pacific.
@@mdyoung1971 As Dirty Harry said in the movie "Bruce Almighty": Be careful what you wish for... punk!
HItler learned the hard way. Wanting to fight the world is one of the stupidest ideas a man could ever have.
@@shindari Well, his first mistake was not going ahead and crossing the channel and taking out the Brits in 1939-40. We were in no mood to get into Europe's war, and Hitler knew this. It was Japan's mistake to attack Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941. We were starving them of oil that they depended on. So, in reality, Japan forced our hand and Hitler's hand. Furthermore, Hitler declaring war on the United States was a knee jerk response to us formally declaring war on his ally in Japan. However, he forgot one thing, he was already fighting a two front war with tiny Britain on the west and Giant Soviet Union on the east. He thought, erroneously, that would take a long time for us to get mobilized. That would give him enough time to finish off Russia, or so he thought. In fact, it only took 6 months for the first American to land in Europe...nowhere near enough time to finish off Russia.
@@mdyoung1971 Hitler didn't cross the channel, because he arrogantly thought that simply keeping them pinned to their island, with no allies, was enough to beat them.
And it was. Britain didn't start making any noise in the war until the United States jumped in. Without America, the English and Russians would have remained pried apart on the map, fighting the same enemy, but unable to help one another. And neither country, by themselves, had the power to break into the fortress that the Nazis turned central Europe into. In this manner, Germany would have had all the time that they needed to force submission out of both powers. Even if that effort took the entirety of the decade (which it very well might have).
However, the USA, and its' economic/ military chutzpah, turned the tide against the Axis. By simply getting involved as the "third wheel", America stabilized the Allied Powers, and enabled them to fight together, in unison. It was a mistake for Japan to get us involved. They'd have been far better off coordinating a two-front war with Russia, with Germany doing most of the damage in the western front. Japan's mistake might well have been the most important mistake in world history.
So how do the Soviets get around invading Japan with an intact Imperial Japanese Navy? Sure the Japanese army was not match for the Red Army, but the Soviets had nothing to compare to the Japanese fleet.
RJLbwb Japan air is also better supplied, backed by the sea and navy, and can draw new pilots from assimilated parts of the Empire.
russian production would grind to a halt as german production goes mostly unhindered because no american bombers attacking industrial centers and thus allowing a greatly improved armor and air force production. germany with its intact luftwaffe and joint operations with japanese long range bombers will destroy russia's ability to rapidly produce tanks much like what america did to germany.
EmperorHirohito. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
Alright I see. I was looking at annual aircraft production my bad, but the Soviet airforce would still be outnumbered as long as the brits were defeated.
I would like to point out that a Soviet invasion of Japan would be almost impossible to happen in less than a decade after the war with Japan starts, for the fairly simple fact that the Soviet Union both A doesn't have a powerfull enough fleet to beat the Japanese in open naval combat, meaning any naval invasion attempts or logistical supply convoys would be little more than target practice for the Japanese fleet, in addition to the fact that with both Japan as an enemy and Germany having to worry far less about a western front, a victory over the Axis would take many years longer. Possibly there wouldn't even be a total victory for either side, and something closer to a normal peace would eventually be negotiated after many millions more die. This all also doesn't take into effect that the British don't have to defend against the Japanese, and instead could keep far more attention on Europe and Africa, giving them more of a chance to actually still follow Churchills 'weak underbelly' strategy.
And Japans economy would have crashed way before those 10 years are up, so there is no need to invade Japan in the first place.
And the IJN would be sitting in ports due to the lack of oil and couldn't do anything to prevent Soviet invasion.
And Germany would need to worry MORE about the West as US would still join the war due to the Battle of the Atlantic and without Japan to worry the US can fully concentrate on Germany.
@@Pikkabuu Cody stipulated no oil embargo, which probably would have lead to a war on it's own somehow. But as long as the IJN could sail, no one could invade Japan; USSR didn't even have a seat at the Washington Naval Treaty.
Still, it's hard to image the US not joining, even over something like Icelandic neutrality considering Roosevelt's proclivities.
Err, wait... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland_in_World_War_II
@@highmolecularweightRDX
There would be an oil embargo. Not having it would demand magic.
@@highmolecularweightRDX there absolutely would be sanctions on Japan. Japan invaded china and the pacific looking for resources. It’s the best way to strangle the Japanese economy
Roger that. Another factor making it difficult or impossible for the Soviets to invade Japan: virtually zero equipment & experience in amphibious landings. Fighting the Germans they were quite close to their population & manufacturing base. Look at the thousands of miles the Soviets would have to cross to invade Japan! &, Stalin is now facing the German nightmare of a 2-front war. Not happening.
I disagree with Russia defeating both Japan and Germany and to say the Japanese homeland would be invaded by the soviets is just absurd
Well in our timeline two weeks after Germany was defeated Russians began travelling to the east coast for an invasion of Japan. Plus, Russia would be getting help from China and Korea and the British Empire (India, Australia and Canada) Judging that Australia was already beating Japan before the USA even showed up, it is entirely possible that with help from Russia and help from the Empire Japan would surrender. Plus, remember, the US was still supporting and would probably give supplies (combine that with Indian and Chinese manpower and we'd be unstoppable.)
Zombtroll69 really? I admit to not knowing a lot about Australia in WW2 but a quick look at Wikipedia shows that Australia didn't even declare war on Japan until 8Dec1941 (the day AFTER Pearl Harbor), less than 1 million Australians served in the military over the whole course of the war, and Japan was winning victory after victory until the Papua New Guinea invasion which was beaten by Australian AND US forces.
Zombtroll69 In this timeline Germany wouldn't have been defeated because without the US they wouldn't need to defend the west coast as much anymore and thus could provide more manpower, supplies, tanks, everything to the east front and put even more stress on the Russians.
Australia's fleetpower during WW2 isn't really much of a threat against the Japanese fleet. Japan was a naval superpower during that time.
germany would never lost africa if america didn't help britain and thus italy stays axis allowing germany to not have to send troops and supplies south
Also america’s total war economy of flipping all factories into military production was incredibly key on the German front, it seems to say that in this time line Russia won with its man power alone which i do not see as truly conceivable the amount of man power to take on Germany and a mainland invasion of Japan ALONE would be a ridiculous task of the U.S.S.R
Hentai would have never risen out of the ashes of nuclear radiation. Without hentai, the world would be a sullen, void wasteland devoid of pleasure.
What about conventional porn?
too mainstream
this is fucking true
Not true.
Hentai was created in the 1450's, during the Shogunate, and manga hentai, as we know it, was created in the early imperial days, but It wouldnt be so famous, It would exist anyways, and anime would be only propaganda, like all animes would be commie propaganda.
Salvador Mapper
This is true.
1600's had a rise of Wakashuu erotica, better known today as traps.
Was very popular up until 1800s.
Inside Hitler's bunker:
"What about the Japanese attack on the Yankees?"
It's a front we cannot afford to lose
Go I will, good relations with the Yankees I have
@JonatasAdoM
RE: "Inside Hitler's bunker: 'What about the Japanese attack on the Yankees?'"
Hitler and the German high command had no advance knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. They were just as surprised as were the Americans.
@@spaceman081447 they had no idea but they were rather pleased when it happened.
@@mattfromwiisports2468 rather pleased as in pissed, right?
Germany: so we're fine, as long as no one attacks America
Japan: *QUESTION*
Germany: "What's your question, soldier?"
Japan: "I attacked America."
Germany: "You what?"
@@thegamerator10 germany: for how long
Japan: I have done nothing but attack America for three days
@@thewarhawk8203
Actually Japan would point out that Germany has been shooting at the Americans at the Atlantic for months before Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.
I don’t want to be that guy but us declared war on Japan not Germany. Germany was the one who declared war on the us.
@DSW22 the USA did not attack German merchant shipping. The Royal Navy did not need America’s help to cut off Germany’s sea trade. But they did fire upon German U-Boats that attacked them on their way to supply their allies.
Also, the Americans were forward positioning their fleet to help deter Japan from the US mainland. Seeing as how the USA lost many of their forward navy bases in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the conspiracy theory of “Roosevelt actively seeking a war” does not make any sense.
"Stalin was quite vengeful"
Holy shit that is the most understated thing I've ever heard
He lacked the means to invade Japan less means than Nazis had to take England
Stalin was fucking PISSED off dude
GAndreC well if the usa continued to help by sending supplies etc, then Russia would of became the super power instead of usa. Because it mentioned in the scenario the population of the usa wanted to stay out of the actual fighting.
I believe once the Germans fell it would have been like Dart in stranger things 2. HOLY SHIT I MADE A MONSTER
The problem was not manpower but a navy to overcome the sea there
What if Constantinople never fell?
it actually have changed nothing since the byzantine empire´s territory outside of constantinople was already conquered by the turks not conquering constantiople would just let the empire live a longer as a vassal of the ottomans who´d blockade the dardanels
STORM LORD not really. The Byzantine Empire was pretty much just their capital Constantinople, with the ottomans surrounding them on both fronts. So Europe would still be invaded and isolated from the rest of the continent.
The only way the Ottoman invasion of the Balkans could’ve been thwarted is if the Byzantines held their ground against the Seljuk Turks 400 years back.
You mean to Catholics or to Muslims?
I beg to differ. The right man at the right place can cause a domino effect that can change the fate of a nation.
The correct question would be "What if the Byzantines won the battle of Manzikert in 1071?"
No way a Soviet Invasion would be possible when the Imperial Japanese navy is a thing
I know really and even if there were no Japanese navel forces they didn't have the sea lift capacity to get a army over there.
Without Manchuria and Manchuko, the Japanese would have no resources, and no oil. Their navy would not be able to run, and their war economy would die in a few months without supplies
@@patrickjin6610 They...can import things ya know?
FeierLK where would they import things from? Their colonies are invaded and destroyed
@@patrickjin6610 The Allies, if the Soviets invaded all of Korea and mainland Japan - the Allies would try to stop the communists; they always hated the Soviets
Without US material help, it’s questionable that the USSR would have been able to hold back both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Remember that part of what enabled the USSR to begin the counteroffensive after Germany reached Moscow was fresh troops that were in the East guarding against a possible Japanese invasion that was no longer going to happen after Pearl Harbor.
If instead the Japanese had invaded the USSR, the Soviets would have faced a war on two fronts and without considerable US materiel assistance.
Lend-Lease started BEFORE US joined the war. Also Japanese attack on Siberia would be utterly pointless and wouldn't stop the Soviets from transferring troops West.
Just look at how meaningless Operation Arctic Fox was and remember that the Japanese had WORSE situation...
@@Pikkabuu without the US going to a war economy it wouldn't have had enough time to produce anything significant. The US was isolationist before Japan attack Pearl harbor.
@@Pikkabuuthe lend lease and help with industry came in ‘43 at it’s full might, and now, that the US isn’t even involved, it will be lower, and even lower cus they hadn’t gone into war economy.
Yeah this definitely isn't Cody's best video lol
So Soviet would fall?
Actually, the German assault only stalled because the Soviets sent in reinforcements from Far East Russia- the same Far East Russia that is invaded in the scenario. So... yeah.
Blue Cat You've gotta be a tad bit delusional to believe that the USSR would fall with Moscow. The sheer amount of territory and the volumes of fighting men would ensure that the war could continue after losing Moscow. The Russians still would have had Murmansk, St. Petersburg, Gdansk, Kiev, etc. Good amount of fairly large cities to draw fighting men from, and the Germans would have had to hold on to Moscow and Stalingrad through the winter, which they likely wouldn't due to supply problems.
Moscow was the center of Russian command, communication and infrastructure. Without Moscow, and the leadership there, what soviet leadership remained after the purges of the 30s would've been incapable of putting any kind of real fight. As for the other cities, St Petersburg, then Leningrad, was already under siege, Gdansk, then Danzig, had already fallen, as had Kiev. Moscow was the last stand for the Soviets, and without Zhukovs Siberians, who would have been fighting the Japanese in this scenario, it would have fallen, resulting in a blow they could have never recovered from.
Moscow was the most important transportatio hub of the war. Most supplies from the Urals and the northern ports went through Moscow. Without these supplies most sviet armies would be unable to sustain any defense or counterattack.
Deutschland einig Vaterland Oh shit I got Gdansk confused as a Russian city due to the pronunciation. Apologies for the poor geography haha. Regardless, Russia had a pretty good amount of large free cities west of the urals to mobilize men to beat back the Germans in the winter.
Blue Cat
Moscow is just another city. Stalin would go on until every citizen of the Soviet Union was dead before he would surrender. Maybe if the Germans took Moscow Moscow would be the new Stalingrad.
This one was not even close to accurate. Skipped over way too many scenarios.
Sum it up
Britain: Help...
U.S.A: Nope
Britian: :(
*Germany has killed Britian*
Russia: come on man
U.S.A: No...
Russia: ok...
*Germany has killed Russia for reasons IDK*
Australia, China Norway Etc.: Please?
America: No...
Canada: Plez
America: No
Japan: Heh...
America: -.-
*Japan attacks Pearl harbor*
America: Oh that does it
*america has liberated the pacific islands over a few years*
America: Here we go!
*america has difficulty to liberate China with the help of Australia & Canada*
Germany: wait a minute
*china, America, & Australia liberate russia*
Axis countries: oh no!
TK Kmss ?
Simply the least likely scenario if the Soviets were extremely lucky.
But the beginning was powerful huh legit the ending made my cry and I don't even have emotions
@Abu Troll al cockroachistan Exactly. He didn't even cover all of the main scenarios.
Actually, I think if Japan didn't attack the US, Germany and Japan may have won the war. Russia only survived because it moved its industry eastwards, but if Japan invades Russia they can't do that. Russia saved Stalingrad because Stalin moved his eastern forces to reinforce it, these forces were meant to defend Russia in case Japan invaded in the east. So in other words, I believe Germany and Japan would had defeated Russia together. And it would be a much worst fate since they utilized occupied nations as slave labor.
The problem I see with that assessment is that the Japanese army struggled mightily against the Soviets early in the war and if they had decided to forego the naval expansion south, they would have run out of oil. Stalin was okay with the ceasefire and the Japanese needed to focus on securing Dutch and British oil fields to sustain their military since America had cut them off. Their only chance was to strike the U.S. fleet hard and hope America wasn't willing to risk their young men to fighting the Empire when the chance of FDR sending troops to defend the UK was just waiting for an excuse.
Don't forget that Russia was also saved by the weather. Hitler timed his invasion in Russia wrong and most of his troop were killed from the cold winter. If he nailed it right, they might of had Russia.
+Steve Klug
The japanese army did not "struggle mightily" against the soviets early in the war. I presume you are talking about khalkin gol, and this is always used as an example of what would happen if the japanese army and soviet army were to properly clash. (invasion of manchuria is disregarded given the state of kwangtung army at the time)
When you look at the sheer numbers of troops and equipment involved at khalkin gol, it is no wonder why the japanese advance was halted. The soviets had the japanese beat on nearly every statistic of quantity usually 2:1 ratio. Even then, the japanese still inflicted more casualties on the soviets than the other way around.
The actual significance of the battle of khalkin gol appears to have been lost in the west, with people seeming to think that it serves as a great example of a heroic soviet victory. In reality, the actual significance of the battle is that it was the first event that properly stunned and halted the japanese army. Before this, it was a string of victories for the IJA, usually quite heroic ones at that. However kalkin gol proved that the army was in fact not unstoppable and that yet again, the army had gone behind the back of the government and performed such a reckless action. Essentially, the entire situation had completely blown back into the IJA's face, as they not only lost the skirmish, but also the approval of tokyo for their plans. That is why khalkin gol is so significant.
uk france canda austrilla
I agree with you. If Japanese did not attack US. US would not join the world war. Hence germany would have won the western front. It was a matter of time until eastern front was conquered.
I think Russia was a bit over powered in this, as it would be fighting a two front war stretching its resources much farther than the real event, and the probability of the lend lease between the USSR and the UK actually happening would have been far more unlikely, and if it was put into effect it would have been far less effective than it actually was. Not to mention how the North African campaign would have ended badly for the allies without American intervention, which would have allowed for Germany to focus more of its resources in east
A two front war would only be a problem if all the fronts were dangerous. And there is no way that the Japanese could do anything meaningful against the Soviet forces in Siberia so the whole operation would be nothing like Operation Arctic Fox was.
And what would happen to Lend Lease?! It started way before US joined the war in the first place! So what would happen in Africa then?
So if afganistan attacked ussr in ww2 it would be a two front war and ussr would collapse?
It does not matter it can be three front war but if japan has no power to defeat.ussr on land then what should happen? Japan somehow walks from vladivostok to urals?
@@vuktodic1356 ??? Japan isn't someone weak power in the east, and eastern russia isn't just all siberia, russia still needs to defend a lot it's city neighboring mongolia and china
Exactly.. 2 pronged war for Russia, they will fall. They were able to push back the Germans due to concentration in the West and because the German industry was almost devastated. With Japan in the East and German in the West?. Goodluck to Russia, especially if the Central Asian colonies might rebel..
@@lordpeanut3245 Countries that Japan had problems conquering. Do you even know why the Japanese went to war against USA? Because the embargo cut the resources to sustain the war against China. Mongolia would have worked with the Chinese to stop the Japanese.
With Japan holding the Soviets resserves in Siberia, there's a good chance that the Moscow offensive would not happen, and with the extra manpower the Soviets had in the east was locked there they would struggle more to go on the offensive at all.
Also without the US helping Britain bomb German factories German production would produce more than what it did, also German production increased by 3 times in 1944 than what it had in 1943, despite being bombed day in and day out by Britain and the US, imagine how much Germany would have produced in 1944 without the US helping Britain bomb Germany.
And the lend lease part i am not too sure about, but if the US didn't give the Soviets lend lease, they would simply never be able to move troops as fast as they needed.
The Soviets did not have air superiority untill 1943-1944, and this was only due to German fuel shortages and more planes was needed to stop the British and US bombing runs on Germany (Which would not be relevant if US didnt join in on the bombing)
Soviet bombers had minimal effects during world war 2, the only good thing they did was to bomb the Romanian oil fields.
THe Soviets didn't have that much more manpower than the Germans, but as you said, many were stationed in Norway (Some 200000) Many in North Africa, which also leads to another thing, The British would never be able to win in North Africa without the US helping them, the same goes for D-Day, that would never happen.
The Germans actually had more production capabilities than the Soviets, but they needed to use its production on 3 large fronts, the Soviets had one large front.
If the Germans didnt attack during the battle of Kursk and instead went on the defense, the Soviets would be able to push the Germans back to Poland, but no further, then imagine if the US didn't help the British win in North Africa and joined for the invation of southern Italy (Which made Hitler send valuable forces to southern Italy which was ment for the battle of Kursk) Then the Soviets would probably fail in the Kursk counter offensive.
In 1945 during the battle of Berlin, the Soviets had started scraping the barrel of their wast population, and was using woman to fill their gaps, women which was actually needed in the factories in the Soviet Union. Then you can imagine how weak The Soviets would be if they had to face every single unit used on the western front, that would no longer be needed there, because the D-Day landings never happened. The Soviets would be forced to halt their offensives because of the lack of manpower, and so would the Germans, and i would imagine that line to be somewhere around Kursk.
And to the Japaneese troops, they would not do much to the Soviets troops in Siberia, but they would make troops have to be stationed there. Also tje Japaneese had a better navu and air force than the Soviets had, so that would probably used to their maximum effectivenes.
Where do you get your facts from? Germany had 1 million men on the Atlantic Wall, that stretched from Spain to northern Norway, 200000 men were strationed in Norway to prevent any British invasion of Narvik (Which Hitler feared but would never be possible).
The German army sent 4 million during Babarossa, not 7 million. And no, the Germans can't transport 1 million men from Norway to Germany, because they only had 200000 troops there, and they could transport them back if they wanted to, but Hitler didn't want that.
And yes, the British had naval superiority, i was only talking about the Japaneese having naval superiority over the Soviets. But The German Uboats still wrecked a lot of the British ships.
And no, there was no 10 million in the Soviet army in 1946, there was 12 million in the Soviet army in 1945, and that was the abolute maximum as i stated earlier, because they also used a lot of women to fill the gaps of the army, something the Germans didnt do. In 1946 they had to send half their army back to the Soviet Union to fill gaps in poduction again, because their population was badly hurt by both Stalins famines, and the German invasion.
The Germans had 5 million men in 1945, many others were dead or captured by the British and the US after the D-Day landings, the Germans would have had more if the US didn't join the battle, because there would never be a second front.
And no, the Germans had plenty of airplanes in 1944 and 1945, but 1/3 was on the ground because of no fuel, and no spare parts (Something that also would be different of the US air force didn't help the British).
And for one German soldier who died 5 Soviets did, which made the Soviet manpower irrelevant. The biggest problems was the mass produced T-34 tanks, but even their number wouldn't do much good if the total tank power of Germany would be focused on the eastern front as a defensive wall.
The US didn't join the war all this would happen.
The British would loose in north Africa, The Soviets would grind to a halt, and so would the Germans deep inside Russia.
The British would keep bombing the Germans, but with a lot less effectivenes without the US.
The Newest German Uboats would be fighting the British navy with great success, and would make i harder for the British to get supplies.
The German Jet planes would do great things against the British because the US air force wasnt there to give the British more numbers in planes.
The Japanese army would do bad against the Soviets, but their planes would hammer th Siberian troops hard. Stalin might be forced to pull some troops back giving the Japaneese some territory for saving the more important Moscow.
But bare in mind, if the US didnt give the Soviets lend lease, the Soviets could never have produced that many T-34 tanks, they could never fastly move troops here and there as they did, and yes, Moscow would have colapsed hard.
Soviets were already receiving lend lease aid before pearl harbor.
@@charlieputzel7735 Lend Lease did not make a difference untill middle of 1942
@@luke2r2r true, but that had more to do with it taking a while for supplies to reach the Soviets. Supplies were coming in through Iran, which basically had to be invaded to secure the route. It had little to do with the U.S. entering the war.
If USA wasn't involved I don't think the Soviets would have won. There would not be nearly as much lend lease to Soviets or any at all. If Soviets had to fight Germany and Japan this assumption that Soviets would of won doesn't make sense. "Russian blood" doesn't mean automatic victory...
Schmidty yea but it’s the Soviet Union they will find a way
@@FishFireTBoy lend lease provided 90% of the machine tools the soviets needed to automate their industry at a crucial time period when the russian industry was on wheels moving away from the advancing germans. Without this equipment, no russian industry. There is no way they would of won without this.
Germany dont have oil sow Germany cant fight . Romania give 1/4 of petrolium sow USA and GBritain give them rest of petrolium.
@@FishFireTBoy I think the Russians would of eventually won but it would take far longer and be much bloodier for both sides.
Adam Baker I agree that the war would have taken far longer. But if America stays out of the war Brittain falls. The Germans can bolster the eastern front with out the conflicts with the US in Europe, the US winning the battles in the skies. US bombing missions etc. That's a huge change for Germany. They have more supplies less resistance and they'd have had the skies above Russia who wasn't an aerial threat. It's also important to consider what if Japan invades before Germany? Russia bolsters the east leaving the west more open for attack from the west. And the German Russia alliance could have put the nail in the coffin if Japan invades first... Stalin gets help from Germany and as Germany is already in country they'd have a much easier time taking the USSR. There's so many variables that we'd never no for sure unless the war had turned out that way. Russia could have been steam rolled or the war could have drug on another ten years. Keep in mind all the tech the Germans had that was almost finished when the war ended. If that war drug out more it could have made Germany even more capable. Videos like this are intriguing but they seem to focus on just a few points and don't evaluate the entire situation.
Now do “What If Australia Won The Great Emu War?”
Unrealistic
@@Cringinator4000 bro anything is possible so yeah
@@britishmapping9514 Australia will win the war if all of the continent is habitable by human, right now the Emus are taking 90% of the continent simply because Australian government can't effectively occupy captured territory
The only way Australia can win is either making the whole continent more green or involving chemical and especially biological warfare
@@anghuyphamnguyen3096 thank you man
@@EvenFlowIntro hello American but Austria is in Europe and Australia is the real one
6:33 And after all of that, Switzerland is still neutral.
Yes
The Sovies like their chocolates too.
So given this is December 7th, the 76th anniversary of the attack on pearl harbor, I remembered this unique sci-fi film called Final Countdown about a modern Aircraft Carrier in the Pacific traveling back in time and finding itself on Dec 6 1941, in the end history doesn't change and the ship returns to the present.
I always wondered what would have happened if the crew decided to intervene and alter history? They had enough advanced knowledge, tech, and firepower to wipe out the entire Japanese Navy, ending WWII in the pacific the very day it was to begin and the war itself in less than a week.
What if America suddenly had access to technology almost 40 years ahead of them? How would the war have ended, would there have been a cold war, Korean war, Vietnam? Would America have become an economic powerhouse ushering in a new golden age for the world? Or would it have become a global Empire with no equal?
How about it Cody, think this would make a good episode?
Also please do a lore/history video for the starship troopers universe? Thanks.
TonesTheGeek Never heard for that movie,can you remember name of that movie?
Aleksa Radojicic The Final Countdown, got it on DVD :)
1IbramGaunt Nice ☺
TonesTheGeek I saw that on Netflix years ago. Thanks for reminding me. Yeah that sounds awesome.
Aleksa Radojicic ruclips.net/video/Vj7_fxZWDsc/видео.html
Yamamoto was extremely against fighting the US.
Everyone was - until the embargo
Yet he orchestrated the attack on PH because he knew if he didnt knock us out in one swift strike, it would mean the end to his war effort
Fact, he also commanded the attack on pearl harbor
And he after the ph attack, he said:
"I think all we done was awaken an sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve"
communism are much more fearful than atomic bombs
Highly unlikely Japan would fall to the Soviets without American intervention. The USSR had a pathetically woeful navy in the Pacific, and the Imperial Japanese Navy was one of the most the powerful at the time. Japanese mainland colonies in China and Korea may fall but the Soviet could NEVER touch the home islands.
It's basically the Far Eastern version of Germany attempting to get to Britain, it would be a nightmare to cross the sea and get into the Japanese home islands. Probably even a potential Battle of Japan.
The Soviets not only had a woeful navy. But the Soviets would have lost Air Superiority to the Japanese because they lost it to the Germans. Without US Aircraft and other Material support the USSR would have fallen. Without having to waste men and resources in the Pacific. The Japanese would have taken whatever they wanted from Russia. The Japanese victory in Asia would have been inevitable without the US's entry in WW2.
Also there is that problem where Soviets would not be able to stop Germans at Moscow in this scenario. What saved their butts were reinforcements from behind of Ural. Ie from eastern side of USSR... which in this scenario would be pushed by Japanese and would not be able to send anything to west.
It seems that in this scenario author magicaly doubled russian forces, allowing east to reinforce against German invasion and at the same time west reinforcing against Japan invasion
>An actual invasion for the first time in history
Mongols: Are we a joke to you?
*dies in a tornado*
@@macdaraoraghallaigh7343 you don’t think we know that?
Some people just want to try to sound smart on the internet. He’s probably very lonely, let him be
ehh... maybe if the mongols actually had access to their horses would it be an actual invasion
They sucessfully invaded tsushima and Iki
Can you please do a video on would if the Republicans won the Spanish Civil War? I think this would have large repercussions for the world because the conflict was a proving ground for the armies of Russia,Germany, and Italy.
He has done pne buddy it is in this channel or one of his other ones can not recall atm
Kahn Family Stalin would have a powerfull ally in europe
greekmarine troller depends if his facton won
Sure but even those who were not Stalinists would appreciate the aid Stalin sent and would be more friendly to him
Powerful ally? Fascist Spain was an ally to Germany. All they amounted to was sending about 45,000 men to fight on the Eastern Front. If the civil war had gone the other way Republican Spain wouldn't be in a much better position.
Considering that without USA entering the war, there would have been little-to-no aid to the Soviets from the US, such as lend-lease and immense loads of supplies and machinery, I don't think that the Soviets would have won so easily. American lend-lease program and support to the Soviet Union was a very big deal, without it I rather think that Moscow would have fallen and for Soviets fighting on two fronts would have been simply too much, but that is just my opinion. Any thoughts on that?
Robert Kuuba In the video he never mention it was "easily". He said it would have been a hard won victory. The american aid just accelerated the process of wining. Didnt made the victory. The ussr could sustain themselves enough to contain and push the germans
The Lend Lease definitely helped the offensive but as soon as the factories we're moved behind the Ural Mountains the Germans we're finished as the Royal Navy and RAF would still beat Germany
Lend lease happened months before pearl harbor. And no, soviets wouldnt be fighting a two front war bc there invading the East coast of Russia is just stupid. The harsh environment and the lack of roads would have taken care of the Japanese army. Not to mention that they were still busy in China.
You guys seem to forget half of the German army was defending France. Without the US Italy would guard France and the whole German army will attack the Soviets. They came close to losing so many times. With amount double the amount of men attacking them they would surely lose.
The Soviets would still have won without American help, but it would have taken longer, fighting with Japan at the same time may be a different story, but then again, Siberia is a harsh place and I don't think the Japanese forces would have been able to push through when they lacked the mechanized divisions and tanks for that matter.
I'd call this video doubtful, but plausible.
To act like the Soviets could easily push Germany back is just dumb. One of the biggest reasons Germany struggled to fight after the USA joined was that the USA helped open not only the western front but the southern push from Africa. Without the southern front Germany has more men to at least hold the line in the USSR instead of pushing into Siberia. This might even give Germany enough time to finish their own Nuclear research and be able to end the Soviets. That's without even considering that Japan would help out by holding a second front the Soviets would have to fight.
And you act like someone who lack comprehension issues. In the video they say clearly that not, but in end Russia did have resource to push back both. That is clear if you make a professional data analiz.
Hold on if
"Germans cannot in theory mobilize the 1/3 rest of there army from Norway France and Germany in time to plan a successful counter offensive"
How THE HELL CAN THE SOVIETS MOBILIZE FROM SIBERIA TO WESTERN EUROPE? That's ludicrous.
My favorite part of going back to these older videos is remembering Cody went through a phase where he spoke with a lower voice and took everything in the scenario very seriously.
One of the poorest 'what ifs' Ive seen. Not even close. You clearly over estimate Soviet capability. A more accurate version:1) The US still initates an embargo. However, instead of attacking the US, they avoid the Phillipeans(for now) and they do take the Dutch East Indies. Thus, for quite a time, they are free to continue their conquests in New Guinea and the other Islands-other than Guam, much like they did in reality.2) The US and Britian dont supply the amount of material to the Soviets-probably only 25% if that. 3) There is no Operation Torch in Nov 1942. Though the Axis loose at El Alamein, and would probably have been pushed out of Egypt by December, Axis reinforments would rush in. In addition, the axis would have probably iniated Operation Herkules and took Malta, thus making supply transport more safe.4)With no war against the US, there would be no submarine attacks and Japanese merchant fleet would suffer little. Supplies would role in and industry would be able to take off. 5) Would Japan join in an attack against the soviets? Probably not, they were still afraid of them.6) Lets say they do. Since they have nothing to fear from the Americans and the British are only in India, and the Australians are worried about their country(though contributing a few divisions to Africa and India). The agree to attack the soviets in 1944. The German were able to send material to Japan(no American subs and British subs were minimally effective). They send valuable items to Japan including models of the Pak 40, the 88/71, radars, etc. They send Japan Mark IV G models and Stg III G models in early 42 and a couple Tigers and Panthers in late 42. They also now fly regular trips to Japan. If not over land, then by BV-222, which if they dont fly the entire way, meet up with H8Ks and transfer men and material. The Germans spend 1942 helping Japan upgrade its industrial base in Japan and in Korea. They also help them design and upgrade their armour. Since they dont have to fear US subs, material comes in and they begin to successfully produce upgraded tanks and armoured vehicles in late 42 and all of 1943. 7)Since the Germans dont have to fear an invasion anytime soon in France, more divisions are sent to the east. Though Kursk wasnt the victory they sought, they are building up for a 1944 offensive. Since america is not in the war, the british bombing campaign isnt really that effective. Faced with increasing losses in the east and in North Africa, their production does increase significantly. They ARE able to build up a large force of reserves and wait for the spring of 1944-probably in the april time frame. The soviets are still getting smashed hard. Since the Germans dont have to have as large Home Air Defense , they are able to send more aircraft to the east-probably an extra 1500 or so-enough to cause more damage and inflict more soviet air losses, thus cutting the minimal contributions of the soviet airforce even more. 8) In the this scenerio, the Russian roll west is slower as the germans are able to throw more material/armour, aircraft, and men into battle. The FL would probalby be at the Dnieper in the south with Kiev still in German hands, following the river north through Gomel, to around Vitebsk, north to Estonia/Peipsi lake. By this time, Roumania and Hungary fearing a drive into their territory would have upgraded their forces/better quality. In a 'what-if,' the germans dont refuse to sell or license weapons and technology to their allies and they assist in the upgrade. Theirs takes around 8 months. Thus by April 44, they would be able to better asssist-especially as Roumania would still be very active in the war9) In North Africa, the axis reinforce into 1943, so where do we go? By this time, Italy was finally starting to produce better equiptment. Their P26/40 is finally in action as the P27/42. Though they dont produce a lot right away, it is enough and they are being sent to North Africa-though not used until around April-May 43 as they are building up and training. They also field large numbers of Sm 90/53s(and on better chasis) and Sm 75/34 or 75/46, and in the first quarter, Sm 105/25. They would have fully fielded the Mc-205, Re2005, G.55 and other advanced aircraft. While the British still have to sail thousands of miles to reinforce and only a fraction got through, the axis didnt. The axis (speculating) would build up in the first quarter 43 for an all out offensives in April or so. This offensive would field Tiger tanks, Mk IV G, Stg III and Marders, plus Italin P27/42 and their assault guns. The axis airforce would be much larger and far more effective. In addition, Italy sold to Roumania and Hungary. They would field the P27/42 vs the Mk IV and use that while they worked on the 44m Tas, which due to German help would start much sooner than it did. They would also field more and effective TD and ASG by 1943 and 1944, among them, the Italian Sm variants. 10)As I said, with German help, Japan upgraded its military. Though the US didnt invade North Africa, the Germans still captured bazookas from the British in the desert and already had their version fielded by late 43, and thus, by 1944, Japan did as well. By 1944, Japan was confident.11) The plan was simple: Japan would attack the far east in february 1944. their objective was Vladivostok, the far east theater just under the Amur river and all of the Sahkalin Islands. They would also drive about 100-150km west from the Mongolian front to create a buffer. To assist, the intact Japanese fleet of battleships and heavy crusiers would devestate Soviet defenses around Vladivostok. They would have the ability to use 36+divisions in the eastern assault and would be able to keep 12-18 divisions facing the west. They would draw off the soviets strength. Stalin would reinforce just enough to slightly weaken the west. and 2 months later, Germany and he axis allies would attack.In short, the soviets barely defeated germany in real life. With no allied pressure, they probably would not have defeated germany alone. They would have bled to death by the time they reached Danzig/Pozan/Krakow/Roumanian border. To ensure, a large Japanese attack in the east would have drawn off close to 2m soviets and 100 divisions, plus at least 3000 tanks and 1000 asg and several thousand aircraft. People seem to think the soviets would roll over the japanese. They did in aug 45, but at a cost. If Japan was stronger in all areas and it was 1944, they soviets would not. What the soviets would probably have to do is build up a defensive front to protect against further thrusts west/lake baikal. A 1944 offensive would have been very costly to the soviets to the point of by the fall being at may 45 levels of losses. The germans would not have won the war in 1944, but they would have crippled the soviets to the extent of Dec 41 material. IF the germans would use their He-177(working now) to hit soviet factories and low their production, the soviets would barely be able to keep up. If Stalin got pissed at their failure and purged again, the soviet generals might have couped. I would predict a Victory in North Africa by July or Aug 1943 and By Jan 45, Axis troops would be within 100k of Moscow(again). In the pacific, Japan would be better armed as well and with no us forces would be better armed in India. They would not have of course taken India, but mearly advanced up to 200km inside, stopped, and built up a defensive line/barrier. They would have then finished off the chinese coast in 1944 and concentrated on defeating chinese regular forces and chinese communists, but the chinese would have little to no US help and minimal british help. By 1946, they would be driven way west, if not destroyed or severly mauled. So, no. The soviets would not have rolled over europe. They would be on the brink and fighting for their survival.
Fascinating. Liked the realistic scenario details. One question: How long did it take you to type all that? No sarcasm, genuine curiosity.
Agree. Embargo will not failed because if this is the last thing that FDR can do, it will be enforced. So Japan will have to invade Malaysia and Indonesia for resources (while bypassing Guam, Phillipines) hence no way will they invade Soviet to start a 3 front war, particularly this is little resource to capture (at that time). So whatever Soviet did in 41-42 will be the same. So the real question should be
1. Can Soviet survive 2-3 years without US aid - probably, but not with much counter-attack capability, just stalemate.
2. Can Britain survive 2-3 years without US aid - probably, as their convoy system was improved
3. Can China survive 2-3 years without US aid - yes. The aid granted to China was very little, and remember they fought alone for a few years already.
So it might end up like WW1 attrition scenario until some major
Daaaam that is long
U.S. was already lend-leasing to the Soviets by the Attack on Pearl Harbor
Alright. You didn't have to write a damn essay about it tho
I dont think the soviets could've invaded Japan I mean, the Japanese had one of the largest navies in the world. And what did the soviets have? Millions of troops, a very small navy and no experience in invading islands. There is a reason Japan has never been invaded. Also all of Japan's navy should've been intact. Imagine what Yamato, Musashi and Shinano (as there is no Midway battle, she would be completed as a battleship) would do to the landing crafts, the Russian ships and their forces on the shore. Not to mention all the other ships and the 6 fleet carriers. And, for the US, helping Japan would probably be the best choice if they don't want more communism.
So yeah, I don't think Japan would' ve fallen...
they would have done a mass paratroop drop into Japan immediately, ignoring the islands and try to get supplies through on boats and airdrops while living off the land. Millions would have still died though and this would probably have failed, but by then a pacific fleet to match the Japanese would have been constructed
That would have been a disastrous airborne operation. They wouldn't have enough for airdrops alone to sustain the paratroopers and any boats would be running one heck of a gambit.
Cammie, if they where actually able to make a fleet, it probably wouldn't be in the pacific as that kind of operation would be bombed to hell and back by the Japanese, if not just bombarded by their navy. And, the navy they would need to make to match japan would take years to make, along with of course the long under supplied trip half way across the world to reach japan where the fleet would most likely be sunk like a repeat of 1905. And as Fuzzy stated, an airborn paratroop would be disastrous, as they would run out of bullets and food if their transports wheren't shot down before the soldiers could jump out.
Mass Paratroop will not defeat Japan. it would just be blood bath for the Soviets. Its not like the Soviets had that many transport planes
Cammie Ward that would have been a devastating defeat for the soviets,japan had more than 45 million soilders in their island and their emperor had no thoughts of surrender,most soldiers and even civilians would fight to the death,and if they occupy any land,they would easily be overwhelmed by the decades of gruella attacks.
Boy, he sure breezed over the whole "entire Japanese Navy Untouched, and Russia has no Navy" thing without so much as a side note and just assumed the Soviets could walk into Japan.
Ask the Germans how easy it was to just march into Britain.
I turned off the video as soon as he ignored that point.
The entire video just lost all credibility by skipping over that.
How about oil?
Soviets haven't to invaid Japan. They simply can ocupay all they colonies and left them without any resorses.
Red Kraken all conquered islands would be protected which is where all of Japan’s thicky oil came from
Nope you're nitpicking and biased. I win bye bye
Mithrennon of Aegwynn literally Stalin would probably throw his men at the Japanese islands without any naval escorts and eventually will get across
I always enjoy contemplating what if’s in history. Especially WWII. This is a good one to contemplate. Now if the United States stayed completely out including no military lend lease I’m not so sure the Soviet Union could fight a two front war against Japan and Germany. It didn’t have the navy Japan had. Maybe China and Russia could have done it alone. They both could lose millions of people and still have enough to overcome as long as they had the weapons. You really need to be an expert military tactician to figure this out.
A two front war is only a problem if both fronts are dangerous. There is no way that the Japanese could do anything meaningful in Siberia.
And why wouldn't US want money?!
@@Pikkabuu well, it was a land grab. They could, and the soviets don't survive a two front war, not in '41. At their weakest point, and still establishing industrial basins in Siberia and the Urals, this would shake logistics and production up beyond Soviet perseverance. Best case scenario would be the soviets coming to peace terms with the Axis.
@@WestCoastOnePride
Please explain how the Japanese could meaningfully invade Siberia when they already failed in it in 1939.
And why wouldn't the Soviets survive?
@@Pikkabuu I am fully aware of their failed attempt at Soviet-Japanese war, that was easily beaten off, and embarrassing defeat for Japan. U have to remember, in winter '41, Soviet manpower and production were at an ALL TIME LOW, the 250k men used for the counter offensive of Moscow does NOT MATERIALIZE with a Japan second front, with critical ports as obvious targets, this would have been another choke point for lend lease, remember, Iran was Not occupied at this point, it's sheer attrition, remember, in summer 1942, with as little IF NOT less then Japan, axis armies, IN COORDINATION with Germany, made their own gains against the soviets, it is simple attrition. Even half the Manchuoko puppet army, with a few solid Japanese divisions, would offset ANY REINFORCEMENTS shifting, as well as throw off newly established oncoming industrial centres replacing the occupied ones that were torn down and reshipped. I do NOT THINK the Germans take Moscow in 1941, but surviving past summer for the Soviets would be a miracle. With Moscow taken, it is up for debate rather Stalin would sue for peace, continue the struggle from the Urals, or even be a victim of a coup, which sounds far fetched, but remember, after Barbarossa took place a few weeks into it, when the politburo and red army command went to his retreat, he thought he might actually be arrested. Stalin was paranoid and CONTENT on holding power, I think a peace agreement would have been established, leaving only the soviets the Urals and Eastern Siberia, after Japan carved out here area. Now if u want to question what purpose Japan had for invading the USSR after being so soundly defeated, u must remember the Imperial high command although respected the soviets, especially after that humbling trouncing, also KNEW they were an enemy, by basic opposing ideologies. Gaining those ports and some other relative land, albeit essentially barren of resources, as rich as Siberia is today in natural resources thanks to the technological and inventive innovations of today, we now know Siberia is RICH. But their lies the problem: the lack of coordination and long term thinking of the Axis. I will tell u this, with a second rate Soviet union, america would have had to found reason to join the war very soon.
@@Pikkabuu Because We have Brains. I Stand with What he said as an American. If Japan hadn't attack Our Harbor, No way in HELL would I sent our men and women to go die out continents away from home
This may be a possibility, but the whole reason the Soviets held off the Germans from taking Moscow was them sending all of the fresh troops from the East, over to Moscow. Stalin didn't detect a Japanese invasion, so he put all of his resources on the Western front. With Russia fighting a two front war and the Germans not having to fight the US, I entirely disagree with your timeline. Without America, Germany still controls North Africa and Italy easily. Japan focuses predominately on Russia. Stalin fights a two front war and D-Day never happens and France is never liberated. I think you got this wrong.
Germany wouldn't take control of Italy because there would be no invasion of Italy, and Mussolini would still be in power.
You're right. So even less fronts the Germans have to fight. I think they could've beat the Soviets eventually, if they focused on one enemy.
Except in late 1941 Germany dosn`t control North Africa. Axis forces (mainly Italian) in this theatre have at this point been pushed back to the Tunisian/Libyan border, outnumbered and on the defensive. Not defeated though and commanded by an excellent general in Rommel.
They dont need to win with the Japanese the far eastern front will end in a stalemate you forgot japan was in war with China to a nation ho have even more mapawor then the Soviets japan will end being over run or by the Chinese Soviet troops or to consume all of there resources protecting there front. Soviet will still pull the troops from Japan border to defend Moscow this will be the best moment Japan to attack and even if they have all that oil is pointless if they dont have where to put in, you make the navy go on land?. Soviets and Chinese governments are been friendly if Japan is in war with booth of them they would be forced to cooperate. Chinese troops would be trained by Russian general's to fight in Siberia and they would be shipt to Siberian Russian front with Soviet equipment they would hold the front until more prepared Russian troops will reinforce the front. The Chinese manpawor and the Soviet production will over run the Japanese troops. Evryoane keep forgetting about how Japan was in war with China already a nation with even more mapawor then the Soviets they lack competent leadership and equipment with this 2 disadvantages being solved by the Russian officers and Russian equipment China woul become the Second Soviet Union for Japan and being in war with the actually Soviet Union this would mean to much for Japan . The eastern front will end the same with Stalingrad lost and battle of kursk still being lost by the Germans beacuse Britain would start the invasion in Sicily. Rommel will still lost in Africa even if America dont invade northern Africa Rommel will steel retreat American invasion just speedet the process. This is the cruel truth people usually forget about the people ho lead this countrys Stalin will just throw more people, Hitler will make the same mistakes , Chan cai check ( i dont now if i write his name good) will be forced to cooperate with Soviet Union so he can survive (he will become a tiny Stalin throwing people into Japanese)
Robert Sneddon In 1941 Vichy France the German puppet still controlled the rest of north Africa it was the Americans who made the landings in 1942-1943 that squeezed the axis out of africa
There is no way that this scenario would ever happen, the soviets struggles to keep the Germans at bay. You are complete understating the commitment America made to keeping the USSR afloat once it entered the fight. What use is manpower when you don’t have the necessary weapons, uniforms, basic supplies, and transportation to give to these men. I’m not saying that the Russians would capitulate quicker, but something like this would never happen.
I think there would be a ceasefire then, afterall most of American supplies came after battle if Stalingrad , one of the most crucial battles in WW2, they had already secured Moscow, for japan - let us say good luck to them because marching through Siberian wasteland with low supplies and limited oil isn't a good idea.
Soviet didnt struggle to keep the germans at bay a surprise attack is not the same
Shadith Akistaenia also watch extra credits first episode on the battle of Kursk to get an idea of the level of material support the allies gave to the Soviets
@@suhas6508 Railway is a thing, the Japanese Manchuria border was 1,500km and the majority of that the Russian railway was 30km from the border.
I think the Japanese moving in slowly is fine after that.
The Germans only took about 50% of Russian horses, 60% of its farm animals and 40% of it's farmland and its most fertile but I mean yeah they could afford to loses 10% to the Japanese with a limited advance yeah I don't think so not to mention losing it's biggest supply ports for lend-lease in ww2 but somehow they would win no way mate dreaming.
Not to mention Germany has 5million more men and 16,700 tanks, 40,000 aircraft to fight Russia.
Russia would need over 50,000 tanks they had 20,000 when ww2 finished but now there in a two front war.
They would need about 160,000 more aircraft they had in our time line 30,000 at the end of the war and now it's a two front war with the Japanese who had 70,000+ aircraft and lost 20,000 to 50,000 to America 20,000....
@@brianlong2334 I cannot see how japan is gonna invade through bloody cold Siberia with no oil supply as they are under embargo from usa , do you know that for every panzer 4, there 4 Shermans,6 to 10 t-34 and the Japanese tanks are far no match to the one of USSR , USSR had 32 divisions in Siberia in 1941 while japan had 20(no sure) while 27 of Japanese divisions were fighting in china, which they couldn't take ( a country far far less developed than USSR) in even like 9 years, most of historians agree that lend lease (of usa ) wasnt decisive ,since much of its supply came AFTER battle of Stalingrad , the most important ports then would be Murmansk which the axis couldn't took away.
As far as I think, I would be a stalemate
Anyways , the usa would have entered the war sooner or later since hitler wrote in his second book that he would attack usa in 1942 since he expected usa to enter war anyway since it was a staunch ally to British
It is alternative history, it didn't happened , do we really need to talk about it?
This is the first time I've outright disagreed with your take on something. Russia sustained staggering losses in their defensive phase of the war. If America had not gotten involved, Russia would be less supplied, facing a stronger Germany that was suffering less losses in Africa, AND fighting on a second front against a military that had already seen minor victory against them in the past. I feel like the odds of Russia coming out of that alive are quite slim- nearly impossible, even.
Wait, the USSR was losing equipment. The US gave them equipment to help them out.
If the US didn't give them equipment, then the USSR would fall and Germany and Japan will still win.
US already started sending Lend Lease material to the USSR the moment Germans attacked!
Also you act as if the Soviets didn't have any industrial capability...
The america lend lease only start effect by the siege of leningard and if u think it wont do much you absolutely wrong. The lend leas actually really helpfull to feed their soilder and people since actually soviet have food problem and the lend lease solve it for them without it the troops will be severly hungry and have worse equipment and outdated planes. At the worst case a revolt may happen because of famine.
Another important & often overlooked aspect of Lend-Lease was American steel going to the Soviets. Those 10's of thousands of Soviet tanks that pushed back the Wehrmacht? Many began their journey in Pittsburg.
The lend lease was vastly overrated, the vast majority of it didn't arrive until 1943. It would've taken slightly longer but the USSR still would've absolutely won without the lend lease
@@ajknaup3530 Nope, they still would've won without the lend lease sadly
Japan: lets attack Pearl Harbor and lower their ship numbers
USA: builds over 6,000 different types of ships
Lol
Lol
Lol
But USA needs 2 Atomic Bomb to defeat Japan
@@CubSATPH *NoOoOo! YoU cAn'T jUsT rUiN tHe ChAiN lIkE tHaT!!1!!1*
(*haha broken chain go brr*)
I'm not entirely sure Russia could have turned back Germany if they were fighting a war on the other front with Japan. That would effectively shut down the Pacific Route, which accounted for about half that lend-lease to the Soviets.
Just as importantly, no US entrance might mean no expansion of the US Lend-Lease to the absolutely ridiculous levels it hit. With the historical Lend-Lease, the Soviets punching out the Germans, 1v1, no doubt. Without it, things get a lot dicier. Throw in Japan on the backside and an effective interdiction of the largest lend-lease route, and the Soviets would have been in a terrible position.
Honestly, I'd give the war to the Axis if the US stays neutral and Japan decides to go to war with Russia.
Well, the lend-lease was about 7% of the Soviet production, also keep in mind that the URSS kept important forces in their border with Japan by the time of Operation Barbarossa, more than enough to deal with the Japanese (33 divisions, 15 brigades and 13 fortified lines covered each by a brigade for the USSR against 13 Japanese divisions in Manchuria and 21 divisions in China, not taking into account the difference in armored units or heavy artillery). The only way the Japanese could have posed an effective threat was attacking with all units on the Vladivostok direction (which was fortified), and that would have meant withdrawing from China with the Chinese united front being able to retake a lot of territories and successfully contact with USSR with a land border, which means that USSR would then send a lot of equipment and military help to the Chinese and then counterattack from the Khalkhin river, while the Soviet fortresses on the Amur river keep the Japanese fixed (take into account that Japanese divisions lacked heavy artillery above 76mm, when USSR divisions included 105mm and 122mm, and had heavier pieces attached to corps command).
Also, the USSR could still receive Lend-Lease by Persia (a route which was actually used) since they conquered Persia within two days after Persia joined Barbarossa.
Podemos URSS Around that time, Soviets had terrible leadership, poor equipment, and No Navy to hinder Japanese Operations in the Pacific without it being curb stomped by Yamamato.
th lend lease can go through Iran and Murmansk instead
Actually, the best soviet general was in siberian fast east when barbarosa begin, so japan would deal with the general that made the "soviet blitzkreig"
"RUclips rewind 2017"
*I sleep*
"Alternatehistoryhub uploads about ww2"
*R E A L S H I T*
first
So your telling me japan didnt have a navy and ussr just spawned one in the pacific not to mention that a hapanese and a german force would beat the russians considering the fact that a d day didnt happend getmany would have more troops!
All the Soviets wpuld have to do is keep the straits they use to invade open. Once they had air supremacy, that would be relatively easy, and that's assuming the British aren't fighting the Japanese to get the colonies back that Japan would have almost certainly gone after.
@@charlieputzel7735 and the bri ish navy was also not even scratched with the wars with the pizza people
@@nigblack552 lol what? I'm a history major, u r completely wrong. British lost over 135 capital ships during the battle of the Mediterranean, u wanna learn about history, I will give u my email, u clearly need better education.
@@charlieputzel7735 Easy, ask the planners of Operation Downfall how relatively easy was to invade Japan. There's no way USSR is able to invade Japan.
@@MrPro897 The difficult part was co-ordinating it in order to minimize losses. The Soviets didn't give a fuck about casualties. I'm not saying it would be easy, I am saying it would be do able.
I don't see the Soviet Union having the naval strength to invade Japan directly.
Ryan Davidson I don't think he did much research about it, this is a lazy done video
Ryan Davidson
They can always rocket the shit out of them
He said about paratroopers
The Great Arabian Knight yeah, I think his knowledge of the Japanese empire and greater east Asia coprosperity sphere is lacking.
Olga Voronkova the Russian islands surrounded by the Japanese navy and near the better defended Japanese islands?
So the soviets invent anime?
I don’t think so
Edward Hahm Anime is already cancer lel
"Find out next time, on Dragon Ball Stalin!"
No Anime since Imperial Army not chained by US
Soviet Hentai be grim as fuck. "Redistribute the tentacles comrade, Senpai still has one un-stuffed hole!"
Your prediction is way off. The Soviets had almost ZERO Navy during WWII. Yet Japanese Navy was even stronger than the British Navy. Any Russian forces that's trying to land in Japan would have been send to the bottom of the ocean. They wouldn't have the capability to invade Japanese homeland or other islands territories. Without American involvement in the WWII, Soviets might be able to stop the enemies from advancing in both front. But I don't think they'll ever be able to conquer as much Europe as they did in our timeline. They might end up still lost some territories to the Germans and Japanese.
On a side note, it's interesting to point out that prior to WWII, the one war scenario American military plannists feared the most was an anti-American coalition of Japan and... the UK. Yes, due to their combined naval might which would have owned whatever the US could put against them to defend the likes of Guam or Hawaii.
The British navy was better, but still, you are correct, a Soviet victory was impossible
Japan itself was stretched thin in China and couldn't sustain the attacks against the British in Burma. Japan never had a great chance of invading the east of Russia.
lets be honest japan was a disaster in ww2...
US and Japan had the best Navies for both sides due to how they used aircraft carriers. The British and Russians would've gotten creamed by the Japanese if they actually had to take on their aircraft carrier fleets without the help of US naval support.
I think you greatly underestimate the impact Germany fighting a two front war had. It is highly questionable that the USSR wouldve been able to hold off both a full nazi germany military and japan
keep in mind that all germany had to do as take stalingrad and it was likely that Moscow would fall. Germany was damn near close on doing that even with fighting a two front war
Ask Napoleon about what taking Moscow did for him.
A german full victory was highly unlikely and would have needed more support of the baltic people and Ukrainans, whom the germans antagonized in their occupation.
A Soviet victory without US support would also be unlikely, so probably it would come down to who collapses first, like in WW1.
@@_Muzolf Stalin is a fool, he was begging for Hitler to sign a peace treaty, before the attack on Moscow, he promised to return treaty of Brets Litovsk. Imagine if Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad fell along with siberia, the morale would collapse so low.
@@fahiraalmeira8730 can I have a source for the returned brets-litovsk?
@@_Muzolf Hitler taking Moscow would’ve meant that Stalin would’ve been captured
@@MoldycheeseJr So? If anything, Stalin being out of the picture would have meant that someone more sensible and competent could have gotten into power. Also, its rater dubious that he would have stayed in Moscow, he was a huge coward who was actually hiding from his own people when the german invasion started, thinking that would be the time he would get deposed.
I doubt the soviets would have been able to beat back both axis powers on their own, much less be able to take on the Japanese navy.
kenneth Vargas agreed
Yeah but Japan had air superiority. Russia's air force was awful.
kenneth Vargas the Soviets strength was in ground troops and creating explosives so they could beat the Nazis but would be unable to beat Japan unless they used their oil supply in Alaska (which I think they still owned) to make more weapons and bombs, like nukes.
Olga Voronkova yeah that's a huge boost for the Soviets right there.
Malachi Brown no the americans had bought alaska i think in 1862 from the russians so no alaska pipeline there, but the real issues for the soviets (which everyone keeps ignoring) is the naval battles. Yes the soviets had massive amounts of tanks men and planes, but the soviet navy was pitiful at best. To invade japan a navy is needed.
This entore video lost credibility as soon as he said that the Soviets would be able to invade the Japanese mainland.
It’s possible there would’ve been an invasion.
Xavier Lauzac Not really, you cannot invade something like Japan without having superiority in the Air or Seas. Just ask the Germans on how easy it was to invade Britain, and don’t forget that the Soviets lost the prior war against the Japanese
Douglas MacArthur no invasion is impossible. It’s possible Liechtenstein will conquer Europe
Xavier Lauzac Stalin was incompetent, but not incompetent enough to try and invade Japan in the way that the video says it could be done. The prior war already showed much of it, and the current state of Japan would make it even worst for the Soviets. The Japanese were suicidal, and were fierce fighters and had real resistance. Where most Germans didn’t and neither did all of the fascists really, The Japanese were nothing near the casual axis powers the Japanese were powerful were proud of their empire and had different reasons as to why they joined the Axis. A invasion of Japan would be a huge fuck up and would be a very bad decision to take, even for the Soviets since the Japanese people would’ve never surrendered to the Soviets or to communism and your average Japanese person in that era would do anything to hit a annoying communist. It’s even more complicated then that, but a invasion of the Japanese mainland wouldn’t of necessarily been stupid but it would’ve brought a huge human lose and it possibly could’ve been more then most war fronts if a invasion happened because of many reasons.
Douglas MacArthur but not impossible.
The soviets wouldn’t have been able to beat Germany because the reason the Germans didn’t conquer Moscow was because soviet divisions from Siberia went to fight germany, in this timeline those divisions would be fighting japan so Germany would eventually win after taking most of ussr factories in the west
Japan invade USSR from siberia is this men live in a fantazy.
The reason the Germans didn't conquer Moscow was because Hitler redirected Army Group South to take the oil fields to the south first, and then swing back around to take Moscow. This allowed the Siberian armies to arrive in time to reinforce Moscow. Had Hitler allowed Guderian to simply push onto Moscow, they would have taken it.
Incorrect, Ussr had already declared war on japan with the general Zhukov and was in a victory course, no division from siberia was needed to defeat japan
the USSR only declared War on Japan in 45 imbecile. This video is wrong, Cody forgot that the Soviet Union was not invincible.
LOOMINARTY CONFIRMED??? What exactly would taking Moscow bring the Germans? Not much, imo. Napoleon took Moscow which didn't change the course of the war a little. All that taking Moscow could've given Hitler would be an even colder winter and the Soviet troops would probably fight on.
So what you’re saying is that we wouldn’t have anime?
Truly a dark timeline
*Y E S*
Anime started in 1907 so war or no war we would always have anime❤
CAN I JUST SAY I'M LOVING THIS STYLE OF VIDEO? THANKS!
I too, LOVE this style, and this channel really pulls it off!
(although there were maybe 2 audio spikes that bugged me since I was listening loud with earphones to soak up all the awesome)
It is fine, but I also like the cartoon art style.
I KNOW RIGHT?! It makes it feel more immersive than just some guy talking about history(not thats its bad) and it makes it more inetersing
Zekushiiido I agree, also holy crap 400 likes haha that's an achievement for me I've never gotten that many.
Interresting version of history, but I have to disagree. Russian would have take more losses in two-front war. It would have lost, would Russia even survive. I don't know. But your video.
Could you do alternate history video about East-Rome, the Byzantine Empire what would happen if that would have stayed a great power?
Perhaps a what if the 4th Crusade proceeded to Egypt as planned?
So, how do the Soviets invade Japan again? The Soviets would have even more going against them than the Nazis did trying to defeat Britain. The Imperial Japanese Navy would be a going concern in this timeline, and the Royal Navy wouldn't have the capability to beat them on their own.
if the full capacity of the Royal Navy (Carriers and Battleships) had been thrown at the IJN, i doubt it would have gone so well for Japan.
@L Me It would go rather well for a Japan that
1.Never got embargoed by the USA
2. Has the defensive advantage
3. Has carriers you can't sink in the form of Islands|
4.Supply line advantage
5. Isn't occupied fighting the US Navy
Singapore was supposed to be the Pride of the British Empire, an Impregnable fortress, it was taken within a week.
"The Full might of the Royal Navy" would have to go through either the Pacific Islands or the straits of Indonesia both of which would have several Hornets Nests worth of Japanese defenses.
Both of which would have Japanese soldiers and officers familiar with the area, terrain and weather while the Brits would not, at least unless they employed locals which would be furious if not outright rebelling against them in a war where the UK starved more of them longer than the UK already did irl.
*Indonesia and Malaysia
@@Soundwave3591 If there is no oil embargo there may be no japan war against UK.
@@Soundwave3591 Except it never would have been. The combination of the Kriegsmarine, the Italian Navy, and the VIchy France navy AND the Imperial Japanese navy would've been too much for them. Even if they do throw all their might at the IJN, then guess what? Germany pulls a Sealion.
There's no way in hell Russia would defeat the full force of Germany AND Japan on a land war alone. That's a two front war, and it would devolve into stalemate at best.
I like most of these, but this one is a bust. To many problems.
Like the need to take the Dutch East Indies for oil and rubber. Which was the real reason they attacked the US.
Not out of anger, they were not going to leave the massive bases at the Philippines across their supply lines. And if they had attacked the Soviets, better believe we would have flooded more supplies to Siberia. Does anybody think Japan would have ignored that?
And the increase of "American Volunteers like the Flying Tigers? And the massive build up of US forces in the Philippines?
Even without Pearl Harbor, we would have been dragged in because we were holding a large part of the Co-Prosperity Sphere.
Nah the US wouldnt be dragged in if it was not attacked US population didnt wanted a war, especially agaisnt the Axis that were fighting a war agaisnt the Soviet Union
@@06diogoleitao41 Japan could not attack with a fortified Philippines on the route. And at that time, the Philippines WAS US territory.
@@0311Mushroom ? Japan would be in a war agaisnt the Soviets no the US
@@06diogoleitao41 why? There was no oil or rubberl in the Eastern USSR. However, there was oil and rubber in the Dutch East Indies. And more than anything they needed oil and rubber.
@@0311Mushroom But thats the point of an alternative timeline duh? Like I can give a reson of why invading the soviets first, if you can get rid of them first then you attack the duth or the British colonies but thats the point of why the Axis lost there was no cordination
I think there's three big problems with this.
Firstly, why would Germany have just lost? Germany could have focused fully on the Soviet Union and wouldn't have to really worry about backing the Italians up in North Africa. After all, the US sent troops to Africa and later Italy in 1943. Had the US not been involved and not been selling tons of weapons to the allies, then they would have had beat the Italians out of North Africa, which means that Germany would have had a lot more supplies for the Eastern Front.
Secondly, on the topic of supplies, the US wouldn't be so involved with lend-lease. One thing people forget is that the Soviet Union depended heavily on American imports. Not only weapons, but clothing. About 38% of Soviet winterwear was produced in the United States (or with American raw materials like wool). Whereas the Germans didn't have such supplies and would be at a loss because of the harsh Russian winters.
Last, Japan had one of the most powerful navies of the time. Probably the most powerful in the Pacific (as most of the British fleet was in Europe, and the US had their fleet separated between oceans). Russia, notoriously known for a incredibly weak navy during WWII, would have never been able to launch a full scale invasion of the Japanese mainland, let alone, Japan islands. Japan also had a very good air force, much more than the Russians. And remember, the Russians depended heavily on US imports, so with the US not really engaging lend-lease with the Soviets, then you would see Japan defending their islands very well. Sure, Japan would probably lose China, and Korea if Soviets had some how beat the Germans.
But here's the thing. Had the US still supplied Japan with oil, then wouldn't Japan have seen more success in China than before? Without having to focus on the Americans, they could have expanded deep into China, or even to a point of full Kuomintang capitulation. And another thought is that the US would be more likely to actually support Japan than support Russia, especially if Russia had beat the Germans and taken over a lot more of Europe under their sphere of influence.
If I had to say what would have happened if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor, at least in my opinion, I would have seen a partial axis-victory, especially if Japan and Germany were double teaming them. The Soviets would not have the lend-lease from the Americans, and as a result the Soviets would have been terribly prepared. It would be a hard war, both sides would lose lots of people, but at the end, the axis would most likely have been able to inflict enough damage that the Russian people would have no longer supported such a devastating war. Especially if you consider that most of ethnic Russians lived in a very concentrated area. Remember, when Germany invaded the region of Ukraine, the ethnic Ukrainians saw them as liberators. Non-Russian ethnic groups in Eastern Russia would have most likely supported a Japanese invasion too. Siberia, Central Asia, GU, and so forth, with the exception of Russian ports like Vladivostok (which Japan would most likely easily capture and hold). Once the Soviet Union were to fall, I could see a peace between the axis and Great Britain. The people of Great Britain already were not in favor of the war (looking at you Chamberlain), and seeing first France (considered a military power house), then the Soviet Union (considered a backwards military power house), fall, I could see a peace deal resulting in most of Western Anglo countries seeing very little change, and most of Eastern Europe different.
Japanese would quickly get stuck in Eastern Siberia, all they would achieve would be maybe capturing Vladivostok and the eastern seaboard. Eastern Siberia would be a nightmare to invade, especially for the Japanese who lacked the equipment the Germans had
Alaskafish he never said that the UK was out of the picture nor were any other countries
Solaxe, capturing Vladivostok circa 1941 would pretty much gut the Soviets. That was half their lend-lease pipeline. Not to mention, the Soviets only held by bringing their troops from Siberia in the first place. If Japan managed to tie down those troops and take Vladivostok, Germany would have a good chance of actually knocking Russia out of the war.
Forgot to say that Germany wasn’t too far behind America in their nuclear program
ok, the blunder of Germany's nuclear program had nothing to do with the US.
The reason Germany could not bring a nuclear bomb to the scene, was because in 1943, the Norwegian resistance, backed by the British, sabotaged the Vemork Hydroelectric Plant in Operation Gunnerside. Why is this important? Vemork was producing heavy water, a material that was needed to get a nuclear reaction going. With the loss of heavy water, the Germans were unable to make a nuke in time.
This is pretty unlikely. The only reason the Soviets invaded east Europe was for buffer states between it and Moscow. You mentioned this yourself Cody. Stalin's principle of socialism in one country.
You don't seem to understand what Socialism in one country is; you should read more about it before making such conclusions.
The soviets was horrible anyway they didn't care so much about a buffer as they did about spreading communism. And that's clear when they invaded Afghanistan. Helped the China's get rid of their government. Helped Cuba over turn their government and many more if people think it was to keep the western powers from Moscow they are Wrong all it was about was communism
Like you can't say that they wanted a buffer between western powers that's why they invaded āfghenstan. no it wasn't about anything apart from communism
All of you guys are idiots.
Manoj Anton-Rajkumar they needed a buffer zone (east Europe) because there was a plain to Moscow. The rest of the country is bordered by mountainous geography.
Personally I think that the Soviet union couldn't hold the Germans the west and the Japanese to the east I feel like they would have cracked.
most definitely soveit russia would have lost too much manpower, had virtually no navy, and fight a two front war i.e Russia would have capitulated to the Axis powers possibly in 1943 or 1944.
@Olga Voronkova you guys seem to know less, in fact w/o the lend-lease of the americans, the soviets would lose in the western front even w/o japan. The only thing that kept the germans from moving to moscow was the russian winter and the american equipments. If japan was able to attack from the east then it would certainly fall faster. Chinese soldiers were struggling against the japanese and it's own political ideologies, they can't even push the japanese even if japan attacks the soviet union.
@Nis, Nope.Ussr would have beat Germany alone.Without Ussr germany would have won
@Nis, You mean the backwater 1 million personnel in the west meanwhile Soviets were fighting the best and more numerous in the East?Also sending more men east would have stretched even more the supply lines and they were already breaking
@Nis, Axis powers outnumbered the Soviets.Axis had initial army size 3.8 million men vs 2.9 million Soviets.Initially Germans had quality advantage but later in the war it was the soviets that had more quality both in equipment and personnel.And hitler was already in war with the allies before he attacked the Soviets.It was the Soviets and Germany that they had agreement in non aggression and cooperation so it was nore likely Soviet Union+Germany vs Allies
Ah I gotta disagree with this timeline. One major factor being as that Japan had no intentions of going to battle with the Soviets. In fact, they made sure not to attack any convoys headed to the USSR, to prevent any accidents. Japan wanted to go south, not north. The very reason why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, was because the US had allies in the south pacific. A better timeline, would be Japan bypassing the Philippines. Remember, Japan attacked the Philippines on December 8th. Right after Pearl Harbor. Japan's goals was South Pacific oil, not the icy tundra of the north. So this timeline completely falls flat, because it totally ignores Japan's very war goal of the Pacific in the first place
The IJA wanted to move North. IJN wanted to move South.
Also the Japanese knew that they couldn't leave the Philippines behind their lines as US would eventually join the war against them.
Anime wouldn't have come into existence
Neither would d-day exist
Anime is definitely more important Anlin
Nah, the roots of animated movies where in Japan long before WW2, it would still exist one way or another.
This is clearly the worst timeline
I like this time line
that Japanese flag is just the old windows logo with different colors
Now all they have is a giant red ball in the middle of white.
That’s the actual logo of the Japanese Communist Party, too
@@osaka4615 no the circle means rising Sun
I assume the guy was talking abt what was shown at 6:18, which is the Communist Party’s logo
@@osaka4615 ok
|World War Two In a Nutshell|
Germany: Hey Russia, want to make sure that we don't kill each other?
Russia (USSR): Um, sure?
Germany: Austria, JOIN ME, LET US UNITE THE GERMANIC COUNTRIES!!!!
Austria: S-S-Sure, chill.
(Germany Annexes Austria)
Germany: Czechoslovakia, Gib Clay.
Czechoslovakia: Um, No, please, l-l-leave me alone...
Germany: Then we have to do this the hard way...
Britain and France: Stop, you can't invade Czechoslovakia!
Germany: I'll be peaceful after.
Britain and France: Alright then.
Czechoslovakia: I thought you were my friends, Noooo!
(Germany Takes over and annexes Czechoslovakia)
Germany: I feel the POWER!
(Meanwhile in Asia)
Japan: I just killed China. Yay!
Russia: O-O-Ok...
(Back in Europe)
Germany: Hey Russia, I'll take Poland, got my back?
Russia: Sure.
Poland: Um, what?
Germany and Russia: Goodbye Poland
Poland: NOOOOOO!
(Poland is Invaded and annexed)
Britain and France: What?!
Britain and France: We declare war on you!
(Britain and France declare war on Germany)
Viewer: Why not Russia?
Russia: No one can invade Russia without paying the price....
Viewer: Okay....
(Back to the Story)
(At First it's known as the "Phony War" as no one invades each other, that was about to change)
Germany: I'll invade you, France!
France: Oh no...
(Germany Invades France)
France: Could use some help.
Britain: I got your back.
(Months of fighting occur)
France: THEY NEARLY GOT PARIS!
(Paris is captured)
France: NOOOOOO!
Britain: It'll be fine, buddy.
(British and French forces are pushed back to Dunkirk)
Britain: We need to evacuate.
France: I'll come back for you...
(Southern France becomes a Puppet)
Free French: Mhmm, Vichy isn't the true French.
Vichy France: What, No, I am true France.
Free French: You're only a puppet!
(Battle of Britain Occurs)
(German Loss)
Germany: Grr, I'll bomb you!
(Germany bombs Britain heavily)
(Britain would be hanging on a threat of rope)
Japan: Time to get the US...
Italy and Germany: JAPAN DON'T!
(Japan Bombs Pearl Harbor)
Italy and Germany: Good job, you've doomed us...
USA: JAPAN, YOU ARE DEAD!
Japan: Oops...
Germany: Time to destroy Russia!
Napoleon's Spirit: You should've learned from my mistakes, you are doomed now.
(Germany Invades Russia)
Russia: Germany, prepare to DIE!
(Leningrad is captured)
Russia: NOOO!
(Russia is pushed back, but resisted at Moscow)
Germany: I'll get Stalingrad to get the Oil there.
USA: OIL????
(Sorry, bad joke)
(Germany pushes to Stalingrad)
(Germany is pushed back)
Germany: Nooo!
Japan: I'm loosing!
Italy: They've landed on me!
(Germany get's pushed back to Poland)
(Normandy Landings Occur)
(Germany is being pushed back on all Three Fronts)
Germany: Japan, Remember me....
Japan: GERMANY NO!
Germany: I had a good run...
(Germany collapses)
Japan: It's just me then...
(Hiroshima is bombed by the Atomic Bomb)
Japan: No....My People....Genocide.....YOU MONSTER!
USA: It's the only way to prevent more loss of life, sorry. Do you surrender?
Japan: No.
USA: I'm, sorry...
(Nagasaki is bombed by the Edit: Plutonium Bomb)
Japan: Fine, I surrender....
(World War Two Ends)
I hope you enjoyed this simplification of WWII, I left a lot out, I know. Such as the North African Campaign. I'm sorry if I left things out. Anyway, have a good day!
Edit: Holy, Thank you for the likes!
Nagasaki wasn't hint by a hydrogen bomb it was a plutonium bomb
*hit
This seems copied from a Polandball comic.
The real reason Japan surrendered was because the Soviet Union invaded their territory in Manchuria and they were scared that the Russians would invade the Japanese home islands thereby turning them communist and doing the things that Soviet soldiers in occupied territory did. (No need to elaborate).
SpruceClient8 nice explanation
I have to say that this time Cody had made a mistake with this video
Yes you are right
I'd put money that Germany and Japan could have taken the USSR and the other Allies without the US throwing in.
@@domnicdial9405 Kinda inaccurate but maybe plausible
@@matid9687 Think about it. The biggest nail in the coffin for the Axis was fighting on multiple fronts with the Allies. Without US intervention there probably won't be a D-Day, and the African front would never have received US reinforcements that pushed the Allies up from Africa into Italy. It will be the Soviets fighting on two fronts, not the Germans. And the British would be too focused on fending off the Germans in the English Channel and Japanese in Asia to provide that much assistance.
@@domnicdial9405 However there're more things to have in mind too, the US intervention actually wasn't the fact of the loss of the Afrikan Korps, yes, it made it faster, but Rommel had already spent all his resources in a pointless campaign to Egypt which didn't ended well and the UK was already defeating them back to Libya. Also remember that the japanese forces haven't much tanks and even they were underdeveloped against light tanks of the USSR like the BT-5, of course we cannot deny that Japan without Oil will struggle to beat the Chineses and fighting the soviets will just make the wound even worse. There were 200.000 troops on the Far East and after the Khalkhin Gol incident where the japanese intelligence show it's awful work it might be the USSR who would won on Manchuria, yes maybe the russians could be defeated at Moscow but after that really nobody knows if the USSR would surrender or just kept fighting until the last stand (by the time the Battle of Moscow began most of the industry went to the Urals.)
You forget the us literally fed the entire Russian army after we joined the war
And supplied them with essentially their entire supply chain equipment such as trucks tractors etc the Russian army would starve without the us and if they somehow got food there tanks wouldn’t be able to attack as quickly they did after barbarosa failed because they wouldn’t have fuel trucks without US Russia would crumble
Stolen
Not really since the soviet union is already a industrial power and have enough resources to fight against the japan and germany
Also china will probably join in and become a soviet sattelite.
(except that thier economy will collapse after the war)
@@lettuceman9439 best joke i've read today. Im British and its not hard at all to say if the USA didnt enter the war mainland europe and Russia would have been steamrolled.
@@daniejam10 well the soviet economy after the war would have collapsed after the war but they still have a bigger industry and manpower than germany and if japan were to go with the army doctrine good luck going through siberia and mongolia.
YOU ARE AN AMERICAN PROPAGANDIST!
Nah... the Soviets would just die in a tornado.
I love the history of Japan
kamikaze lol
No the Soviets would get sent to the gulag.
A Sharknado actually.
*HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF*
I'm sorry, but there is simply no way the Soviets could have taken both the Nazis and the Jappanese. Yes, they had incredible manpower and incredible production, but they would have no chance ove matching the Jappanese Navy, and Germany would have been far harder to conquer had it not been fighting a war on two fronts. The Russians can keep falling back deeper into Asia to avoid losing, but they simply would not have been capable of not only single handedly taking out Germany, but also simultaneously deploying troops all the way to Japan on the other side of the word, with supply lines thousands of miles long. It's just not feasible
Tigger The Tiger Not true. Japan didnt have the equipment nor the supplies and supply lines to support their armies in Siberia. They would starve or freeze to death even with no Soviet forces protecting it. Siberia has a small amount of resources and Japan wouldnt be able to fuel his army with that small amount of oil. The war would however last longer. Probably 1-2 years with Europe being dominated by Communism. France and Italy would be freed by the British while the rest would be conquered by the USSR. With much more casualties ofcourse. Japan would get defeated after Germany and Japan would be partitioned by the British and Soviets.
The Soviets didn't even have a navy so they could never have successfully launched an amphibious invasion against the Japanese, who had one of the world's largest and most powerful naval fleets.
Spike Spiegel The Soviets did have a navy and some/many of them came from the Lend-Lease. And especially the British Lend-Lease:www.naval-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet-navy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Navy#World_War_II:_The_Great_Patriotic_War_(1941%E2%80%931945)
Also. The Japanese had a big and powerful navy but they lacked the industrial capacity and the raw materials to make more of those ships and thus every ship the Japanese would lose by fighting the British and Soviet navies would make their fleet smaller, weaker and make their mainland less-defended. The Soviets and British could produce at least produce twice as much as ships as the Japanese. Maybe even 3-5 times since the British and the Soviets were huge countries full of resources (talking about the British Empire instead of Britain itself.)
In the East they don`t have to. All the Russians need to do is to do is keep pulling back while destroying everything of value and use guerilla tactics to disrupt supply lines while concentrating on fighting the Germans. Its a LONG way from the Chinese border to the Urals and if the Japanese are not fighting the British in South East Asia then the Axis is going to be in serious trouble in North Africa .
Robert Sneddon Mhm, thats exactly what i tried to tell.
Japan was like that guy in gaming who thought it would be fine to teabag their rank 1 player...
The USSR fighting a two front war would never defeat both the Japanese & the Germans... never! The USSR received much of its war material from the United States via the US west coast to Vladivostok only because the Japanese had entered a nonaggression pact with Stalin & therefore allowed shipping to pass without incident. That would have never happened in your alternate timeline. No, Russia would not survive.
USSR would never fight a two front war as the Japanese were not so insane as to invade Siberia. And even if they did the invasion wouldn't do anything and so wouldn't draw any Soviet attention just like Operation Arctic Fox didn't draw in any Soviet forces as Arctic warfare with limited infrastructure and problematic logistics is hard and the Japanese would have all of those things up to eleven.
And you do understand that the Japanese didn't attack the US shipping heading to USSR as Japan didn't want to piss USSR off. So basically in this case Japanese wouldn't attack US shipping because they didn't want to piss US off. So the end result is still the same.
So no. Japanese invasion of Siberia wouldn't do anything and would only destroy Japan as Japanese would starve out of oil.
Pikkabuu do you think japan would use its Chinese bases as a jump off point to help Germany take the Russian oil fields?
the value of lend-lease towards the ultimate outcome is always overstated.
most of the lend-lease aid did not arrive until 1943, after the battles of moscow and stalingrad. the paper The USSR and Total War: Why Didn’t the Soviet Economy Collapse in 1942 by Mark Harrison states that "The pressure on resources was somewhat alleviated by foreign aid, which added approximately 5 per cent to Soviet resources in 1942 and 10 per cent in 1943 and 1944.". Geoffrey Roberts maintains that "The Soviet Union could have defeated Nazi Germany on its own, but it would have taken it a lot longer and at much greater price and, of course, it would have taken the country much longer to recover after World War II...". lastly, with trucks as an example, it should be noted that, according to an article in "Journal of Slavic Military Studies" Vol. 10, June 1997 "Motor Vehicle Transport Deliveries through Lend-Lease", imported trucks only consisted of 5.4%, 19.0%, and 30.4% of total park at the beginning of 1943, 1944, and 1945, respectively.
the far-east ports constituted half of the shipments. it was the preferred means not due to ability but due to cost, and for that reason the arctic route and persia routes would have been brought to more prominence despite their greater length. furthermore, it should be noted that only non-military goods could be shipped via the pacific route. obviously foodstuffs and peripheral supplies are not useless, but it should be noted because it means that the flow of military goods would not have been interrupted.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union
Germany: Hey ally, I'm invading the world's second most powerful country, want to help?
Japan: No, I'd rather just attack the world's numer one country. Because that makes sense.
Number one in terms of industry at the time.
Germany: Hey ally I'm invading the world's most powerful country, want to help?
Japan: I can't, the Americans blockaded my oil, so now due to socio economic reasons, and the fact that we don't have much oil on the home islands, I need to attack the U.S pacific fleet in Hawaii to continue the path to making Japan as self sufficient as possible.
Greenlandia is right, Japan's true threat was America not Russia. They took the islands to serve as a buffer zone between them and America. Most of the islands they took had no economic or social value but it did have a strategic one.
well actually a lot of the Islands, and places they took were useful, like Indonesia had tons of Oil, so that's why they took it, and they knew it would risk war with America. Japan had like no oil, because only 5% of the land is usable for Farming, and less for oil, so they needed to invade lands like Korea to get oil from there.
Germany(talking of soviet) : ok japan Ich attacked the stronkest country on earth. Vi can win if Ich attack from west and du attack from east
Japan(thinking that germany attacked U.S.A) : k German-san. is of gud prann. ı wirr attack from east
There is no chance the Soviets could invade japan. Japan had an extremely powerful navy, and the Soviets had a tiny one at that time, with no aircraft carriers. Japanese carriers could easily destroy the tiny Soviet Pacific fleet
The Americans could only begin island hopping when their navy had overwhelming superiority over the Japanese. How could the Soviets invade? Sure they’d capture japan’s Mainland colonies, but they could never touch the home islands.
I agree. Soviet invasion of Japan (if the US didn't the war) is as Alien Space Bats as Operation Sealion. Replaced Germany with Soviet Union (strong army, weak navy), Britain with Japan (strong navy), and Operation Sealion with Soviet Invasion of Japan...and you would see the similarities.
The Gaming Gamer I don’t think the Japanese had carriers. I could be wrong but I think they had a few under construction that were never completed.
@The Gaming Gamer
But do you know what navy need? A oil. But do you known why Pearl Harbor happen on the first place? USA didn't wan't sell it.
T K the Japanese did have carriers. Their construction speed was way slower though, compared to the USA. But since in this alternate timeline there is no oil embargo, Japan's Pacific fleet would be vastly superior compared to Russia's fleet. A homeland naval invasion would be impossible.
There was a battle before WWII that was between the Red Army and the Japanese Imperial Army. That battle was extreme influential not only because it helped Zhukov become a key figure in WWII it also scared the Japanese into having no land combat against the Russians. Assuming in this scenario the battle would still occur with the Soviets absolutely dominating (which it most likely will) I highly doubt the Japanese would fight against the Russians to help Germany. They didn't even do that in our timeline and that was with Germany declaring war on the US to help push Japan to declare war on the Soviet Union.
What if Germans won the battle of Stalingrad?
Schatten der Pickelhaube well don't ask him this as this guy seriousely belive the SU could naval invade the Japanese and defeat the germans without any aid and so on. But i will tell you this. The germans did take the city and it had no effect. After months of fighting and thin supply lines it wasn't worth fighting for it in the first place
broken potato There would be a Russian Al-Qaeda.
There would be World war three
The Germans could never have one the offensive into Russia, not alone. They required the support of Japan's army to open a second Russian front from Vladivostok in the east.
Schatten der Pickelhaube If they did the oil fields in the southern part of Russia would have been taken. Russia would have to rely on Western oil. If Germany could continue to attack Russia the winter would halt the German Forces of a time. Without oil Russian Tanks can't run and Infantry would be sent into meat grinders. But ultimately Germany would be crushed by the US and Western Allies, as Germany is pushing deeper into Russia and it counties into Moscow.
Simply put: Germany was destined to fail in Russia, The Battle of Stalingrad would allow German forces to the south to get the Russian oil Fields, this would hurt Russia but not for long. In our Timeline Germany simply didn't have enough troops to stop the the Western Allies from doing D-Day, or to stop them in Italy. In this Timeline the same thing happens, Germany is invaded in 1944 with no Renforcems to speak of, The Allies take Berlin and Force Germany to Surrender. WW2 is done, Democracy Wins Communism is smaller and not any threat in this timeline.
To Somme up: Germany loses either way, but the Western Allies control the Peace and post War Germany and maybe Poland too. Communism is weaker, and Japan is still Nuked, Korea is Whole, and Democracy Wins in the end. China is up to u.
Gosh.
I guess two atomic bombs beats soviet bloodbath.
Good thing Pearl Harbor was a thing o.o
Nah fam
thebahooplamaster dammit you spoiled the video.
Nah, Japan didn't surrendered because of the nukes.
The leadership knew that they lost the war but hoped to negotiate a conditional surrender (while the allies wanted an unconditional one). And for this they hoped that the USSR would act as an arbitrator between the allies and the Japanese, but their plan fell to dust when the USSR declared war on Japan in 1945 and seized Manchuria. So this is when they considered to surrender.
Remember that back then nukes weren't that powerful. Japan was already bombed day and night by the allies, and conventional bombs caused far more destruction on the island. For the high command, the only difference in their daily report was that "one city was razed, this time with a weapon of a new type", but imagine this new as a part of all other news of cities razed with conventional news!
However if the US stayed neutral the Japanese may have used the arbitrator card to negotiate a peace with Britain and the USSR
Micheal Carney Actually it was the Soviets. Along with what was mentioned before the Emperor feared what would happen if the Soviets pushed far enough to japan and actually had their way, which would lead to the death of all the higher ups including himself. They surrendered in order to save themselves, they didn’t give a damn about their people
USSR rules? With US isolation in this timeline, only UK may receive some US aid with price.(cash and carry), part of US aid may turn for Russian via UK. Also, an isolated US wouldn't get moblization their power of industry, that's means there only little US aid avaliable for Allies.
Without massive US aid, USSR would have only little foreign aid from UK, then:
No more US made weapons such P39, P63, P40, B25 and US tanks.
No more made in USA boots and SPAM canfoods for Red Army soldiers, what should they eat and wear?
No more trucks to transport everything to the front, USSR have to product their trucks and reduce production of weapons.
No more US aid fuel for USSR aircrafts and tanks.
No more US aid locomotives, Soviet have to reduce tank production to maintain railroad transport capability.
Without Ukraine and US aid foods, what kind of foods that Russians left?
Without US built Liberty ships, how to send Red Army across any sea to invade Japan?
Without US to defeat IJN, ocean and sea are untouchable for Russians.
How to defeat both Nazi and Japan without US aid and US attacks against Axis countries?
Even worse, if Japan have war with UK in this case, UK may lose India and Australia due to IJN is overwhelming against RN in India Ocean and Pacific Ocean, UK couldn't protect India, Malaya and Austraila from Japan without US help. Then in China, Chiang Kai-shek would be overthrown by Japanese and China would be turned into puppy state of Japanese Empire.
well said
the Japanese didn't have the manpower to invade Australia because of its large landmass and India would have been improbable but otherwise good points
IJA didn't have enough force to control China too, but they'd insisted war against Chiang Kai-shek China. So, they need puppies like Manchuria and Wan Zhou-ming China. IJA couldn't control Australia with full strength, but enough to take coastal cities and industries, then knock Australia(and New Zealand) out the war.
In this case, how many IJA units and time avaliable to invade ANZ depend on
A. How long could Chiang holding his regime in Si-Chun?
B. How long could Australian Army defend in New Guinea?
C. Where IJN fleet going to battle?
WARHEADS CatzeFiIdiota Japanese had a population of about 100 million, surely they had enough manpower to invade the Australian coast...
Plus the important parts of Australia is mainly on the coast. They could just take the coastal regions. Anyway if Japan attacked Russia. Japan would not invad Australia. They would need to keep they're strength in Russia and China. You can't over stretch your army. I don't even think Japan wanted Australia in the real WW2.
Does this include no attack on the Philippines either? It makes no sense that Japan would have left a strong U. DS. military force in the Philippines. They would have had to attack it and thus the U.S. would have declared war on Japan - then the same timeline.
Like most alternate timeline theories, the mistakes made in creating them include not realistically considering geography, economy, and national will. It's too easy to have a conclusion in mind and then just create any scenario that gets to it.
This is called "casuistry" which is a specious method of reasoning and not the ability to play a kazzoo.
The Japanese did not HAVE to attack the Philippines. They chose to. Now, yes, it makes some strategic sense because the Philippines CAN BE used as an interdiction point between Japan and the oil from the Dutch East Indies. But would the US have taken the provocative step to try to stop Japanese oil shipments militarily? I highly doubt it. The US hadn't attacked Germany even though Germany had overrun France and was attacking Britain. I see no reason why that calculation would change with the Japanese attacking the Dutch and British colonies in the Far East.
Verdict: Japan could have avoided US involvement in the war, at least for a period of time, if they had avoided attacking any US possession and that would absolutely have altered the timeline of WW2 significantly, though not necessarily the eventual outcome.
@@crowfeedreactions Speculation is fun but is ultimately unsatisfying. What actually happened is inconveniently always there and ruins all of our brilliant alternate plans and scenarios.
I think that the Japanese had to do exactly what they did for numerous reasons, many of them sociological and psychological, just as the Nazis had to do what they did.
@@Glicksman1 I think that's a very rigid way of looking at history. Yes, there were reasons for what they did, but we believe their choices were inevitable because we know what choice was made. They still COULD HAVE gone a different direction and then we'd have the same opinion about THAT choice.
Yes, alt-history is fun to speculate about. That's the whole point of all this.
@@crowfeedreactions No, it's not rigid to study and come to an understand something about a particular nation and culture in a particular time and what they did as a result of it. That is called studying history.
Of course, what is history COULD have gone a different way and it's interesting to speculate what MIGHT have happened. I think that's obvious.
@@Glicksman1 Thank you for restating what I said.
There would be no Godzilla, no Ultraman, no Super Sentai, no Power Rangers, no Gatchaman and no anime
Adrian Duran Gewd!
So only negative would be no power rangers?
Kev3004 Just so that you know Power Rangers needs Super Sentai to exist and if it wasn't for Super Sentai Saban would had never wanted to adapt it at first place to make Power Rangers. These days those two franchises need each other so there is no reason to act all smug and arrogant towards forms of Japanese entertainment. Oh and you might have forgotten that original Godzilla movie from 1954 is classic and among anime there are beloved classics like Cowboy Bebop and Trigun that I am sure you have watched from Cartoon Network's Toonami block. Don't be ignorant asshole, be open minded.
but there would be ttack on titan(concept of invading another land with supreme manpower and firepower)
No Pokémon or Digimon :O
yeah, this obsession with Russia is ridiculous. Even if their industry and efficiency got better towards the end of the war, there's no way they'd be able to combat an unhampered Germany AND Japan at the same time, let alone conquer both. Numbers doesn't mean everything, we've been taught that through countless times in history, and even for the Russians, there's only a certain amount they could chuck out
at most Russia would get as far as around the German/Polish border before stopping to a stalemate halt, as Japan continually bites their backside in Siberia, Mongolia and Russian interests in China. Japan, especially in such a vast and unforgiving landscape, would likely lose and/or abandon their Siberian claims, possibly get pushed back from Mongolia into Manchuria
the war would likely have to end as a truce from there, because all sides would be so exhausted, and an uneasy similar like cold war would immediately ensue. Russia might still conquer more overall then our timeline, and would still hold considerable power, but they wouldn't have 'won' let alone easily
Exactly what i was thinking. No one else here is thinking logically. Your explanation makes the most sense, however i could see a soviet british alliance to finish off the axis as a possiblity. At some point the U.S. would probably be incentivised to join the war but even if not the war would have still been won by soviets/british
I feel it is worth Stating that the USSR had already stopped the German advance on Moscow before the US entered the war. People really tend to oversell the Germans, they were already in trouble long before the US got involved in any meaningful way. Supply problems, lack of manpower and simply being overstretched trying to occupy effectively ALL OF EUROPE meant that had the USSR had to face them alone (which they wouldn't have, as the UK - WAS - still in the war) while it might have taken longer, Germany still would have lost.
Furthermore, they'd already given Japan a bloody nose in Mongolia in 1939, so Japan was quite hesitant about challenging them (hence why they turned South against the US and the European colonies.)
And again, the issue of supplies and pre-established commitments comes up: Japan was already deep into a Land war in China, which was sapping manpower and resources as it was, pulling more assets out to throw at the USSR would have only hurt them. Not to mention the USSR didn't even need to send their best equipment to face the Japanese, they steamrolled Manchuria on 1945 using BT tanks from the mid-30's, as they were still effective against Japanese armor.
@@Soundwave3591 the point is though, I never said the Germans would succeed in conquering the Russians, and while I agree they were being pushed back before the US joined the war, If the US in this case never joined the war, they'd be no D-Day or Italian allied front, which can't be denied would've given at least somewhat of a pressure release valve for the USSR. However, the USSR still needed a solid 4 years against the Germans, especially when the Germans were putting the most effort against them as they were ideological arch enemies, plus at least European Russia was a main part of the Lebensraum ideology. Imagine in this scenario, If there were no D-Day or Italian front however. The only other front they'd have to deal with would be England, which was largely more a defensive war, otherwise more a thorn in their side at most
The entire Nazi Empire would therefore be almost entirely divided into Russia therefore, including all their defenses. In this timeline, If it still took the Russians a good 4 years to push back the Germans completely, in this timeline they'd either not be able to get to Berlin, or they'd simply exhaust most of their units, even for Russia. Considering in our timeline Russia has by far the most causalties, both by raw numbers and percentage of population, including areas in Russia still reeling back from that, despite fighting an enemy that had 2 major fronts and 1 minor front. In what world would they win against an enemy with only 1 other minor front? No Operation Torch in N Africa in this timeline either
As for Japan in Asia? Yes, they got pushed back in Mongolia relatively early on, but they didn't go South because of that, their grand plan since and planned after the attack on Pearl Harbour was to go into SE Asia, towards Australia and India, as SE Asia has the much needed rubber they needed in the war, and oil elsewhere as well. These two things were the resources that the US sanctioned them on in the first place.
With this in mind Mongolia would've only been a minor setback, and when you mentioned that Russia easily took Manchuria in 1945? Likely mainly because Japan was being attacked on its mainland soil for the first time (since Okinawa and Iwo Jima) in this timeline, If the US never joined the war, they too would have undivided attention in Asia (non US Pacific would be pretty piss easy to take, and Australia on its own would be a thorn at most, as England was to Germany)
Ergo with Russia taking on an undivided Germany, If they diverted troops to Asia as well, they too would only hurt from that, especially when they'd have to cover a lot of territory against Japan
Except that the soviet union will probably be backed by china if that happened and the sheer industry of the ussr and a cooperation with china's manpower.
@@amossivan3819 to be fair,
1. The Americans still have the lend lease in this timeline (nobody said anything about that)
2. Siberia is a frozen hellscape far worse than the west. There are even parts where radio communication is practically impossible and that are also completely uninhabited separating little towns. So siberia might be an issue. Now while I don't agree with Cody's scenario completely (Japan couldn't be conquered by the Soviets due to a vastly inferior navy, but Germany I can see) Japan would maintain an empire in the pacific and Southeast asia (with only perhaps Vietnam breaking away)
Can you do “what if Sweden won the great northern war”?
Yes i agree
This is a good ide, do this
👍
I am swedish and i think that the great northern war was very interesting.
+Txtspeak Poltava!
Alternate title: what if Japan never had a navy?
don't forget about the air service and unit 731
@Humanity Galatica you do realize 99% of that industry was on the complete opposite side of the USSR?
@Humanity Galatica Japan + Germany + The other axis nations... do you expect me to think that the USSR will, like in the video, get cheat codes and make its workers work faster? I know it's rich on raw materials, but it doesn't have limitless manpower
@Humanity Galatica if only it wasn’t 5,000 miles away.
@Humanity Galatica you do realise they can't just do that, right? With nothing pressuring the germans from the back, they'll focuse more on the invasion on the USSR. The USSR is done because all they can do is throw people in the fire in hope of preventing it to spread
I hate to say it but....You are clearly off your rocker thinking the Soviets could stop a push on two fronts.
Look at what capitalist propaganda has done to the world.. So many people here seem ignorant of the power of the U.S.S.R. in WWII.
they woul jusy ignore japan until the nazis where dead
I hate to say it but... You are clearly off your rocker thinking that the Soviets couldn't stop a push on two fronts.
*Considering they did a push on 3*
Russia came to the brink of collapse and would have lost without US aid even just fighting the Germans. Fighting in both the East and West would have been untenable and they would have essentially collapsed after Moscow fell to the German blitz.
For example in Stalingrad the soviets brought in divisions from Siberia to defend, and those divisions were crucial for the victory. So if Japan attacked, they wouldnt have been able to move those divisions, further weakening the red army in the eastern front.
Also the US lend-lease act was crucial for soviets, and without that and without any invasion from western europe and having to also fight the japanese, the USSR would have lost the war
what if nukes were never invented
Mic Clank he did that
then the war would have been much more dragged out because the US had plans to invade Japan if the Manhattan project didn't work causing the war to continue on for another 6 months at least
But what about the cold war? With no threat of nuclear annihilation then what could possibly happen?
then north korea will have the most nukes in the world
NovaThief most people would say that cold war would most likely turned into ww3. But problem with that is USSR had no chance against to actualy defiet USA in conventional war (because of weaker navy) so yeah USSR might have been less agresiv and more defensiv in that timeline.
Why is this assuming the soviet union would have won? If the US never entered then Germany wouldnt have been split up. America was still fighting ithe north afrika corps in 1941. It would have allowed to send even more Wehrmacht to the eastern front. Not to mention the Germans wouldnt have to waste their tiger and king tiger tanks on the western front.
Now add to it that the Japanese would have the Russians on two fronts, they would have definitely lost. But yes if the soviet union did somehow manage to win ( they wouldnt ), the ending result would probably he as how you described.
I disagree because the Germans lost at El Alimain and all we were doing was CAS.
TheKingraptor724 you realize without Pearl Harbor we wouldn’t have been at war with Germany right?
Stalin wasnt afraid to send an insane amount of men to die for their country, Germany would eventually get overrun by the shear size of the Red Army
TheKingraptor724 rommel is also sent and doesn't fail and suicide due to the Atlantic wall.
Olga Voronkova Japan had armour. Small tanks. Coastal fighting also means the Navy and their fighters and bombers matter.
keep in mind that one of the reasons Russia won the war is because they did not have to garrison their eastern frontier. with the Japanese threat, there is no way Russia is able to push back the Germans all the way to Berlin. the war would most likely grind to a stalemate.
also why didn't you even mention china
No. The Soviets had full forces in the East all through the war!
Also please explain why the Soviets wouldl keep massive amount of troops in the East fighting the Japanese if they were losing badly in the West.
America: I really want a reason to get involved... * *holds gun intensively* *
Japan: I got you fam.
Hell No.
Hell yeah
"Only a smaller force of British and Canadians"
My Canadian just went full 100% is yelled "ehhhhhhh"
I went full Australian and yelled "cunt we were there too"
Skyboy stfu self-entitled piece of shit
Skyboy a centralist that can't make up their own opinions so they copy others
Skyboy A small child obviously...
Lets just all agree that the Commonwealth is the best and we were all there, even if the video COMPLETELY IGNORED AUSTRALIA FIGHTING THE JAPANESE FOR 3 YEARS BEFORE THE US SHOWED UP!
If Japan never Attacked Pearl Harbor and the plans still existed, then Alternate History Hub would be making a video "What if Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan"
ADCD 0405 And how would he know if this was a possibility?
More likely it would've been, "What if Japan Attacked the United States?"
Or "What if the United States hadn't attacked perl harbour" aye
I think you are greatly overestimating the USSRs military capabilities, at least in the 40s
What if we attacked the axis first?
Then you would actually get to brag about saving us from the Nazis
Because they were evil, they killed millions of innocent people, in death camps and beyond, they're like the dictionary definition of evil.
Well the war would end pretty quickly
Tano Strelok the Kroegsmarine sucked and Germany didn't reach full production until 1942
Tano Strelok indeed we didn't have such a ready military
And this came out on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor
Sarah Wiz13 thats the point.
What if AltenativeHistoryHub never existed?
heresy
blasphemy
So meta. Everyone here would find some other thing to watch every week.
World wouldn't change much
Absolutely fantastic beginning to this video.
There also would've been a state of Jefferson.
The State of Jefferson advocates had support for the cause until Pearl Harbor was attacked, where everyone shifted their attention to that.
PA Corp. Cool
This seems like a very poorly thought out video. I would argue almost every point you made if the comments didn't argue them already.
Jovial evryting he sed was correct
@kuskus the Soviets literally almost ran out of fuel chasing germans out of russia.
Germany: the Soviets are putting up a great fight but we can hold them back. They are our only threat
Japan: about that
The Soviets were putting up more than a great fight - they had the Germans on the retreat big time.
With u.s supplies and resources without of witch the USSR never would have won
@@tommark3015 But they would also not have completly lost. The Front is simply to massive. Germany would have probably taken most if not all of the western soviet union and the japanese (if they join) the sibirian coast. But I think the japanese would have never been able to join because the oil embargo was devastating. The japanese high command calculated, that they would only have about two years worth of oil with the american embargo. So the would probably use their oil reserves to finish of china or attack the western colonies to get the ressources.
@@LolLol-sy2hj In the video there is no oil embargo
@@thatguyinelnorte yes there was no oil embargo in the video, but its just not realistic that the USA would let the japanese do whatever they want. So realistically i still think there would have been one. But thank you for the correction.
I feel like you severely overestimate Russia’s ability to win the war. The Americans weren’t sending supplies to the USSR until they fully allied against Germany. Stalin himself said that moving past the border would break the russian war machines back.
No. US was sending supplies to the USSR since summer 1941!
@@PikkabuuThat only serves to prove my point further but yea
I think that I disagree with this scenario. I have my doubts that Russia could have carried out a two-front war for very long. With the Germans attacking from the west and the Japanese attacking from the east, Russia may have indeed lost. In that case, all of eastern Europe, Eurasia and Asia would have fallen to Fascism, not Communism. I think that is a more likely scenario.
Hell, even _without_ the Japanese participation I seriously doubt a non-American-involved invasion of the USSR would have ended up more or less triumphantly for Germany. The land lease agreement is given way less credit than it deserves; nto surprisingly, by the Russians themselves.
King Nobody
One thing tho:
*WINTER*
swooooo, yeah.
However, the German and Japanese forces would not need to quickly end the war with the Soviets due to oncoming Allied invasions and could entrench during the winter, allowing for proper resupply for a Spring Offensive and a lengthy, but eventual victory against the Soviets.
In a two-front war, the Soviet Union would've lost, but they could always just abandon the East. Siberia isn't as profitable as Western Soviet Union. Most of the population is also in the west.
Look at what capitalist propaganda has done to the world.. So many people here seem ignorant of the power of the U.S.S.R. in WWII.
What if King Harold Godwinson won against William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings in 1066?
In this scenario, Harold manages to keep the shield wall in check and none of his troops get lured out by the Normans, which then results in a Saxon victory because he was waiting for all of his reinforcements to arrive first before he would take the Normans on and defeat them.
What would this alternate world be like?
What about Norway?
They were already defeated by the battle of hastings
if they were to beat the Normans, they would forget the Norwegians
The Saxons would've held out had Harold's men decided to not chase after Norman infantry who ran down the hill (That was one flaw in his strategy of fighting alongside his men, he couldn't run over to his men on the west/middle/east flanks to tell them to pull back considering he was trying to hold his section of the line in check).
Supreme Leader Snoke which led to the Norman Knights (well not really they had another word for it which meant "soldier" but I can't quite remember it right now) charging the saxons who were not in the protective shield wall.
Of all the alternate history videos I've watched so far, this is the one I disagree with the most.
Without the Lend Lease program of the United States, I don't see how the Soviets could possibly hold off the Germans, especially if Japan opened a second front for the Soviets to deal with. Two inferior armies can beat the far superior one if they have them surrounded, forcing them to split their forces.That was the case with the Germans in WWI & WWII.
But the British and Soviet militaries were both too inferior to the Germans'; primarily because they lacked resources. The vast majority of the war machine against the Axis powers was the United States. Without that war machine, they had no chance.
Without the United States in the war, the Japanese could have freely moved their naval fleet to the Atlantic to work with the U-Boats against the British fleet, and that likely would have lead to and invasion of Britain and a complete collapse of it's empire. No Western front, so hundreds of thousands of troops can be moved to the Eastern front; by by Soviet Union. The Soviets simply don't have the supplies to accomplish holding off the Japanese and take over most of Europe. The Soviet Union would be completely gone. It doesn't matter how many soldiers you have if only half are armed going into battle against more elite and far better lead troops.
I agree with you 100% Pearl Harbor changed everything.
I think the japanese would focus first on east and southeast asia before they get serious on invading russia since east russia is underdeveloped and not that inhabited compared to west russia
and so theres less resources for japan to invade for.
It wasnt the manpower or the lend lease but the winter that won the war
I agree with you...with out American help....Japan takes over Asia....all the way to India and with all of that manpower...China and India they take over Siberia. The British with out the Yanks are boxed onto their Island. The Russians with out American steel, food, munitions and vehicles aren't able to build all of the tanks and equipment they needed to fight the Germans. Plus with no Amercian involvement the Germans develop the bomb and use it to make England sign a treaty and use it on the Russians to even the odds for their troops.
Not to mention even if there were Russian successes, the Germans could put FAR more resources into counter offensives. Without American involvement and with Japanese pressure in the east, the Germans would've likely at least broken through at Kursk. I still don't see a total Axis victory happening but they could have definitely forced the Soviets to the negotiating table.
I call BS. If the U.S. had not entered the war, the Soviet Union and Britain would not have defeated Germany and Japan. Even with the U.S in the war, Stalin was on the verge of negotiating a treaty with Germany. D-Day was a response to Stalin's ultimatum that the U.S and Britain open up a western front or he would pursue peace with Germany - and that is with the U.S in the fight, and Japan not at war with the Soviet Union.
US would still join the war due to the Battle of the Atlantic. And even if it didn't then please explain how Britain and the USSR couldn't defeat the Axis, because both did historically beat the Germans before US did anything.
And Japan cannot start a real war without bringing US into the war too, and invasion of Siberia is nothing more than a suicide-by-cop.
And please provide evidence that without Overlord the USSR would sign peace with Germany.