What if Germany did not made mistakes during Operation Barbarossa?-Hoi4 Timelapse
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 июн 2023
- An AI scenarion of WW2 where Germany doesn't make any mistakes during Operation Barbarossa.Will the operation this time work?Or Germany will capitulate like in history?
Version game:1.12
All dlc installed.
Music : For tomorrow by Savfk
Stars in her ski by Scott Buckley 
Игры
![[HoI4] AI Only Timelapse - Ultra Tech Germany vs World [WW2]](/img/1.gif)
Barbarossa was more successful than this in 1941
I agree
Well that was the problem they where advancing too fast and stretched their army and supply lines too far and therefore had massive supply problems
@@Karottenregenfuel situation and extreme distances were always gonna collapse the german front unless they took the oil from the caucasus in time
Hitler should have listened to his high command generals and not stopped the raid of army towards Moscow. Moreover, after destroying pockets in Wyazma and Bryansk Japan should have broke non agrresion pact and attack all in towards Siberia.
@@weazelsthey had no time, the only chance considering very low reserves (both in equipment and fuel) was taking Moscow in 1941 and going for separate peace deal with uncle joe
Axis had a lot more problems than mistakes
well, it could be argued that all those "problems" stemmed from the biggest mistake Germany committed: electing a warmongering nazi who did not believe in market systems and trade. Give a guy like that enough power to fully implement his ideology and any state will fail catastrophically eventually. In my view, the Third Reich was doomed before the war even began, even if it didn't seem like it at the time.
Logistics for one, manpower second and Hitler,the worst of the problems.
@@willcruz943 Yes he was bad general, that why they prolly didn't try to kill that much!! LOL!
Indeed, hitler was a problem, a bit like putin for russia today😂
Lol the oppostie he was a real hero@@willcruz943
It's impossible to not make mistakes in a war of this scale.
not probable but very much possible
well udssr could also do mistakes so that evens out
@@guano64 They had 1 front while Germany had so many
@@yeet877even they focus at one Front USSR is just too big
The problem was actually Hitler itself, he literally modified way too much the generals's plans (germany literally had the best generals of their time). Hitler would simply throw all the good plans into trash for a plan that in his opnion was better.
There's a reason why Norway was invaded before France because alot of Iron ore came from Sweden through Norwegian ports so no way would Norway be under Ally control that long without major battles or Germany might as well call the whole thing off
Germany only invaded because the allies threatened the ports with mines to force German oil tankers and cargo ships into international waters. The allies had not known that Germany was capable of a naval attack into Scandinavia
Barbarossa was the best option available to the Germans in 1941 because it was the only option available to them which offered the prospect of relieving the dire economic situation which they were in.
They were strapped for natural resources of all kinds before the war even began. By early 1941, many of them (particularly copper, chromium ore, zinc, manganese, rubber, and oil) were in short supply because their conquests in the west had begun boosting Germany's stocks but had barely added to their production. The long- term outlook for Germany was dire unless they could secure the natural resources which they needed- and the Soviet Union was the only area which had them.
On the other hand, the war against Britain was nothing but a drag on Germany's efforts to establish an enduring empire. A neutral Britain would have required a strong Kriegsmarine to enforce neutrality- and the resources for that could only have come from the army and air force which were facing an inevitable showdown with the Russians. A conquered Britain would have required the Germans to provide for the basic necessities for some 70 million British subjects- and the Germans had neither the food, natural resources, nor shipping to provide for that. They in fact struggled just to provide for a minimum supply of continental Europe.
All this said, Barbarossa was all but doomed from the outset. The German 'army' required one high speed rail line to supply each army, but the Russian rail net was so poor that each such line had to supply an army group. Between this and an equally poor road net, the Germans were forced to live off the land for foodstuffs. A May 1941 meeting of the National Socialist leadership concluded that many millions of Russians would die or be forced to flee to Siberia if the Germans took what they needed. The unofficial number thrown around was approximately 15 million. This alone guaranteed that the German armed forces would be opposed by the entire Russian people. It's little surprise that a popular Russian slogan during the conflict was "Comrade kill your German".
The Germans 'might' have eventually emerged victorious despite all of these obstacles, but the war against Britain and (above all) Lend Lease shipments doomed them. Lend Lease prevented millions of Russians from literally starving to death, supplied all but eight (8) locomotives for Russian railways, motorized Russian infantry formations, and supplied over 3/4ths of the Russian Air Force's high octane aviation fuel used by the latest generation of Lagg, Mig, and Yak fighters.
The Nazis took on entirely too many opponents, and- fortunately for the world of today- they failed.
It's funny how the ai never prioritised the caucasus where all the oil was.
@@WEMBLEYNEthat was one of the mistakes they made in real life though. They sent too many troops there when they should’ve prioritised the push on to Moscow at full strength
@@WEMBLEYNE Great point. On the other hand, I have yet to see any strategic or grand strategic level computer game that actually challenges the player once they've learned how to play the game. Instead, the AI just puts up speed bumps to be destroyed.
@@RC-pj1pr Taking Moscow likely would not have won the war. During Napoleon's campaign east he took Moscow. The Russians released all the criminals and told them if they burned Moscow they would be pardoned. The Russian government just moved further east. Moscow burned and then the French didn't have enough shelter from winter because of the scorched earth policy.
@@RC-pj1pr They couldn't, they had no fuel left, they literally needed the fuel in the caucasus and the middle east to be able to push into Moscow and futher, and even then taking Moscow wouldn't have stopped the soviets, they were doomed from the 22nd june onwards, to be fair they were doomed from when the first German soldier set foot into Poland, it was a war they were never going to win regardless. The only chance they may of had was if they had won the battle of Britain, that would have changed the war in their favour massively but by the skin of their teeth and by pure luck the allies won that battle. From then onwards Germany had the dreaded inevitable two front battle that Adolf swore he wouldn't make the same mistake as the kaisers did in ww1 fighting on 2 fronts. They were never going to win.
You see his second mistake was letting me encircle all those divisions, of course his first mistake was challenging me in the first place.
Hitlers mistake was to turn Guderian from a way to Moscow south, to encircle soviets in Kiev. Germans could capture Moscow in October getting the upper hand in terms of logistics, morale, industrial base, maybe even capturing Moscow would be the end of USSR.
Another blunder was to ignore Africa. It was not strongly defended by allies and taking Egypt and Suez canal would get Axis control over Mediterranean and Middle East. Iraq was Hitlers ally. Turkey, surrounded by Axis, would be forced to join them and attack nearby soviet oil fields from Caucasus. Its just a glimpse of what could happen.
There are a few problems with this hypothesis. The Germans focusing on Kiev and Leningrad first weren't without reason. If they focused on only Moscow, Army Group Centre's exposed flanks will be vulnerable to counterattacks. In North Africa it was a different story, British aerial and naval superiority coupled with rough conditions and stretched supply lines made any attempt to supply the Afrika Korps improbable.
@@SnickerEater836 its far more than a hypothesis.
First of all, there was no room for counterattacks from Ukraine. Soviet troops had little mobility, they were almost all on the front lines with little reserves on the back. At one point there were virtually no soldiers on the way to Moscow.
Actually Hitlers reasoning for turning Guderian were not counterattacks but naive belief that he could reach Arkhangelsk - Caspian Sea line by the end of the year anyway, and to prevent Russians from bombing Romanian oil fields from Crimea.
Hell, Guderian could get to Moscow even in September. Hitler made a decision to change his route in early July.
Almost every general advised him not to do it, because they all understood that once they get Moscow, Russia's territorial extend would rather be a problem for the Soviets.
Second thing. Egypt was only guarded by 36 000 British troops. Britain was focused on defending Britain, not Egypt. They were weak in Egypt, defending against 3x larger Italian forces.
The thing is, OKW advised Hitler to send Afrika Korps to Libya in 1940. Egypt really was an easy target. Jodl, Halder, Brauchitsch, Reader, even Keitel were arguing with Hitler to do it.
Yet Fuhrer was not interested. Italians were terrible, Graziani was a fool.
Royal Navy was not that strong. They supplied Egypt via Cape of Good Hope.
Even Churchill said that once Axis get to Middle East, the situation of Allies would be miserable even with a help of United States.
@@janemler5798 Good points, but I have to say that going for Moscow immediately after exhausting fighting at Minsk can stretch German supply lines to their limits and the infantry would be far behind. Soviet units, even though battered and shattered could still threaten the German rear by launching harassing attacks that will slow the drive to Moscow. In North Africa, the Germans still couldn't supply the Africa Korps easily as the Royal Navy is still present and the aforementioned harsh nature of North Africa. In the end though, these scenarios are just hypothetical. We can't know for sure.
@@SnickerEater836 yes for example, the Smolensk encirclement was done only by Panzergruppe Hoth and Panzergruppe Guderian. So without infrantry, 200k out of over 500k Russians managed to escape. But then infrantry caught up.
The main problem with supplying Africa was Malta. It was completely possible to invade the island but Hitler was not interested. He wanted to take Gibraltar which was not realistic at the time, and (really) Azores and Cape Verde. Later he focused on Crete. For some reason, the most important base, Malta, was not of his concern.
the main problem with this is if they didn't encricle all those people and even leningrad is that they would fleed east and fight somewhere else the last thing an army wants is to fight more men
the biggest mistake was to start Barbarossa, the second mistake was to led the Sowjets evacuate their industry. They should have bombed the railway lines around the big industrial centers or demolish them with special forces.
Operation Barbarossa was an operation that could have succeeded. The thing to do is very simple. At the beginning of November 1941, the advance would stop and instead of going on the offensive, it would be defensive until the end of winter. Trenches would be dug and the line would be completely defended. Logistics would also be strengthened and the necessary supplies and ammunition would be stockpiled on the front line. In this way Army Group Center would not suffer too many casualties and would be ready for the next offensive. After that, Moscow must definitely fall first, Stalingrad should not have been the priority, this was a mistake. The most important place after Moscow fell was the oil fields in Baku. The Luftwaffe should definitely have achieved air superiority in the Caucasus, sent paratroopers to Baku and captured it, and then Army Group should have advanced into the Caucasus from South Crimea. Then, in a joint operation with Finland, Leningrad, the last strategic position, would be taken and the Soviets would retreat to the Ural Mountains and the war would unofficially end.
you know the germans had problems with logistics? as their railways we're smaller than the russians and they had to rebuild railways everywhere they went also like man that's the thing if he just dug up and entrenched he would give soviets time and the last thing hitler wanted is the USSR having time to recover thats was the whole point of this super complicated multiple step operation to destroy forces of the soviet union before they could regroup and counter the germans effectively and they failed that in the battle of moscow giving more time to the soviets will equal to the germans getting more fucked
The biggest mistake was to START Barbarossa when the UK had not been defeated yet. Never fight a two front war. Period.
But lucky for us, the certifiable geniuses among us often fail spectacularly.
From a modern German in Hamburg who is happy not to demonstrate daily how high a German shepherd can jump. (Just for clarification: about as high as a straight raised right arm to shoulder height).
Their main goal was always to attack the USSR, but they only occupied France because they declared war on Germany after the attack on Poland. The Germans tried to get peace many times during 1940 and offered to give up all the occupied territory on the west in exchange for support for their attack on USSR but were denied by UK who obviously had knowledge about US joining them later.
I think invading the UK would've drained Germany as well. By the time Germany attacked the USSR they lost the battle for Britain, Germany had a lot more aircraft used to support ground troops then bombers to destroy ships. So they would've had to somehow build up a powerful navy to defeat the royal navy.. which takes years.. or build up enough bombers to limit the navys options in the channel. Lets not forget German codes were broken as well by the allies so I'd wager invading the UK might've actually been harder. Another factor people seem to forget is Germany was running out of oil.. the battle for Stalingrad.. was fought to secure the oil needed to continue war efforts since the axis was on the backfoot in Africa. (the caucuses at the time had a lot of oil)
they were not worried by english the main problem was to stop bombing english industries
Lebensraum calls for the occupation and "expulsion" of slavs from eastern lands to make way for the fast growing german population. That was germanys whole goal. An invasion of the USSR was inevitable, its just stalin was too stupid to see it. also even if they did focus on the British, it would be impossible for them to defeat them. especially after the battle of britain which they lost.
@@aaronwoodworth7338not really Germans had a massive synthetic oil industry and they had been extracting Romanian oil fields by the time they attacked Stalingrad the goal of operation was not just getting the oil fields it would be moral victory for Germans(since city named by Stalin himself) and military industrial facilities were around Stalingrad too. But my personal opinion it was a mistake to attack a city itself rather than forcing soviets to plain (Which German armor and air power could be used for blitzkrieg tactics)
Not sure if the AI scenario takes into consideration logistics - but I think this is really where the German Army failed especially when they were far into Russia.
Im going to make the argument that Barbarosa was a near perfect operation. The invasion happened on schedule and the campaign in Greece did not interupt anything due to very well planned logistics.
The problems began on December 7th 1941 when Hitler foolishly declared war on the United States. That was followed up by a clownish operation into the caucasus where Hitler ran two armies into one another that culminated in the Battle of Stalingrad.
In the unknown time between invading Russia and only being at war with the UK, one can wonder how different the world would be if Hitler had wanted to invade England and take over Africa and the middle east. Or a world where Neville Chamberlain is PM and peace is made with Germany in a combined effort against Russia.
He did want to invade England. But he couldn’t get air or naval superiority
only 7 subscribers? this feels wrong
btw u just gained another one :D
Thank you for support!
Comeback after few months and you will see few thousands of subscribers
One of the biggest blunders was the reflector plate in the Enigma. Without that, the major weakness of Enigma (never encoding a letter into itself) would have been removed, making it unlikely to be broken.
Their main mistake in barbarossa is that they started it
Facts
Fax man
@@thechosenone7400 Falx man
no not really, the thing is they disn’t dig up at winter which caused their soldiers to freeze
@@fanatikgalatasarayl9429 This is too childish an assessment of the situation.
norway would have been taken way before due to iron ore. Also Greece destroyed Italy which led to Barbarossa delays. If not, southern flank would have been attached by the British.
I mean axis pretty much just lost all of its manpower with that push lol
thats about how its of went if not diverting most of the power to stalingrad and also not ordering them to stop.
how did you get those statistics?
When you look to the casualties, i am not sure that Axis made no mistake....
The question in the title is "What if...". I think Robert Harris answered it well in "Fatherland"
Those logistics in peak 1942 must’ve been a nightmare. How could one nation even feed its troops, replenish ammo, give air support to soldiers in practically a different world so far East
Question is. Would the atomic bomb yield the same outcome anyways but they would have just used it everywhere
It probably would. If hitler didn’t surrender after the bombs were dropped, a coup would have occurred
I'd argue Operation Barbarossa was a mistake in itself, making this kind of redundant
The only mistake was battle for stalingrad, it was the turning point of war
the mistake wasan't stalingrad it was the thought that they could wipe out the soviet army and win within 4 months (Have you noticed a trend with russia? everyone who thinks it will just fall in on itself after a while, loses its happened with napoleon and hitler) @@adult.hither
Logistics, weather, terrain conditions and scale of war.
That territorial gain in Russia without the capture of the Caucasus oil fields?
I bet your pc specs are good
Alternative title: what if the Allies didn't realize they could d-day(maybe they tried to or maybe they got blocked by navy but still the soviets held until January 1945 the Allies have no excuse for not landing anything with the industry they had.
Actually start the operation on 10 July is a huge mistake
Did you micro manage or give orders?
1) Error: not delete Britany.
2) Error: no ocupy Africa.
3) Error: attack SSSR.
Just imagine Stalin being brought to Berlin in shackles, his trial, execution being filmed to be shown to the German populace in movie theaters.
fap fap fap fap
😅
And how would they capture him?
Then August 1945 rolls around, Berlin is hit with an atomic bomb with a decapitating attack.
they didn't really make mistakes and if they did they we're in high risk high reward situations like when hitler send down half of the southern army to capture the soviet fleeing army in the caucus because the soviets started to withdraw and retreat when the axis tried to encricle them so they tried outrunning them if that worked the axis would have captured most of the caucus as the soviets still could reinforce it from iran but they failed and the 6th army was left to alone take stalingrad
Your typical German game :D
The mistake was being ordered to move vehicals through rivers of mud that destroyed or wore out every last vehicle they had.
That wasn’t a specific thing that hampered the German war effort. Major infrastructure didn’t really exist in the Soviet Union so the Germans either transported by train or on roads. They didn’t transport materials through mud that’s impossible
@@penguin3540 Actually it is a specific thing I'm talking about. I'm not talking about mobile forces being ordered along the effing autobahn. I'm talking about them being moved through a sea or mud.
One can see how stupid the AI is in this game...moving units from the Russian front to Spain and back again! lol
Used to love this game but not played it for over a year!
Nice vid though!
Thanks,also with AI they move their units from the front line with Russia because they have supply issues,and the more divisions are the supply issues become bigger,but they don't need to move their units all the way over to Spain,don't know why they go so long.
hey man i got one question how tf do you make these vids?
Some of them take a lot of work like these with the text spechees,others you need to record more videos because in some of them the AI is different than you want to,in other you need to create new mods for the scenarios you want to do and that takes some days
@@trueion21 and how do you observe through the whole world?
@@ajaturoalba6898 I pick a country that is not involving in any war and observe
@@trueion21hellooo i have a question how can you see the flags of the countries?
@@tomydacunha7208 There are mods like Timelapse Overhaul that make this chage
How did you make this??
Starting in August?! LOL
Invading Russia early in the summer instead of being delayed by helping Italy would have made a good difference too
What if Germany did not made mistakes, and going to war, but make Friendship and Piece in Europe ? 😇
What if Germany had launched Barbarossa on schedule?
Then the german troops might have reached Moscow before the reinforcement from Siberia arrived. They might have launched an attempt to take the city. They might have succeeded. I dont think it wouldve changed the longterm outcome.
@@JohnJohn-jq7cd yes, taking Moscow in and of itself wouldn't have guaranteed anything (ask Napoleon), but if Stalin was stubborn enough to keep the government in Moscow and fight to the last man, that could have. If Germany could have wiped out the Soviet government by the end of 1941 and left the Soviets with a more chaotic command structure, then its likely a German victory of some sort would have happened. Assuming their same treatment of conquered slavic people though and a substantial unconquered swath of Soviet territory, then regardless of whatever armistice might be signed, there would have been massive partisan activity for years. The Germans would have been so tied down in guerilla warfare and troops to try to control massive land areas that it wouldn't have been a lasting nazi peace, especially if Hitler repeated his declaration of war on the US. At some point, probably mid to late 1940's a landing in France or a fight up through Italy still takes place.
@@justindunn7467 agreed. A more concret effect of capturing Moscow is that if you look at a railroad map of the URSS, Moscow is like the center of a spider web. It was linking north center east and south together.
That would have also crippled the soviets. But we can’t be sure the German would’ve been in a position to occupy and keep Moscow in late 41’.
To really win, the Germans would have needed Ukrain for agriculture, Caucasus for oil, Moscow for logistics, Leningrad and everything east of Finland to cut off crucial allied supplies. And maybe promising all the different ethnic groups freedom and indépendance instead of annihilation.
Let the Ukrainians self-govern, and fascist Russians handle the communist guérilla east of Moscow, with German support. Germany would just keep everything between Poland and north of Ukraine.
These I think were the victory conditions, maybe achievable over 2 years.
@@JohnJohn-jq7cd No actually. The Soviets had great redundancy in their rail network. They could easily move troops and ammunition around Moscow.
@@JohnJohn-jq7cdNone of those would have been achievable, Germany was doomed from the start. Early WW2 was already a miracle for how it went for the Nazis.
Launching it in the first place was a mistake. The question is moot.
In real life, the invasion itself was the mistake, in a game you can 'fix' that mistake by winning which is not possible given the numbers 'game' at play with Russia USA and just Germany and friends. Also if the mistake continues of not countering the RAF but bomb cities in the UK, the RAF in this alternate timeline would also break german air forces and open them up to being bombed to rubble just like happened in history.
no mistakes
only happy accidents
The invasion wasn't a mistake, if you read their declaration of war as i did, you'll see that the main reason of the invasion was preparing for offense into German territory, so they did strike first. Then, the main mistake was a loss of battle of Britain and Northern Africa campaign. And the worst mistake they did was bad relationship with the new world which is the U.S. they could try to friend themselves with 'Murica so states wouldn't supply Britain untill its fail. With it Germans could push into the russia without lend lease problems and without need of holding big part of the forces in the west. Without British blockade btw, jews would be transported onto Madagascar
It wasn't a mistake. Germany desperately needed oil and it was the only way to get it
@@Tuskoid88 well, there was Iraq, and if Germany really wanted to, she could have dragged Turkey into the war and captured the Middle East
@@Artur-qq1ef6zm1l iraq was very poor back then and it didn't have much of oil yet
thanks for writing Kyiv der right way ❤
WW2 was a perfect storm for Germany. Disgraced nation, united by a charismatic leader. Technology advancement, begging to be used in a total war. Brilliant generals, yearning to utilize this technology and finally given full respect and freedom from the state. Divided and morally bankrupt allies. Soviet Union in shambles, disorganized and weak, due to Stalin's paranoia.
Everyone else kept making mistakes. When they stopped making mistakes, Germany stopped winning. Perfect storm had passed.
Otto von Bismarck adviced 1888: do not enter Russia,not marching deep in Russia...
WW1 Imperial General- staff followed Bismarck and saved German's soldiers from annihilation like Stalingrad 42; Hitler forget Bismarck and raised hope about motorized infantry and tanks; however tanks and IFV/APC vehicles needs fuel ; USSR donated fuel for Wermacht to win against France 1940; USSR not planned to join coalition with UK.
Which errors exactly?😅
Yes, what if Germany did not "made" mistakes during Operation Barbarossa?
And what if Russia did not made mistakes during Operation Barbarossa?
When France falls the Allies army size doesn't not change, France 2mio man strong at the time...
In Hoi4 they don't have 2 mio.They have more less army,and the stats are correctly and are made in the game.And something important:there is not just the army size but also the reserves and the reserves are not just some small numbers the reserves are big
My every single game when I’m random country not Germany
Barbarossa itself was the mistake.
2:23 the entire Europe is axis except for nuetral switzerland.
The first step was a mistake.
basically if germany put they tanks in moscow
I have a counter question. What if Russians or Soviets did not make so many mistakes in 1941? The war would end in 1942 or 1943 latest , probably with some peace between USSR and Germany and the western part of Europe would have remained under Nazi Germany......so there are always scenarios...
What if. What if France did not make mistakes. What if Soviet Union did not make mistakes.
Comitern casulities +25 million
Maybe only mistake was to start whole operation. Soviet Union stopped germans before help from USA had time to be really big factor.
axis was kinda late ngl
The mistake was to attack in the first place.
Stalin went all in on Stalingrad had they given up on that city it could have made all the difference
Barbarossa was the mistake
Why are axis casualties so high in a win?
In real life the Soviets had the most casualties,but in this scenario Axis have.Italians lose a lot of men in Africa plus the Soviets in 1942-1943 they become stronger,Germany has to break their defense lines that cost many casualties,plus the fight in Urals in cold winter it take many casualties.
It's an interesting concept but i personally just do not agree it would have happened this way. At the start of Barbarossa, the Germans were already having major issues with supply and resources. Their allies in the Romanians and Italians were just not up to the task in holding their part on the Russian front. The Germans constantly had to divert resources to those locations to help them. Not to mention, the further east they pushed the greater the strain was on their logistics and re supply chain. There is just no realistic way Germany would have been able to continue to pump resources so far east without interruption. The allies faced these issues too and a lot of time had to focus on a single operation or base of attack rather than supplying all fronts. Moscow falling would have been a blow but if you look at the Russian history in warfare it shows that it would also have stood as a rallying cry for resistance. It would have hardened them. At that point in the operation the Russian war machine was in full swing, unmolested, sending massive train caravans to the west and would have still overwhelmed the Germans. While the Germans would not have been able to properly supply it's ever-expanding eastern front. Not to mention, with the time table changing in this situation, how would the rest of the allies behaved? would the western front have been opened up sooner? I think it would have. I think that the moment they stepped foot on russian soil, they were doomed.
Can we make it true please?
Timelapse decent but why the title. It’s literally just a normal Germany game.
In the normal Germany game,Barbarossa is successful
That's why I put this title
There are unrealistic amount of axis army and too low amount for comintern. In reality comintern only lost much more army then total amount of comintern army in this video.
What software or game is he running?
Bruh it says it in the title
It is Hearts of Iron IV
Even the ai had better plans than hitler💀
I mean to go south to Stalingrad was the greatest mistake. It madet the front larger, supply way longer. Better was to focus the mid to cut north and south suppline line.
Germany made almost no mistakes, it was just fighting against the world.
Ridiculous. The Logistik would have been a pure Nightmare with such Front + anglosaxons would have won in West + atomic bomb on Berlin in 1945. Sole result: No Iron curtain in 1947.
There was no mistakes....
Can anyone answer this question seriously. If Hitler hated mankind so much, why build only the best to keep his troop, pilot safe. Why not just build coffin like UK, USA, Russia. Weird ha. Maybe Allies didn't care for their people, but unit = money Russia I understand but not UK or USA. Not saying war good. But weird ha. Why build Units bad when you own 80% of world resources, tech, manpower etc. Almost like a good way to have a kill off. Remember, without a Will and Testament, the Crown gets all die soldiers and Civilian land/money if uncontested. That is why Dog-Tags are used.
Here there are more mistakes than IRL. Invasion on USSR on July? Come on!
I let AI to decide when to attack,so the date is different
what's the music
"For tomorrow" by Savfk
"Stars in her ski" by Scott Buckley
Why were there Japanese troops on the eastern front? Shouldn't they focus on Asia?
I saw that the Chinese were defeated early than it were in history. So they had many troops and sent some of them in the Eastern Front
I see. Thank you for the clarification.
Great Video BTW!!!
Thanks!!
@@trueion21"Then they were in history" Chinese weren't defeated
I dont think barbarossa had a real chance of success. German tactics were all about speed, and their economy couldn't sustain a long war. Once the Soviet war machine of men and material was properly mobilized, the germans were toast. Slowing down the depth of offensive penetration only gives the Soviets time to stiffen the front line further west.
Why norway was not invaded after denmark ?
They did not have naval superiority in the region.If you want to naval invade a country first you need to have naval superiority in thet region
Barbarossa was the mistake Germany made in 1941.
This video makes a HUGE mistake, it shows Norway as an Allies country throughout.... Norway fell to Germany in 1940
What if Soviets did not make mistakes during Barbarossa?
The German logistics could not sustain the campaign. Most of the mistakes were because of that.
We'd be speaking German right now if Hitler didn't swing back to Kiev & kept pushing on Moscow.
Good little fun PC game. How Axis could have really won.
1) Started making better tech support into Gasafirers in 1938 not 1943 with Goring
2) Rebuild all of Poland rail lines to Russia gauge. (work force of ex-polish army)
2,00000 and moved them straight into Russia once attacked to help Germany rail battalions so line repair to about 20km per day. That is about 3600km track and warehouse in before snow 1941. Moscow is, like, 1800km so a lot of in between network could easily be done.
3) All Germany locomotive +running stock built from 1939 Russia gauge 2500+ built =1939-1941 alone.
4) Build 300,000 + Gasafirers trucks to unload trains in Russia and network.
So Germany logic's basically up from 30% to maybe 75% as good as Russia supply lines.
5) Only build the 88mm gun,1 inf gun,1little inf mach gun 1 heavy Mach gun,Stug,panzer4,tiger 1 Bf109 (38-41) Fw190(41-45), etc have Me 262 by (42)
If more work put into Logistics, syn fuel/ gas-wood fuel per war and push only Russia Centre and South. Don't push north, let Finland, axis minor slowly drain Russia out of North zone.
6) If axis pushed Russia and controlled Baku oil fields by the end of 1942. Russia in 1943 couldn't have attacked =tanks or feed = trucks or moved = trucks.
7) USA 1943 couldn't have supply Russia oil needs at war. Yes, 10% at best.
8) All axis would have Oil 1943 100% Fleets/Subs Training pilot /Tanks etc.
9)) All germ indust, at 100% 1943 with war economy.
10) All Russia indust at most 25% without oil. Zero training pilot, tanks etc.
11) Russia death rate would 1943 go up 4 times and civil rate 10 times. Lend lease would be cut by easily 80% only have from south. Norway's area would be Wolf pack heaven and axis control air. Zero carrier's zero Russia air from zero fuel.
11) Hitler does deal with Turkey 1943 land zone for Buka oil field to Turkey for them to join axis. That another 5million Men into supply, army, axis production.
12) Hitler with new axis minor can push into southern Russia even more but free up Germany manpower to send back home to build the next tech level machines 1943 winter for death kill Russia 1944 summer. Germany would have (PERFECT) Panther,Tiger1 FW 190 as fight bombers ME 262 fighters only. Building 4engine bombers to kill last industry in the Urals. Nothing Russia has could stop them. Panther full trained vs T34 untrained.etc. Dennis-Michael.
Keep dreaming
Germany's biggest mistake was Barbarossa itself
Germanys entire goal for the war was to take the Soviet Union. If you read mein kampf, you’ll see that hitler wanted to defeat the Soviets even by the 1920s
..but the point of the war was to fail...and for Germany to be demolished...
These sorts of questions are so stupid. "What if the Germans did not make mistakes, while the Soviets continued to make all their mistakes? Huh? What would have happened???"
Give me a break.
Nothing happens in these videos.
first 30 second falsh! and if i know moscow no falls!
The question in the title is posed in the wrong way. Germany made mistakes because they had not the men, the resources, the technology to conquer such huge land defended by millions soldiers. The mistakes were made out of this considerations. Yeah, they made mistakes to divide their forces along the front, but even if they kept the bulk in a single area, the Red Army would have outflanked them. So, sooner or later even without mistakes.
World is safe!!!!!!
I see what you did here. You focused all the forces on Moscow instead of trying to take Leningrad and Stalingrad. But you forget the Italians would've had to hold up their end of things and not get caught up in Yugoslavia. Rommel would had to have done better in North Africa. A lot of things would've had to have gone right, but didn't. IFFFFFF the codebreakers failed to crack the Japanese code at Midway the US would've lost in the Pacific and ended up diverting all war efforts to save Hawaii which would've delayed Lend Lease for USSR and UK. That means no North Africa push and definitely no D-Day. And Hitler would've had to have been sane and not craved capturing cities named after his communist enemies.
Do you think the Loss In North Africa was Rommels fault or something else? as far as I have know, I am not sure if Rommel could have done better in Africa whit what he had. corcet me if I am wrong I am no ekspert.
jesus.
Showcases HOI4's failure in partisan warfare.
Germans did only one mistake! THERE WAS NO NEED TO OCCUPY MOSCOW....NO NEED!
Does America not exist in this universe???
well ask urself this question.... WHAT IF Soviets would have stopped at their Soviet Border and signed a peace treaty with Germany.