I understand the decision to disable comments upon the upload. Thank you so much for doing this video! It was very nice to learn more about the Iran theater in regard to lend lease.
Here's the best alternative timeline, IMO. On October 30, 1939, U-56 fired 3 torpedoes at HMS Nelson. In real life, the torpedoes hit the ship, but failed to detonate. In the alternate timeline, all three torpedoes hit true, and send the ship to the bottom. The sinking of one ship, even Nelson, may not seem like a game changer, except on this day there are several very important figures onboard. First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, Admiral of the Home Fleet, Sir Charles Forbes, and First Sea Lord, Sir Dudley Pound had convened a conference with the Royal Navy leadership to discuss the recent sinking of the Royal Oak. With Churchill dead, the Earl of Halifax, Edward Wood becomes Prime Minister in May of 1940, and the UK signs a peace agreement with Germany shortly after the fall of France.
The one that gives them the best odds of winning is either: a) Germany didn't invade Poland b) If Hitler didn't invade Poland but invaded France instead and then focused on the British empire in the Middle East while leaving a buffer zone (Poland) between the USSR and Germany. USA would not have gone to war over France. c) The Germans and Japanese worked together against the SU (not in Japan's interests)
@@Etaoinshrdlu69 Much of the British leadership was looking to find a peace deal with Germany after France fell; Edward Wood was one such individual. Had Churchill not been around, he most likely would have become Prime Minister.
Regarding Case Blue, I have to disagree with you slightly. Given that Paulus, in our timeline, got to within 100 yards of cutting the Wolga off from trade with the Caucasus, I would have to say that it might have worked, had AG South stayed together, with AG B splitting off afterwards. Of course, the additional amount of German troops available to guard the flanks would have forced an adjustment for Saturn. Or maybe the Soviets would have thrown those troops into operation Mars instead. Either way, I don't think that it would have ended the Soviet Union in and by itself.
There was a video on You tube that showcased a negotiation between Germany and Poland, I believe AH tried 5 times to negotiate terms to get the territory back, make sure Poland had a port and not go to war with the West (France and UK) as he somewhat was infatuated with the UK Empire and its achievements and actually had much admiration for them. However, that video was taken down twice by RUclips. But this was not to be and then because of W. Churchill's meddling Germany decided to make a deal with Russia.... the rest is history.
I suggest, for a full, detailed and very interesting account of Hitler and Germany's relations with Poland you go on line to Yale Law School The Avalon Project Documents in Law History Diplomacy Judgement : The Agression Against Poland
The Axis could have won if Hitler didn't invade Poland (not a real threat anyways) but invaded France instead and then focused on the British empire in the Middle East while leaving a buffer zone (Poland) between the USSR and Germany. USA would not have gone to war over France.
@@Etaoinshrdlu69 nonsense, why should he invade france first than poland, when in poland is all the lost german territory and france and britain declared war first after the german invasion of poland.
I have always wondered what would have happened if at Dunkirk, Germany had of captured the British forces to use as leverage in negotiations, while transferring 250 - 500k troops into Libya as soon as France fell, to advance through Algeria, Morocco and across Suez into the Middle East, right under Russia's underbelly before Barbarossa.
Had 250k British troops been captured at Dunkirk, the pressure on Churchill to negotiate would have been too great for him to resist. I suspect that a very reluctant truce would have been agreed, though the British government would have continued to conspire to get the USA into the war.
@@Etaoinshrdlu69superior air force based on what factors? The Luftwaffe dominated every air force it came across until the battle of Britain. The Luftwaffe was winning the battle of Britain until they switched from military targets to civilian targets. This switch in targets allowed the RAF to regroup
"the German population in Bohemia had been the ascendant population there since the 1700s" by looking at census numbers from the early to mid 1800s you'll see that the German population there was steadily and surely declining, so "ascendent" is not how I would describe the German element in Bohemia pre WW2. Czechs and Slovaks had been ascendant the previous century.
Talking about Axis succes in WWII always have to involvement of Poland as starting point. IMHO Germany only could win it if Poland agreed to be "sort of shield against of Soviet Union" on east and hold on, while Germany deal with France and Great Britain on West. Partition of Poland in September 1939 inevitably leads Germany to war on two fronts sooner or later.
Well I’m 4hrs in and what I would suggest is two scenarios: 1. Everything historically accurate with the exception of invading the Soviet Union. The moment the Germans had the British expeditionary forces surrounded at Dunkirk if the the British dont sign a peace treaty within 24hrs then the Germans liquidate the pocket and from that point on focus on knocking Britain out of the war. They do that by making North Africa and the Mediterranean including the Middle East [because of oil] the main theatre of operations. In this scenario they could’ve brought Spain into the war or at least take Gibraltar and threaten British colonies and if successful form an alliance with the Muslim world with the goal and aims of stimulating a Muslim 5th column in southern Russia! Meanwhile Japan could basically do what they did because it also threaten Britain in the pacific and in the Indian Ocean. 2. It’s been a while but keeping everything the same with the one caveat of following general von Rundstedt’s plan for the invasion of the USSR which was preparing for a more longer war. His plan suggested the German army form a defensive line from Odessa through Kiev, Smolensk, to Leningrad and settling in for the winter. Now I might be off a little bit on the defensive line but the idea was to form a defensive line from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea while taking a defensive position for the winter and bringing up supplies in order to get ready for a final push the following spring In retrospect given all the problems the German army in regards to logistics keeping up with the advance, the great rasputitsa, supplies and that first devastating winter with lack of winter clothing, wear and tear on the equipment, frostbite etc…. In the end Operation Typhoon ended up being a huge mistake. The rest is history!
The problem is the Mediterranean strategy hinges on the Italian Navy, which while fairly competent all things considered and well equipped with some fairly good ships had an outdated doctrine, was poorly led strategically, and was totally outnumbered. Germany had zero presence in the Mediterranean. Inciting the Muslim world is a no-go for all of Germany's allies or prospective allies (Italy, Vichy France, and Spain all have extensive colonies, and Japan just took the Muslim DEI which it intends to keep under control) so that strategy would not be popular at all. The biggest issue is America, who can outproduce every other power combined, will still ship enough men and material to supply itself and every allied army and then some (America made more tanks than any belligerent could use at one time and had to shift production irl). And either way they get the bomb in 1945, and from that point it is endless mushroom clouds over Germany until surrender. Overall, ww2 was not a war capable of being won by the Axis, only being lost by the allies if they just decided to give up, but thanks to the hyper aggression war of annihilation the axis chose to wage, that was highly unlikely.
I hesitate to entertain very elaborate alternative histories, but as a topic this hasn't been considered very often very fairly. I have to correct the premise a little however. Finland was never an additional signatory to the tripartite pact and not technically an axis country. There wasn't any military or political alliance between finland and the axis powers, the anti-comintern pact is the closest to anything to that effect. That being said, soon after the winter war the relations between finland and germany started to improve again and especially military co-operation was close from then on. Finland was a co-belligerent country during the continuation war, fighting for its own goals.
Just take a look at the map in the first hour of the video. Why do i see so many videos and articles of why Germany lost WW2? Just look at the map mate.
This is the perfect video to explain why "It's impossible for the Axis to win" is true. The only way the axis could have won is simply if the axis wasn't fascist or more of the world was
If you enjoyed this video, please like and leave a comment. It helps the channel a lot. Many thanks.
I understand the decision to disable comments upon the upload. Thank you so much for doing this video! It was very nice to learn more about the Iran theater in regard to lend lease.
Here's the best alternative timeline, IMO. On October 30, 1939, U-56 fired 3 torpedoes at HMS Nelson. In real life, the torpedoes hit the ship, but failed to detonate. In the alternate timeline, all three torpedoes hit true, and send the ship to the bottom. The sinking of one ship, even Nelson, may not seem like a game changer, except on this day there are several very important figures onboard. First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, Admiral of the Home Fleet, Sir Charles Forbes, and First Sea Lord, Sir Dudley Pound had convened a conference with the Royal Navy leadership to discuss the recent sinking of the Royal Oak. With Churchill dead, the Earl of Halifax, Edward Wood becomes Prime Minister in May of 1940, and the UK signs a peace agreement with Germany shortly after the fall of France.
The UK would just grow a new head.
The one that gives them the best odds of winning is either:
a) Germany didn't invade Poland
b) If Hitler didn't invade Poland but invaded France instead and then focused on the British empire in the Middle East while leaving a buffer zone (Poland) between the USSR and Germany. USA would not have gone to war over France.
c) The Germans and Japanese worked together against the SU (not in Japan's interests)
@@Etaoinshrdlu69
Much of the British leadership was looking to find a peace deal with Germany after France fell; Edward Wood was one such individual. Had Churchill not been around, he most likely would have become Prime Minister.
@@Etaoinshrdlu69 tell me you got your understanding of history from hearts of Iron 4
Very interesting, was always fascinated about japans role in the pact. Thank you AM
This was really interesting! Thank you AM & Furius Pertinax (Marcus)! And thank you for uploading it for free!
Thank you for the discussion. Very interesting and well informed.
Regarding Case Blue, I have to disagree with you slightly. Given that Paulus, in our timeline, got to within 100 yards of cutting the Wolga off from trade with the Caucasus, I would have to say that it might have worked, had AG South stayed together, with AG B splitting off afterwards.
Of course, the additional amount of German troops available to guard the flanks would have forced an adjustment for Saturn. Or maybe the Soviets would have thrown those troops into operation Mars instead. Either way, I don't think that it would have ended the Soviet Union in and by itself.
Great stream!
Very, very good. Absolutely profound imho. Respect.
Great review with the allied power victory
There was a video on You tube that showcased a negotiation between Germany and Poland, I believe AH tried 5 times to negotiate terms to get the territory back, make sure Poland had a port and not go to war with the West (France and UK) as he somewhat was infatuated with the UK Empire and its achievements and actually had much admiration for them. However, that video was taken down twice by RUclips. But this was not to be and then because of W. Churchill's meddling Germany decided to make a deal with Russia.... the rest is history.
I suggest, for a full, detailed and very interesting account of Hitler and Germany's relations with Poland you go on line to Yale Law School The Avalon Project Documents in Law History Diplomacy Judgement : The Agression Against Poland
well if it was a video on RUclips then it must be fact. And if it taken down then it must be a conspiracy.
The Axis could have won if Hitler didn't invade Poland (not a real threat anyways) but invaded France instead and then focused on the British empire in the Middle East while leaving a buffer zone (Poland) between the USSR and Germany. USA would not have gone to war over France.
@@Etaoinshrdlu69 nonsense, why should he invade france first than poland, when in poland is all the lost german territory and france and britain declared war first after the german invasion of poland.
@@Etaoinshrdlu69the real world did not work like hearts of Iron 4
Fascinating stream!
yall are so real for this
noice
I have always wondered what would have happened if at Dunkirk, Germany had of captured the British forces to use as leverage in negotiations, while transferring 250 - 500k troops into Libya as soon as France fell, to advance through Algeria, Morocco and across Suez into the Middle East, right under Russia's underbelly before Barbarossa.
Their mistake was invading Poland to begin with
Had 250k British troops been captured at Dunkirk, the pressure on Churchill to negotiate would have been too great for him to resist. I suspect that a very reluctant truce would have been agreed, though the British government would have continued to conspire to get the USA into the war.
@@tancreddehauteville764 Doubtful. The British still had a superior airforce and navy.
@@Etaoinshrdlu69superior air force based on what factors? The Luftwaffe dominated every air force it came across until the battle of Britain. The Luftwaffe was winning the battle of Britain until they switched from military targets to civilian targets. This switch in targets allowed the RAF to regroup
@@jamesstutts1681 German airforce had no strategic ability so they would have lost the battle of Britain anyways
"the German population in Bohemia had been the ascendant population there since the 1700s" by looking at census numbers from the early to mid 1800s you'll see that the German population there was steadily and surely declining, so "ascendent" is not how I would describe the German element in Bohemia pre WW2. Czechs and Slovaks had been ascendant the previous century.
Your voice sounds very attractive man :D
Talking about Axis succes in WWII always have to involvement of Poland as starting point. IMHO Germany only could win it if Poland agreed to be "sort of shield against of Soviet Union" on east and hold on, while Germany deal with France and Great Britain on West. Partition of Poland in September 1939 inevitably leads Germany to war on two fronts sooner or later.
Well I’m 4hrs in and what I would suggest is two scenarios:
1. Everything historically accurate with the exception of invading the Soviet Union.
The moment the Germans had the British expeditionary forces surrounded at Dunkirk if the the British dont sign a peace treaty within 24hrs then the Germans liquidate the pocket and from that point on focus on knocking Britain out of the war.
They do that by making North Africa and the Mediterranean including the Middle East [because of oil] the main theatre of operations.
In this scenario they could’ve brought Spain into the war or at least take Gibraltar and threaten British colonies and if successful form an alliance with the Muslim world with the goal and aims of stimulating a Muslim 5th column in southern Russia!
Meanwhile Japan could basically do what they did because it also threaten Britain in the pacific and in the Indian Ocean.
2. It’s been a while but keeping everything the same with the one caveat of following general von Rundstedt’s plan for the invasion of the USSR which was preparing for a more longer war.
His plan suggested the German army form a defensive line from Odessa through Kiev, Smolensk, to Leningrad and settling in for the winter.
Now I might be off a little bit on the defensive line but the idea was to form a defensive line from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea while taking a defensive position for the winter and bringing up supplies in order to get ready for a final push the following spring
In retrospect given all the problems the German army in regards to logistics keeping up with the advance, the great rasputitsa, supplies and that first devastating winter with lack of winter clothing, wear and tear on the equipment, frostbite etc….
In the end Operation Typhoon ended up being a huge mistake.
The rest is history!
The problem is the Mediterranean strategy hinges on the Italian Navy, which while fairly competent all things considered and well equipped with some fairly good ships had an outdated doctrine, was poorly led strategically, and was totally outnumbered. Germany had zero presence in the Mediterranean. Inciting the Muslim world is a no-go for all of Germany's allies or prospective allies (Italy, Vichy France, and Spain all have extensive colonies, and Japan just took the Muslim DEI which it intends to keep under control) so that strategy would not be popular at all. The biggest issue is America, who can outproduce every other power combined, will still ship enough men and material to supply itself and every allied army and then some (America made more tanks than any belligerent could use at one time and had to shift production irl). And either way they get the bomb in 1945, and from that point it is endless mushroom clouds over Germany until surrender. Overall, ww2 was not a war capable of being won by the Axis, only being lost by the allies if they just decided to give up, but thanks to the hyper aggression war of annihilation the axis chose to wage, that was highly unlikely.
Sad 😭
If only.
3:05:11 Mohammad Mosaddegh
I hesitate to entertain very elaborate alternative histories, but as a topic this hasn't been considered very often very fairly.
I have to correct the premise a little however. Finland was never an additional signatory to the tripartite pact and not technically an axis country. There wasn't any military or political alliance between finland and the axis powers, the anti-comintern pact is the closest to anything to that effect.
That being said, soon after the winter war the relations between finland and germany started to improve again and especially military co-operation was close from then on. Finland was a co-belligerent country during the continuation war, fighting for its own goals.
Just take a look at the map in the first hour of the video. Why do i see so many videos and articles of why Germany lost WW2? Just look at the map mate.
Consider doing one of your lectures on Nazism
wolf fafa
This is the perfect video to explain why "It's impossible for the Axis to win" is true.
The only way the axis could have won is simply if the axis wasn't fascist or more of the world was
Disagree, hard.
@@fatpig8989 that's fine. 8905 is still correct
@@davidr2802 No
@@fatpig8989cope?
@@jankalivoda1196 No
The only way the axis powers win is if usa joins the axis 😅
Germany sure as hell could have won if Britian signed peace and they didnt declare war on the US.
No n@z flag but the rainbow one. But at least we are not speaking german, they say😅
Stay on topic
This is wishful thinking for AM...
I doubt you know anything about him, then. Nothing about this would satisfy him.