What if the Soviets had joined the Germans in the WW2? Would Nukes save the Allies? (Part 3 of 3)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- The 4th chapter in our educational series on evolution of war and warfare tech - War transformed - is live here: share.graphyap... Accessible through the Graphy app. (subscription streaming service) The chapter covers the renaissance period and the warfare renaissance.
This video offers a concluding chapter to our alternate history WW2 timeline where Soviets joined the Axis! Watch it to see how would the nuclear weapons change the course of the war. What would happen to the Soviets, Germans and the Japanese? How would the British fare in all this? And would US manage to turn the tide of war as it did for real?
First two parts can be watched here: • What if the Soviets ha...
and here: • Alternate history: Wha...
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestini...
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkov
Suggest country pairs you'd like to see in future videos over at our website: www.binkov.com
You can also browse for other Binkov T-Shirts or Binkov merch, via the store at our website, binkov.com/
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
The most unrealistic thing here is UK apologizing to Ireland.
LOL The UK will be like OOh no i invaded you .... Well i can't stop now because i already
Yep
lmao
Oh no the royal armoured corps seems to have accidentally rolled into dublin and raised the king's colours what a strange turn of events - Winston Churchill probably
If Soviet Union joined Axis Powers, then there are 2 ideologies in the war after the world war 2, Communism and Nazism
Ayy lmao so what we get eventually is another American vs Soviet world lmao
More irradiated though. With all that prior use of nukes, the world will be a lot worse than the real time line.
And with nukes being considered normal weapon of war...
Two largest economies always compete, it’s inevitable
But the Third Reich with their badass uniforms would still exists as a major power though
@@mazmurelvictory5755 the germans would be around but it would take decades until they considered participating in another war
With the liberal use of nukes in WW2, the Cold War going nuclear might not be as intolerable an idea for the Allies to consider.
It wouldn't be a cold war, then.
And with German and Russian scientific advances in rocket and ICBM technology, dropping the A-bombs indiscriminately over the Axis would invariably bring the latter back with a vengeance.
@@lape2002 More likely it would just result in pooling radiation, the reduction of Europe to a series of third world nations, and mass migration away from Europe and towards the Americas.
@@lokenontherange or maybe Canada gets invaded and USA is faced with carpet atomic bombing instead
@@lokenontherange shit in a world like that the only winners would be south america that would be a low on the list of places to nuke
A deadlier cold war for certain. This scenario would normalize the use of nukes. Eventually, even the hydrogen bomb would be used in combat.
On the other hand the horror of mutiple nuke strikes might deter everyone from using nukes. In this timeline the UK gets nuked first albeit at invasion points which means large numbers of civs would still die. The trauma of WW2 would be so great that the british might forgo any involvement in future wars altogether. The french would also be traumatised by nukes since those german bases would be near french cities. The trauma of nukes would be far greater than in our world and they would not be viewed as war winning weapons not in the sense they are now. A prolonged nuclear bombing campaign that ends with a ceasefire but not total victory is very different psychologically from 2 nukes and Japan surrenders a week later. Its possible nukes would be viewed with even more revulsion now. The fact that the first use had to be on allied soil would change the myth of the bomb. And that has implications in politics.
@@florinivan6907 This whole scenario was just BS and could not happen like that. Americans bombing British and France soil with nukes and they still fighting side by side ?
@@joepopes7923 First of all the french really didn't matter. So any objection De Gaulle might have had would be viewed with indifference. Free France was not vital to the war effort.Churchill might be bothered but honestly a pragmatist like him wouldn't care that much about british civilians dying as long as victory comes. I wouldn't. If I was in charge I'd let them nuke the homeland in other to stop an invasion. 'Everything for victory no matter the cost even if it means nuking our countries into oblivion.' And if I a guy born decades after the war sees no issue with using nukes to kill millions of countrymen then Churchill a guy born in the XIX would really not give a shit.
@@florinivan6907 It's not about Churchill. He would do it, no question about it. But the people, the troops are a different story. Their families are nuked. That would be the end of the alliance.
@@joepopes7923 They're not gonna do anything. The troops are too busy fighting to realise the implications. Plus at the time the effects of fallout weren't as well understood. And even if they were wartime censorship is in effect. And even if they knew exactly the average Tommy was too 'simple minded' to do anything. Most were working class types undereducated no ability to think beyond base desires. Simple minded 'peasants' who do as they're told.
Video 1: Let's make a thought experiment, no matter how unrealistic the Germans and Soviets are allies.
Video 3: Let's make the entire premise null and void.
Not quite, the first video took into account the real alliance between them and how it could’ve succeeded
@@lounickerson6002 no, it is not the case, that alliance was impossible to continue in the first place and both Hitler and Stalin knew that. Also if Binkov is going to take into account those diplomatic things, why did Japan brought the US to the war when they could have sovietic oil? And why Britain has this infinite resilience even after losing North Africa, Middle East and almost India. No, Binkov dropped the ball hard this time. It made sense if the scenario didn't take those diplomatic nuances to the table, but now part 1 and 2, and even the start of part 3 doesn't add up with the end.
No alliance is impossible.
Yeah its impossible before operation barbarossa stalin had plans to attack germany first and hitler knew it
yeah its all very pro-allies as much as possible. Why didnt countries like Spain join the Axis? Why tf did Japan attack Pearl Harbor?
Turkey and Spain joining the axis would be more realistic
I'm Spanish but I don't consider that would change much
Well, I don't know if those aditional soldiers would be helpful on the Eastern Front. Not sure how close Hitler got to actually defeat the USSR
@@jairon_2518 Spain sent 40 to 50k volunteers to fight on the eastern front
probably not Axis allies but accepting Axis troops to move freely inside their territories, that is pretty much a certitude and should have been considered early on. This video makes too many assumptions of the wrong kind to make the US fight and emerge somewhat victorious.
Spain wanted to see if Hitler could actuallywin before choosing a side in our timeline. Whhen they started to lose the Spainsh sided with the West. In this timeline, would have probably joined the Axis half way through the war. However, Turkey would be a different story. Turkey and Russia have always been enemies because Turkey controls the entrance to mediterranean. They would most likely be neutral for the war, while feeding intelligence to the British and Americans like Sweden did our timeline.
@@jairon_2518 - The main thing that Spain joining the Axis would do is allow for a joint Spanish/German take over of Gibraltar which could be used to control access to the med. With that end blocked off, and with Turkey helping there is a chance for more success on the other side of the med. So there could be some impact.
everybody gangsta till america makes nukes a "conventional weapon"
Hitler: *Ayo throw away our nukes we don't need them*
FDR:
yeah it would be VERY unrealistic if the US was constantly throwing nukes at the Axis because of radiation and the huge cost.
@@hero-fix2112 each bomb would have cost 4 billion to make and even more to drop. Eg The hiroshima bomb cost 6 billion to make and drop.
"What if Japan attacked Russia with nazis " more realistic topic
Even today people would still be finding Japanese soldiers frozen balls all over siberia. Zhukov defeated the Japanese right before war in europe started Japan ground forces just sucked... i think Soviet Union would have still won but with more casualities
@@rinneganitachi4840 the eastern forces that were beought back essentially saved Moscow, not have those forces, Moscow would've turned into another Stalingrad, imagine that.
They will die.
@@mohammedamine5877 lolz you speak as if germans won in Stalingrad..turning moscow into a stalingrad type of battle would have been great for the Soviets...
@@mohammedamine5877 only half of the Eastern forces was sent west
And even that was done prior to Barbarossa
World: a toxic waste-ground
Turkey: breaths easy..
Switzerland: Googles "what is toxic meaning"
Sweden: Mmm popcorn
Hoi4: actually Britain would have no troops in the uk as they all would be fighting in Africa for some reason
"We shall fight in Africa."
-Winston Churchill
@@Nate-uf4xk Thanks for the history lesson
@@Nate-uf4xk wtf
Me, as Italy in 1937, sneaking 30 divisions through the unguarded north sea after killing France and BeNeLux, encountering maybe 5 divisions on the entire island.
"And that concludes WW2. Join us next time for Canada: Leader of the allies guarantees the rest of my Roman Empire conquests"
Warden
You can do a video about " what if USA joined Germany"!.
I'd say that scenario is actually more likely that this one (though still unlikely). There were pro nazi supporters in the US in the 30s whereas the Soviets had way to much historical and ideological baggage to properly act as allies.
They both saw war with the other as inevitable in the long run, even when they were making peace
Zvallid did a video about that
probably it make more sense in WWI
@@AeneasGemini and I’ve read one of the largest ethnic groups in the USA.
Yes please!!!
The way you immediately dismissed the German and Soviet nuclear bomb efforts is not realistic. Shure, they were behind, but without the burden of German-Soviet War Germany would be able to invest much more money in the nuclear effort. Furthermore, they would have access to all of Soviet Unions resources to help them out.
Yes but the Allies still has the advantage since they have way more researchers
@@229masterchief how many more? Any numbers?
Hitler has a disdain for nuclear science, calling it "Jewish Science"
Which is why Germany neglected their nuclear program
@@229masterchief I am not shure this is about researchers. War-torn USSR was able to deliver a nuke in 4 years. Shure, they had advantage of spying on the program, but who says Rosenbergs wouldnt do it in this timeline too? Plus the Germans could reverse engineer one of the nukes that would not make it and get lost on its way to target.
Looks like no matter what happens, the result is always the cold war.
The first two in this series were really good, this one kinda felt a bit off.
I think it's because it all got harder to predict at 1945.
@Lord Morgan Freeman VI fun fact America in our time line made more aircraft in WW2 then Germany and Soviet Union combined.
@Lord Morgan Freeman VI Agreed, another thing is dropping a-bombs on previous allied territories would make strife between allies, wtf droppong a nuke on British soil without repricussions? That was the most unrealistic for me, also soviet union leaving the axis alliance, yes thete is benifit but i dont see Soviet Union suddenly switching sides and killing former allies, there would be to much strife, at most they will call for cease fire, return certain territories and keep the nation
@@dewaldmariusvanvuuren7090 I think he was saying we could drop a 20KT bomb on a totally occupied area along the coast. If the Axis troop were very concentrated thousands could have been killed this way. Axis aircraft and tanks likely destroyed also.
This would be done only if Churchill agreed in my opinion. The issue of Axis air superiority is why the allied could not get strikes on Germany in this scenario.
they were all off. I mean a quick look at US production numbers in WW2 and its clear the US would have no problem building a strong army along with a focus on air and naval power. I mean they did it in our timeline without having the head start in production ramp up he gave them here. Also he underestimates how long it takes to build a competitive navy. Yes Germany and Russia could make a lot of subs, but they would have been decades away from building a strong enough navy to be able to isolate the UK. He also underestimates how hard it is to prevents night bombing. Even if Germany had complete control of the air above Europe the allies could still bomb at night at will.
Still that was an understandable miscalculation. This video claiming that the allies would be fine dropping nukes on their own territory is ridiculous. I could maybe buy them dropping one in England, underestimating the negative effects it would have. If they continued though their own people would turn against them.
Smol brain: What if X joined the Axis in WW2
Galactic brain: What if Germany joined the Allies in WW2 👀
Oh ;)
So the US, UK, USSR, Germany and others against Italy and Japan? Italy and Japan get curb stomped. Germany with supplies from the USSR can take Italy. The US and Royal Navies with some help from others, can combine to sink the Japanese navy. The USSR can defeat the Japanese in mainland Asia.
@@timwf11b Probably more of "what if western Allies and Germany join against USSR".
Bruh then there no ww2
@@MDP1702 that would be a real scenario if the Weimar rep had endured.
At 5:30. Yes, both USSR and Reich were years behind the US in the atomic race, but combined German technology with Soviet resoutces could significantly speed up the project.
Germany would be on par if it didnt have problems with heavy water which it wouldnt in this scenario
That is not so clear. The Germans would have access to more resources but the Soviets would not have access to Lend-Lease which included a lot of high tech equipment and materials that they had difficulty producing themselves including Uranium which the US did ship to them. Furthermore, the Americans would be very alert for the Soviet spies who were important for the Soviet nuclear program. I don't see how the Axis gets the bomb before the US or even within a year. The wild card is the reaction to the use of nukes on the part of a strong Germany and Soviet Union (as compared to the devastated Japan in the real time line). All restraint could come off with gas and biological weapons being used.
@@somewhere6 allies supplied like 3% of what ussr produced in total, anyway, with all the factories intact and all th army preserved lend lease wouldn't be needed
@@ГеоргийМурзич 3% at a critical time when their infrastructure was in ruins. Including train cars, food, material, and weapons. It greatly helped them get back on their feet quickly in the middle of a war.
The Nazis wouldn't have destroyed it in this scenario, but don't try to downplay its significance in history.
@@clivedoe9674 not that much at a critical time as most of the help was delivered after the battle of Moscow and before that everything was delivered in homeopathic numbers. Anyway, my point was that as there was no invasion into the USSR in this scenario there's no need in lend lease-ish thing
There were not that many nukes that early. The US had only 7 nukes in July 1946.
That was probably because the war was over by that time. In this time line, mass production of nukes was in full swing.
Desperate times call for more desperate measures. In this scenario nuclear weapons aren't a matter of ending the war early but winning it
@@rodrigomoreira1596 even then, you can't exactly accelerate the uranium enriching program dependent on Canadian and Congo mineral imports just by a click of fingers. It was only by the late 1940s that the US weapons grade atomic program had mastered enough of that technology to favor a sizeable output. Same for the USSR who concentrated MASSIVE amounts of attention and resources yet they only gathered pace in the 1960s.
@Hans Müller, did you even watch the video?
@@yeetus1398 Yes, and it looked like the US had a lot of nukes. I agree with lape2002.
Germany: Couldn't bomb Britain
US: Fine I'll do it myself
The odd thing about this series is that the soviet union and germany suddenly possess a navy that matches the allies. How did this happen in such a short time? These countries both had laughably sized navies compared to the massive navies of the US and the UK. How did they create a massive navy without seriously hampering the other armed forces and the industry? How did the united states and the british simply let them outgrow their own navies?
When germany tried to match the british before ww1 they utterly failed to match british shipbuilding. Now of course they have all of europe at their command, but how could they ever hope to match the american industry. An industry which I might add, is completely untouched by war, unlike europe.
Yeah literally this. Like even in the first episode. Moving three times as many men to North Africa seems like a smart idea until you realise even in real life barely any of the axis shipping to supply Rommel’s Africa corps actually got there. The Italian Navy wouldn’t magically perform any better. Also are we going to ignore superior allied code breaking skills? The cracking of the enigma could’ve still well occurred. Germany and the USSR had no naval landing experience at all even the two most powerful and experienced naval forces in the world on D day had trouble. Basically an attempt to invade would’ve been nothing short of a massacre for the axis.
Germany was capable of 20% of the worlds war making potential in ww2 the USA 42%, Soviet 14%.
Germany didn't mobilise behind the war till 1944 far to late but they did that because of oil.
Germany used under 300million barrels in ww2 Soviet used 800million barrels to 1billion, the allies used 7billion barrels.
Japanese 35million barrels.
Italy 10million barrels.
The navys of Germany and Soviets have had like 5 years to build up so I don't understand that part of your comment.
The Japanese had 705 navy ships in ww2 including subs.
Germany almost 1,200 mostly subs yes.
UK 1,800
USA 1,200
France also had about 200 ships most were scuttled by them but could still be recovered, the Italians recovered a few but mostly just took the oil from the rest.
If we compare steel used for prodution in the navy the UK only used just more then Germany.
My estimates are both at about 1.2million tons to 1.8million tons.
Edit: But his number are very far off and he's actually been very biased towards the allies I would take any video he makes with a big grain of salt.
@@GG-ir1hw You are correct that the Axis couldn't have sustained any more troops in Africa historically because of Allied naval superiority. But British naval losses were still substantial in 1940-1941 because of German air attacks, with Malta almost starving after supply ships were repeatedly bombed from the air. The invasion of the USSR caused German squadrons to be re-directed to the Eastern Front, giving the Allies more breathing room. If you keep these planes in the Mediterranean, and add some Soviet onse for good measure, the Allies would not dominate the seas as completely as they did in 1942.
I agree it's still a stretch to imagine the Axis matching the US Navy, but I think that's the reasonning for the Mediterranean and the English Channel being more contested.
Because the allied navies get wrecked by the aerial superiorty of the axis combined with the subs? the same reason why the idea that of the allies constantly dropping nukes is also laughable. can't drop nukes if the other sides has aerial superiority and shoots down your bombers before they even get close...
@@BamBamGT1 why would they be stupid enough to position all of their fleet in enemy controlled airspace lol
Every video early was great but this is just non sense...this third part just doesnt look realistic... "And then the US goes brrr bombing everything and germany was useless mehe emehehe" This video is a big dislike for me tho
1:36 Britain would be hard pressed to cover all of its southern coastline. A quick map check before devising this scenario would have bee advisable. Britain doesn't need to cover most of its southern coastline as its rocks and cliffs, there's very few beaches. This is why Britain is so hard to invade from this direction. You need to head far out west where the channel is many times wider or to the Thames estuary if you're serious about invading. Incidentally historically in the age of sail ships tended to sail down the Channel on the French side, not the English, because if there was a storm they could beach, on the English side if they were caught between two ports they'd be blown into the rocks. Even today pleasure boats and the odd cargo vessel have this problem. Hence the English side of the Channel is the most shipwrecked stretch of water in the world.
This video has naval invasions in the north-east of Scotland, that alone should say how little geographical research was done...
Ever Heard D-day They Climbed The Rocky Costline Soo...
They Could Naval Invade Mountains Ok Mountains Is An Exaggeration But They Can Climb So Unless Northern Scotland Is Only Mountains They Could Climb
@@empireofitalypsstimfromano5025 have you ever been there to know? You speak like someone who has not
@@empireofitalypsstimfromano5025
That rocky coastline is includes 200 metre high white cliffs when you reach the beach.
Google image search "Southern England white cliffs" and tell me how you think they'd fair climbing these?
@@empireofitalypsstimfromano5025 Commandos can climb cliffs if they are not under fire from an enemy. Tanks and supply trucks don't climb cliffs at all.
I didn’t agree with much of the first row videos, but it was still semi realistic. This however is 10000% wrong. Britain would fall. The USA would have no where near this many bombs, they only had 7 by July 1946. The Germans would have made the bomb themselves with a couple of months after the Americans did. The Americans wouldn’t have the range to get to any targets in Europe after Britain was destroyed. Japan would have won the war in the pacific and would be pressuring the USA from the west while Germany/Soviets would begin pressuring from the west. By the end of 1946 the USA would be alone and hopelessly outmatched and out produced and would be forced to sue for peace losing much of their influence. The war would be over with an absolute victory for the axis. If the soviets had joined the nazis in WWII we would have had no chance. The allies would have been complete wiped out.
True
Not really allies have sea superiorty but the axis have the land and air superiorty in the end both side are draw since the axis cant penetrate deep thru in to the allies and the allies cant do much in the ground battle in europe and africa.
Wouldn't an isolated, exhausted and staving Britain seek a ceasefire? Not exactly surrender, but a peace treaty on unfavorable terms. The Axis would likely grant that, rather than mount an expensive invasion to obtain a piece of territory which would be a massive liability (how do they feed Britain without shipments from America, let alone the potential for asymmetric warfare). Britain would still be eliminated as a combatant, effectively joining the Axis. At this point the US abandons Europe to concentrate on the Pacific, so it's still Japan that gets nuked. There is then a ceasefire between Germany / Soviets and the US.
I totally agree, this video doesnt apreciate the endless resources and the factory power of all Russia and the fact that the atomic bombs were built by German cientist help.
The Germans had already built early bombers capable of crossing the atlantic, like the BV 238 and in the case of having the atomic bombs the US couldnt do anything against them
Yup, this one is far more better at bom war, seem like usa have unlimited nuclear, german from what I see in ww, always find a way to make something to win a war and learn from their mistake and weakness but lack of production and resources, when russian join its a lot different story, I believe german can counter usa at technology. So britain will lose/bombed, them come strike to usa, stalemate/usa lose. This is a good of what if but doesnt respect the power of axis, also the idea of nuclear actually come from german first but lack of resource. Also seems japan, russian and german got a ton of nerf and just afk when underattack LOL
All seems pretty good except that the US should be able to do whatever it wants in the Pacific by 44. Naval industry isn’t like tanks or aircraft it would take years to build up. Also would have liked to see more about the Soviets invading China and India in this.
Naval industry IS a costly one and takes much more time to build,how long does it take to build a plane and how long does it take to build a destroyer?
I think the assumption is that US naval power might not have been quite as strong in the Pacific with a more formidable unified enemy in the European theater. If CV-6 had been in the Atlantic the situation in the Pacific could very well make sense.
@@armando3168 You seem to forget quantities, which in fact are different by order of magnitudes
considering that the american naval industry was so powerfull that even if all american ships on the pacific were erased from existance in 1941, by 1944 they would had an bigger navy than all the axis combined.
@@marrvynswillames4975 that's taking into account all that gold that they got not only from UK, but from USSR too. The industry needs resources, lend-lease was not free and as more and more British land and colonies' would be taken - the weaker American industry would become.
I respectfully disagree on this one Binkov, there's no way churchill would allow US to nuke the home isles; and how are these waves of US nuclear bombers getting into germany when you yourself said the germans have (defensive) air superiority? At most a handful would get through if that; also the German nuclear program was hampered throughout the war by allied sabatoge and the draining of resources on the eastern front; the soviet/german alliance could combine their scientific efforts and use facilities long out of the reach of the allies to test for bombs.
Why would japan go to war in Southeast asia if they could just ask oil from the russians like germany did? You could probably argue their own pride, hatred of communists/russians, or russia already selling it to germany as an excuse; i just wish it would've been addressed. Not to mention the pacific theatre stays very stagnant despite the allies committing hardcore to europe for more time in our timeline with more resources too.
Also after seeing the utter devestation of a nuclear bomb after its first couple of uses; it's highly doubtful they would've so liberally just dropped them on the french coast (god knows the free french would riot). The invasion of britain could go either way depending on naval support/the air battle as in the real life battle of britain the axis nearly completely broke the RAF; it's possible they could've completely destroyed their capability to fight effectively by this point. With the italians not royally screwing up in africa anymore they could also dedicate their resources/forces to help break the west.
Either way once it becomes very obvious a land invasion of france is impossible; the most realistic option is to sue for peace
I must add that a lot of Italy doing so badly in WWII was because they were even more starved from resources than Germany. Not only they didn't have access to enough resources and fuel to supply their economy and military but the Germans hoarded almost everything that the Axis had access to, like the oil from Romania and the steel of Germany and Sweden, with the Soviet Union at their side the Italian Industry and Navy would be massively boosted. For example, the Italian Navy had a lot of ships that were kept in port for lack of fuel.
@@diegonatan6301 I agree, Binkov was being EXTREMELY GENEROUS. Because of dire straits, America would find a way to MASS-PRODUCE nukes just as fast as they were mass-producing everything else during the war. The only thing different is in this timeline, so would long-range bombers also be quickly and effectively produced. Castle Bravo sized nukes + Fast, long range airplanes = Goodnight Ivan, Ichiro, and Hans🤣🥲 don’t also underestimate how many troops would America would have drafted, considering they sent millions to fight across to massive oceans on two separate fronts. Meanwhile the baby Soviets barely left their home, fighting mostly within their country with shorty equipment and no leadership. Imagine sending waves of untrained, young men and women to die needlessly makes you stand out. The US had just the second or third highest number of soldiers fighting, but because of better training and leadership brought home the most. No reason to believe they wouldn’t have done the same in this scenario 😈
@@abba-Flammenfresser
Binkov was being extremely generous but toward USA and britain.
In this senario, in 1945 england would turn to dust by axis bombing campains. Also don't remember germans had a great answer to atomic bombs, cemical gases. As soon as first atomic bombs being drops englad would turn to an unlivable area of gases. And as soon as germany could use them in his rockets west coasts would be the land of gases too!
Ruined by the fact the very limited number of nukes was not taken into consideration. They probably only had those two nukes that they have used on Japan in 1945.
In 1945 we had the capability to build about 1 per month. But that could have been increased greatly under different circumstances.
german scientists would have got nukes far before the usa@@bobbywise2313
There is no chance Britain would hold on this long
This video is extremely unrealistic. There’s absolutely no way Russian and German troops would survive on British soil. For some reason there is no mention in this video the fact the British and American navy would come and literally kills the entire axis navy 1 month into sea lion. This then prevents supplies from reaching the troops and they evacuate and get caught by the navy and surrender/perish
@@JamesSmith-sl1tl It also ignores the fact that britain has no real beaches for the axis to pull a reverse d-day
An island an island, an island this Britain. The Germans and Russians would still be far behind in developing the landing craft to transport men and gear to the beaches even. It was the industrial might of the US that developed the LST's. It was always talked about, the Gerry invasion of England but they really couldn't pull it off. The Channel would have turned red with pure blood of any Axis attempt.
@@JamesSmith-sl1tl it also ignores that if any axis troops landed on British soil churchhill would use chemical weapons
bro even usa would fall just see map its round not flat sovit and usa are so close pacific fleet will invade alaska then usa is doomed. and why axis leave each other they are fighting each other i think sovit have brain they know they donot need to fight germans they just need to conqure usa and britian then they can divided world i think this channel is just usa win other lose.
You might also want to ask how quickly would the Soviets steal and reverse engineer the designs for the atomic bombs?
sad Tsar noises*
Maybe slightly dinner the they did OTL maybe late 47 or 48.
@@LanMandragon1720 don’t forget that Soviet Union would also had the old plans and resources of German experiments on nuclear weapons, probably early-late 1946
Probably not as fast as they did our timeline considering international was severly limited and getting a person from Russia to the US would have been really difficult to say the least. Civilian ships were being blown up during WW2.
So eventually the video ended up being Soviets breaking off but that wasnt the goal it was Soviet axis alliance.
This annoyed me so much, like just keep the alliance jesus christ
@@pipsqeak7104 it would not last there alliance trust me.
@@TRUMP2024-m1y atleast keep it until the war, like in our timeline
na usa had to win the war i think this video didnot include that usa main land will be also invaded form that pacific small gap sovit and usa had in Alaska. and why do will sovit break out of axis even they know if they fight they donot need to agree on small part they can take american also. this video is so fked i canot even think how fked this is.
The First 2 Videos were really cool, but with the last one you completely screwed it by unnaturally changing the narrative. The way you built up the axis superiority in Western Europe, there is no way Britain could have survived being surrounded and cut off from any help. Not to mention that the eastern forces suddenly become uninterested in pursuing any war efforts and basically give up, because of the US dropping A Bombs on their own allies... That escalated quickly!
Also he didn't include backlash
As look at people looking at the Vietnam war and those horrors forced the s to leave the war to an extent
But dropping 100 nukes changing the environment and killing possibly millions of civilians would be fine
Ones again bias because no one wants to see the Nazis win
Hitler would died before US had atomic bombs of sickness, and Japan would have their secret project the under see aircraft carrier and the nazi would have the V1 bom and used on london.
@yo yo
They had the time to make it!
@yo yo
I mean in this senario, which USSR and germany are ally, with enough time they will be able to make massive numbers of planes and ships.
What a nonsense.
You can't ended the video about how Soviet Union and Germany make an alliance and decided to declare war on UK/US, by ending this alliance. It's goddamn key thing to the scenario. It can't be dissolved by the nature of the wargame.
He also ssid then ceasefire and then cold war bettweeen allies and comintern usa carries the team of allies and ussr carrys team of comintern and i guees axis probably can be a bit important not as important as allies and comintern
It's unrealistic to expect the Soviets and Nazis to get along for years. The Soviets hated the Fascists and the Nazis hated the Communists. After years of stalemates and millions of lives lost, someone is bound to make the other mad. Stalin and Hitler both made irrational decisions in real life and would eventually start blaming each other why the war wasn't over yet.
@@dallascopp4798 i mean, atleast wait until the war ends
@@electricoyeet3363 Good luck with that. Hitler didn't even let his generals do tackle retreats in Russia when they were necessary. Anyone who dared questioned his tactics or his will, was quickly replaced, the same way Stalin did. They had demigod personalities and convincing a god they're wrong is like teaching a baby math. Pointless.
@@dallascopp4798 and? i am not a n4z1 general, and it's too late to be one
Binkov, CovertCabal had a good idea for a video: US Military 1980 vs Us Military 2020 in conventional war, no nukes, no allies.
The 1980's one will win. They had mullets and the troops would probably be fans of the original Mcgyver🤣✌
US military in 1980 was in a shitty state. Readiness was awful, drug use was still rampant. The military had not even fully figured out how to be an all volunteer force. The US military of that time period was superior to today's in really only one way, nuclear weapons...and that is based only on numbers. In 1980, the M1 Abrams was just entering service in tiny numbers, there was no GPS, there was no B-2 bomber...not even a B1 bomber, Carter having cancelled it during his administration. The US military of 2020 would have SO many advantages, they would pick apart the US military of 1980.
@@iKvetch558 USS Stayin' Alive, god i love that dance floor
@@chronus4421 LMAO I miss it very much...the heady days of Jive Turkey before Sub Brief ...when the world trembled at the sound of our ADCAPs. 😏💯😁
You try so hard to push the narrative of allies somehow surviving.
Germany and USSR together since 1941 is an instant win in Europe alone in a year.
yeah, i like how allied jet fight tech advanced but german tech didnt, and the only way for the allies to survive is to undo the whole ideal of the video by breaking up the alliance
Allies could surviev if tehy break the alliance and do allies vs axis vs comintern and tahts exaxtly what they did in the video
@@jwdominionpyroraptor4775 In our time line it was really an impossible alliance because Hitler viewed Russians as inferior and basically thought he could enslave them. He also did not think they would put up much fight against Germany.
With Hitler in charge any alliance between these two powers would be fragile. I think the same could be said of Stalin. There were great idiological differences between them.
Of course the smart thing to do is form an alliance until all other threats are eliminated and then conquer your friend. But things may not work out well and you may end up the weaker of the partners. Germany was never going to be able to defeat the USSR. And in an alliance they would end up being Stalin's little bitch. That would not have worked for Hitler and I could see them fighting possibly before they had even defeated the other adversaries.
USSR would be able to develop a nuke much quicker because their industry would be untouched, possibly turning the tide of the war.
True
and germans too
Soviet capacity to produce industrial equipment has literally nothing to do with their nuclear capacities.
Soviets at that time didn't have the scientist needed for doing that.
It took them 4 years with massive industrial espionage to get the bomb
Predictions have been heavily guided by subjective illusions. In such a case, (i think) the British islands would have been invaded by the end of 1942. ( FW 190 A)That could even happen by Germany alone if Germans had not attacked Soviets and continued to be trading partners. If you rule a country with your personal obsessions, the result is disaster.. And if you would remove the bombing of the Germany, due to fact that all the air power engaged in Asia would be concentrated in Europe, Germany probably would be in position to nuke America with BALİSTİC MISILES before the end of 1945.
On this base, now you can compose a scenario: what would really happen if Germany and the Soviets were allies in the war..
@John Higgins not ICBMs though. Short or medium range is sufficient.
@@sedatmehmed4371 I doubt that the v-2 rockets had a weight limit of 1600 pounds and the little boy bomb was over 9,000!!!
Lots of mistakes, disappointing.
Agreed this entire video was null compare to the first part
Like it went in real life.
First of all the Soviets if they joined Germany would not have flipped against Germany unless Germany tried to invade them.
Secondly the Soviets would be more powerful as most of their industries and cities will be will not be distorted which means as thy don't have to fight a huge land war they will focus their attention on building a navy and air force German engineering help will also go a long way.
USSR will be closer to US as they are not gonna be taking millions of loses and just focus on production and better quality equipment like the IS tanks .
Germany and Soviets after seeing the Atomic bomb will defenetly be scared and scramble to make their own all focus will be on air defence and the German nuclear project with also the help of Soviet KGB who knew about the bomb.
Conclusion: a peace treaty Willbe signed mainly in the favour of the Germany and Soviet. Japan would have to return a lot concurred lands to Us, Australia and many countries.
Exactly!
during the way, ussr economy was saved by US and britain
so its not sure if they would realy get that strong
@@petrsukenik9266 lol the ussr was not saved by the allies... Yes the help was really good, notably in support equipment (tractors, trucks, medicine, ...) but without that the ussr would have soldiered on and refocused some if its industry to compensate, at the cost of many thousand more men
Since the Japanese government wasn't dismantled anime wouldn't exist and eventually, the world would fall into a communist dystopia, except for Germany which although it would one way or another de-Hitlerise, democracy and freedom would be long gone and everyone would be at war all the time.
Not KGB but GRU. KGB was political intelligence agency. GRU was military intelligence agency. You would know if you would read Wiktor Suvorov's books.
The nuclear German thing didn't happen because of Russian spys so it should be done before usa in this timeline
Russian spies? Norway would like to have a word.
I’m pretty sure Germany never really pursued nuclear weapons seriously.
@Albert D his ass
@@kurousagi8155 im pretty sure they did until their heavy water factory got destroyed
It whould be done at same time i think
So basically the fallout franchise in 1940s Europe?
Yeah And Also Vault Tec Is a German Company and You are a nazi
@@empireofitalypsstimfromano5025 i did not know that
@@LyrosHazard In that Timeline
@@empireofitalypsstimfromano5025 oh ok i get it now
My bad
After that many nuclear weapons you’re starting to see major climate shift, not to mention that the British would not allow repeated use on their own soil.
Probably wouldn't change the climate.
@@dylanmilne6683 Agreed. It would have been under 100 low yield air burst. More likely around 50 max and all under 50KT.
I don't think nuclear weapons would have been used on British soil. The British public and government wouldn't accept that. They wouldn't have been used on France either, remember these are occupied territories with European civilians living there. Japan was another story, it wasn't European but Asian and it wasn't occupied territory. Really I think once Axis had landed in the UK it would have fallen pretty fast.
Nuking Soviet troups invading Western Europe was a central part of NATO defence doctrine during the early parts of the Cold War.
6:36 from this point the whole video is going a wrong way.
1 Great Britain would not alow to bomb their territory with nukes and spread radiation.
2 USA would not start to make a nuclear wasteland out of allied territory that could be saved by other ways like "carpet bombing"
3 After 2 bombs in 1945 the USA have produced the next bomb only in 1947 and mass production started only by the end of the year. The problem was in german detonators used in the american nukes.
4 Fully ignored the fact, that Benito has send own air forces to help germans in the Fight for Britain. Please read about italians over England.
Sorry for the britts, but they are doomed if the USSR and Axis decide to land.
P.S
He was suggesting using 20KT nukes only on Axis occupied coastal areas and radiation effects were really not known at the time. Air burst of of 10 to KT actually would have very little radiation because of lack of fall out and wind direction would mean what little fall out did exist would go out to sea.
I don't know if Churchill would agree or not, but it might be the only way to get the Axis out of England.
The US could have started producing nukes at a faster rate if necessary. I think by 1947 10 little boy nukes a month was realistic.
Lets be hones here Binkov! You just didn't dare to make the Nazis and the Russian winners!
very biased towards the ALL LIES.
I mean not really. The US helped supplement the Russians in our timeline and the Russians were woefully unprepared to take on the Germans when they attacked. So its probable the Soviets would let the Germans take the brunt of the war in this timeline while feeding them supplies like the videos suggeste. Japan would have probably conquered all of Chinese coast in this time line however since alot of their effort would have been more focused on crushing Chinese resistance.
I would have also imagined Japan would have sued for peace after finally taking China while the US was distracted by the Germans and Soviets in Europe. The Japanese wanted to use China to build up a military force and make it the factory of the Japanese war machine in the future. They were also trying to colonize and hegemonize their territories before the end of the war. After a decade or two of a strong build up Japan would attack India in a suprise attack starting WW3.
Besides that, a stalemate with a separation of ties between the Russians and Germans would have been inevitable here. Hitler was still massively racist and thought the slavs needed to be replaced by the superior German race. Hitler also would have eventually convinced Spain to join their side after maintaining control of the European mainland after such a long time. Europe would have been completely destroyed and Germanized by the end of the war and the world would have divided between four spheres of influence. The Anglos, the Russians, the Germans and the Japanese would control different parts of the world. I imagine the UK may have eventually lost some of their homeland territory like something in Wales.
I would say the video would have been fairly accurate from what the aspirations of each nations were in our timeline, but we'll never know for sure.
I think the british would had agreed to a ceisfire much much sooner in brinkovs timeline
The reason why I unsubbed Comrade Binkov...
Too much ALLIED BIAS
American nuclear attacks could cause populations to revolt against the allies, especially if the axis forces used human shields and in England and France. The populations would suffer the effects of the radiation. The combined Russian-German effort could result in the construction of nuclear weapons sooner than in our reality, which would lead to retaliation, with the English in the middle. England's surrender would probably arrive sooner than a Russo-Germanic split
I can't understand how you just sort of skipped to a successful Axis landing on Britain. The RN and USN would still dominate the seas. Both Britain and America outpaced Germany and the Soviet union in real time and in this scenario in shipbuilding. Raw materials are only part of it, they both had little experience and logistics in comparison. Even a last ditch scenario where the RN with help from the US effectively lined up their capital ships to cover the east of the British isles with support from the air, an axis landing mainly in barges with a lack of escorts would be a catastrophe
It's simple Binkov is, has been, and always will be, always anti - british. He clearly does not understand the impact britain had in WWII nor does he appreciate the ridiculous size of the royal navy at the time, let alone when coupled with the US navy. Landing wouldn't be possible at all. You don't just build over 1000 (US + UK navy size combined at their height) in a year...
After a strong submarine-air campaign to isolate Britain and wear down their naval forces (much, much stronger than historically) I think a landing with a prospect of success would be possible under massive air cover but the widely scattered landings that he suggested would have been a recipe for disaster and would throw away the initiative.
@@somewhere6 submarines are little owerestimated
@@petrsukenik9266 I don't think they are that overestimated considering Germany has caused a lot of troubles for the transport ships in both World wars
@@petrsukenik9266 Sorry, your sentence is confusing so I am not sure what you exactly mean. "are little overestimated" = not overestimated. If you mean submarines ARE overestimated then "are a little overestimated" would make that clear. In any case, US submarines were very effective against the Japanese sinking most of their merchant fleet. The UK was also seriously challenged by the U-boats and in this scenario, Germany could probably at least double their production and adding some Soviet subs and more naval air power would create significant problems.
i stil wonder why or how the war would even last this long. once the allies realize it would be literally impossible to liberate africa, let alone europe, they would sue for peace.
No invasion is impossible.
@@xavierlauzac5922 iot is if the germans have a good two million solders on the northern coast, and a whole lot of planes and a lot of prepared defenses
nuclear weapons can only do so much.
@@xavierlauzac5922 The British would agree to peace, with a return of most of France, allowing Germany to keep the Benelux and German regions in France, and the east.
It would defy the laws of physics to have an impossible invasion.
@Plamen Stoev again, it would defy the laws of physics to have an impossible invasion.
WW2: About 100 million people die of nukes
Swirtzerland,Sweden,Turkey,Spain
Portugal:How's it going?
Binkov needs to lay off the vodka. This whole series was clearly made while you were smashed.
The psychological effects of the person's that stands next to you having their eyes melt from the glow of the nearby nuclear blast, seams much underplayed here....
same as horror such weapon would instill on civilian British population whose relatives and friends would inevitably suffer from it first-hand. IF anything, this would lead to civil war on the isles with population desperate to eradicate politicians that led them to ally with such monstrous allies as Americans.
I love the concept, but I can’t even fathom England allowing such weapons used on its soil, nor the Americans even being able to get the nukes to England. I also notice you do not take moral either, as I do not think English people would have the will after Russia also invades.
It's not that crazy, there were British plans to use poison gas if the Nazis invaded.
After being daily carpet bombed in your cities for a while, it doesn't sound so bad.
Britain would have made peace in 1940 trading overseas territory for peace. They would then wait for a fall out between Germany and Russia and form a new alliance against the weaker partner
I was thibking about that too
But then i remember Churchill
@@reiryghts639 Churchill would be fired. People remember Gallipoli and in war against two superpowers if Churchill didn't give up he would have to give up the wheel of the nation
Binkov ending the scenario with political maneuver isn't the usual thing for the channel. From now on i will be expecting modeling politics on every video as this is the first one featuring diplomatic action
An alternative part 3 without nukes would be greatly appreciated
10:46 Germany: *(Thinking)* I Have To Resort to Extreme Measures...
*(To Soviet)* If We Win We Split The World Exactly Like Poland You get The Entire Eastern hemisphere And We Get The Entire Western Hemisphere
Soviet: Ok
Germany: *Speach Level 100*
Part 1 and 2 was good. But part 3 is beyond unimaginable . It could be still made better .. usa has 100 + nukes at a time???. and how does uk allows us to destroy thier homeland 🤷♂️.alaska and far east r soo quiet .ussr may pressurize north .?
It feels like Binkov pushed the "Nazis NEED to lose" button, it is a very weak video full of errors, not up to the standards.
@Вук Тодић not even 30 A-bombs, by 1946 they had a total of 9 bombs and contrary to what US fanboys may believe, it was not because of demobilization that such a small number existed but because of the inability to speed up physics and uranium enrichment, no matter what.
@Вук Тодић нет. I mean how does us have plenty of nukes to devastate the places they see around . If only they have 100+ nukes they could Force axis to surrender at isle's.
@@diegonatan6301 yup
@Вук Тодић I think that Britain losing North Africa and Middle East and being blockaded should have contributed more to the fall of Britain than a dozen bombs falling in British and French beaches would contribute to the fall of the moral on the Axis side. Britain would sue for peace long before the invasion.
Quite a poor analysis of this scenario - Soviets knew all all about the A bomb & with German help would have developed it much earlier
Yet another Binkov "scenario" bent up to suit the US Stronk narrative.
the video forget a very crucial point: germany's advances in rocket engines (wich, by itself isn't a lot, as V2 wheren't that effective, but combined with the "magik german-soviet bound" and with soviet enginers such as korolev, we could imagine that, in such a scenario (if the magik bound hold on) korolev and von braun could potentially work together (and then, make actually good short range balistic missiles before the US)
also, another possibility that wasn't explored was the japanese's advances in biochemical stuff (so, with a magic german-soviet-japanese axis, we could imagine what such technologies could do, especially if combined with a short range missile)
you also forget that, in such a scenario, if the magik bound stays, it mean that china might not get a lot of support (therefore, making far easyer for japan to take a tighter grasp on continental asia, therefore, more ressources aivable to feed the japanese warmachine, and far less steel shortages)
Hello Binkov's .I have to say that i dont share this view in the last video Soviet and german were friends and were outnumber enemy on air 3 to 1 .
then this video starts in 1945 and all it's the same except USA is on the war WHIT NUKES from out of nowhere. so you telling me for 3 years the AXIS and URSS got total air supremacy and were building up navy and air assests but all of the sudden USA how up and Britain it's safe.... dude i dont share this view of excenario.
Even tho if the german and soviets land and it's 1945 if USA dont NUKE the rigth place you thing that British could stop a German BLITZ into mainland England when the out number in air for 3 years... come on it does not make sance.
After that you start saying 4 nukes per month. but to bring that to mainland europe it las't longer also preparing a missions to bomb key targets .
Until part 2 of 3 i was following you into a idea of a another time line but this it's ridicules
MAINLAND FRANCE get's nuked and in 1 month the navy it's like i run out of supply.... see the wolf pack in 1940 they would be just ok in the scenario of not having alot of ports in britany
The alliance between the Soviets and the Germans wasn't supposed to break since this is a theoretical simulation of what would happen if they were allies. Killing the alliance off removes the purpose of the whole simulation.
Why splitting apart your enemies alliance is a perfectly valid tactic. It's what Hannibal was trying to do to Rome in Italy. So why isn't it a valid thing?
@@LanMandragon1720 Because the alliance forming isn't plausible in the first place. Making Russia and Germany allies in a hypothetical scenario is supposed to tell if they would defeat the allies with their military power. It seems pointless to make the whole video if the alliance would split in the end.
I think that if the Germans didn’t invade the USSR and had them as an ally, then their would had produce the bomb much faster than this timeline suggests .( probably by the end of 1945).
Most German physicists said it was impossible. The US spent way more on research and development of the bomb than other nations could. Perhaps that is why it got it first. I guess not having your nation under bombardment helped also.
Ireland joining the Allies is impossible especially without a fight and Britain and the US would mark a invasion and occupation of Ireland as not worth it even in this alternative history universe. The only thing that I think would make Ireland say Yes is if the UK gave northern Ireland back but ... I real life that didn't even work so IDK. Final word is Ireland being in the Allies is practically impossible.
I imagine saying "It's either join us or the Nazis will take you over," would be a winning arguement after a while if the Germans some how made a successful landing on British soil.
0:58 Ahhh Thanks For remembering my navy
hi
Mama Mia
0:43sec Britains never would apologize with the Irish if they invaded.
Probably US apologised instead of them.
German-Soviet Axis: (Winning)
Allies: "You fool! All these troops you've deployed got me to a 25 person kill streak! Tactical nuke incoming!"
Alternative history = if Albert Einstein never left Germany 🔥🔥🔥🔥
That requires no Nazi party and thus maybe no war.
He'd probably end up in a concentration camp
@@redhunter8731 no
"I decide whos jewish"
-Herman Göring
Wasn't Germany closer to nuclear bomb, until their factory on heavy water in Norway was destroyed?
that would make Ally nuke way less op than in the real life
still not close enought
In 1942 the Germans were still in front of the USA in developing one.
@@brianlong2334 they were not
@@petrsukenik9266 Righto champ smarter men then you and I say different but you do you champ!
The USA estimated after ww2 they would have had a bomb by 1947 the Germans came to the same conclusion in 1942 then stopped funding the program.
@@brianlong2334 if germans would have it in the 47 its still not in front of america
And they allso didtn have means to produce one
Considering the third nuke was bound to be a dud, and immense risk of bombers being shot down carrying nukes, I cant imagine a sustained nuke campaign would be green lit by the bomber command unless the risk could be mitigated somehow. Followed with the fact that striking targets with nukes would be abysmal PR for the allies it could only be worsened by striking ports which are largely close to civilian centers. This would make atrocities like Hiroshima look like child's play when done repeatedly. Consequently, using terror weapons would at this point lead the Axis to go ahead with firebombing civilian targets and infrastructure in the U.K., assuming this wasn't already being done. The sheer potential of destruction brought forward by using nukes in a contested territory makes me think that they would be a last resort weapon the U.S. would reserve for its own defense.
Even if germany loses, it wouldn't lose its eastern territories like prussia, pommerland, silesia, austria, east Brandenburg , Luxemburg and alsace- mossele.
There is one area I think was not covered in this video, that of South America. As I recall, Germany was making headway with several South American countries, Argentina among them. In a prolonged war like in this scenario, it possible that seeing the early gains from the Axis, the South American allies might be emboldened and move to consolidate power there. This would have got the attention of the U.S. and likely split the U.S. supplies forces yet again. We might not have been able to bolster the UK as you project in parts 2 and 3. Interesting scenario though. Thanks for producing these videos!
Hitler did invite Mexico to attack US...
It seems to me likely that in this alternative timeline the United States would have, out of sheer necessity, desegregated combat troops in the military in order to have more GIs
True, something like this actually happened in real life during the Battle of the Bulge.
The biggest winner of this scenario would be the Soviet Union
The Soviet Economy was the fastest growing economy of the 20th century
In this scenario not only is this growth allowed to continue uninterrupted but the Soviet Union also receives payment for exported resources in money and technology while Germany takes any damage for them
The Soviet Union would be much more powerful than it was
I think its highly unrealistic dismissing the effort Germany and USSR tried on the nuclear arms race its disgraceful by immediately dissmissing them, considering how far behind they were, but the german technology and russian resources should change the outcome??
The Germans hated nukes, they saw it as “Jewish science” whether the Soviets would be able to convince them, I don’t know
In this scenario the US dropped nukes like regular bombs,that would have consequences in the political world and i think more countries would joing the Axis
Binkov is just biased
@@JackTheSlayer-ok5eq if i remember correctly didin't they force albert einstein to work on the nuke project?
@@armando3168 probably not
all important countries picked a side allready
you didn't include v1 v2 and other weapons in Germany
Because they pretty much amounted to nothing of real worth in the war.
they were incredibly bad actually
@@RandomComicEnjoyer They were bad because they were underfunded. Also I think Germany would have far more jet fighters as the lack of materials holded them back
@Juan Sanchez Given the big problem was almost none of them hit, not really a big change.
@Plamen Stoev I 100% agree on yhe planes. However the Maus tank would still be a bad idea as it is a large slow moving target for the enemy. But we definitely would have seen much more Messerschmit 262 fighters, V1 and V2 rockets etc.
Also if i remember correctly the last video ended in 1942 with Axis air superiority and we suddenly came to summer of 1945 and somehow Axis doesn't have air superiority??
Bruh, i thought they were gonna invade Alaska and make their way down through the Americas
No lol
What the what
problem instantly, The regia marena would not be able to control the ocean because it was designed with tiny range so it could operate in the med. The German fleet was small and generally not very impressive and the russian fleet was low range. This means their abi8lity to control the seas is rather low.
@The Kaiser You can't just spring a navy out of nowhere to match the Royal and US Navies. It takes decades unless you're the US with their colossal resources. Thats the biggest issue in this entire video series, that fantasy navy that materialises out of thin air and is right into service within a few years without completely crippling the other industries.
@@Retrosicotte Exactly Binkov just forgets that up until 1942/3 the RN was the foremost naval power. The RN had major capital ships in every front of WW2. It beat Italy and Germany in the med, crippled German surface ships in the Atlantic and had a fought well against the Japanese all at the same time. Britain outpaced Germany and the Soviet union in ship building in real time and would in this scenario. It's not just raw materials, it's experience, logistics and training. It would take the Axis 10+ years before they coule even think about crippling the RN and that's not to mention the USN
Louis Perron
The German navy was sufficiently abled to cut off Britain from supplies for quite a while, and that was including the fact that they are fighting a bitter war with the USSR and they were bombed by the allies. Now imagine if those two didn’t clash but instead cooperating. Further more, there were also the Japanese which in of itself had a big Navy that was beating the RN in the pacific before the US joined. The sheer amounts of production capabilities and resources and the navy of both Japan, USSR, Italy, Germany would easily complete with both the RN and UN . That coupled with the fact that the Soviets-Axis would also have the air superiority would also add to crippling the Allies navies.
Edit: Also, in this timeline, Spain and Portugal would likely to also join the Axis and they also had a decent naval force.
@@louisperron4918 in this scenario.....uk would NOT focus on royal navy as they would fight for survival...so production would go for air force first...then armed to repel invading germans and Russians....
Navy would be last to get resources.....steel, labour force etc
........
England would do exactly same what germans or russians done in 2ww
....
@@tantainguyen4290 The Kriegsmarine focused on U-boats, U boats are of little help when it comes to a maritime invasion getting troops across large expanses of rough ocean. They'd need surface ships and lots of them
Bruh the Soviet’s DID join Germany as allies but the soviets were betrayed
You should take in account that it was the Soviets who faced 150 (or 160?) of German divisions while the allies faced only 3. Now imagine these vast numbers combined. Britain would not stand even the smallest chance. And considering the fact that the USA would have to concentrate most of it's navy against the Japan, the Axis would eventually take over it's biggest obstacle, which is America. The rest of the world would probably be piece of cake. I'm really glad that the Soviet Union was against the Nazis. And when you think about the future after ten or more years, even if the Axis somehow magically failed to occupy America during the first attempt, they would eventually develop nukes for themselves and of course, rockets into space. They would be winners.
Could Modern South Korea Survive and Win the Korean War? (1950s)
probably yes, don't underestimate technological advancement
That's a very stupid question. of course the modern army can easily win the korean war
Bunyamin Esen unless if they use a few missiles at the borders to destroy the assault.
Fate Avaraccus I don’t wanna be rude but...this is a dumb and unfair question?
@@LittleRamsies idk this sounded very stupid to me. Modern warfare are won by technology and s.korea right now has one of the most technologically advanced army in the world. So yes it is a dumb and unfair question.
10:40 why would the allies align themselves with the soviets rather than with germany in that situation? Germany was still capitalist and open for international trade, and fascism was not unpopular in the west at the time
I thought this too, but consider the trade-offs. Allying with Germany would require acknowledging their conquests in Europe and allying with Japan would require acknowledging their dominion over China and probably the Philippines, Indonesia, and SE Asia. While the Soviet Union would probably be happy with Eastern Europe, Finland, some sort of Bosporus access, and ROC China.
@@Toningly you could ally against Japan with the germans, the axis had a myriad of tensions within
Was Germany really capitalist? It's hard to be a dictatorship and be capitalists also.
@@bobbywise2313 why? Capitalism is a system in which economics are determined by the ownership and control (within the bounds of law) of private (not necessarily personal!) property utilizing a market geared towards profit turned into investable capital. Ask Papen, Messerschmitt and Krupp, they sure as heck had some massive private property and capital.
@@thedubstepaddict3675 Key statement there is within bounds of law. With a militant dictator having absolute control , he would decide what those bounds are and could change then anytime as well.
Just as the USSR was not really communist, Germany under Hitler was neither socialist or Capitalist in reality. Stalin had control of the USSR and under their system a select few controlled all wealth and power. Everyone else lived in what we would call poverty. Although unemployment did not exist.
I am sure a few in Germany did get rich as well as long as Hitler approved. Under his system women were not to work outside the home. They were to be proper housewives and have lots of beautiful babies. This was yet another flaw of his. The USA had women building ships and tanks at this time. I am sure Stalin did the same. But Hitler would not allow this.
I guess you can only separate an economic system with the type of government to an extent. Under a dictatorship all power belongs to one individual or perhaps a small group. The USSR was called a Marx Dictatorship. But perhaps that was not exactly correct. Stalin changed things somewhat following Lenin's death.
Russia did join Germany in WW2. They were allies of sorts for a bit more than a year. No Pole is likely to let Russia forget that.
he mentioned it in part one idiot
You'd rather sit under nazi occupation? The options were limited for your people
A few things are profoundly wrong with the premises this video relies on
1) US industrial capacity was larger than soviet and german industrial capacity combined. It is thus not possible, even in principle, for the soviet-axis alliance to build up a navy which could displace it from the environs of the british isles.
This does not even touch on the time it would take for the new axis to build such a fleet given their relative inexperience compared to the allies.
2) given the above, an oversight youve made becomes even more glaring - if the US both limits its effort in the pacific *and* takes resources away from the army to boost plane production number (which in actual history exceeded german and soviet plane production numbers combined) in what world is it possible for the new axis to maintain both air superiority over britain and acquire naval superiority, especially when attempts at aquiring the latter would cut into plane production?
3) a naval invasion of britain, as described, is impossible for 2 reasons beyond the above stated - a substantial portion of the british coastline, especially in the areas highlighted, are sheer cliffs. An amphibious landing cannot occur there, narrowing substantially the set of possible landing points.
b, it is not possible to perform an amphibious invasion in contested waters. Beyond the landing force needing to actually survive, a constant stream of supplies must be shipped in to sustain the landing force. Contested seas makes this logistically impossible.
4) this point is somewhat minor, but there are various war goods the soviets relied on lend lease to provide which the germans simply could not replace at scale, namely rubber, for which the soviet had virtually no native rubber production ability.
So Germany is more less just sitting there and not inventing any kind of new toys, despite having a lot of ressources this time?
They could just send in me263's, P.1101's, ar234c3's, me262 HG III's, Fw Ta183's to intercept and attack allied planes very easily and the allies won't have any f80's due to the fact that they were mostly made thanks to having german jets and learning from them so they would only be left with p59, p80 and meteprs
Sorry to say that this part is kind of a disgrace to the first two. Assuming that the US can just pop out nukes faster than MRE rations is nonsense. It took weeks and even months to just produce one usable nuclear bomb and you say that they can suddenly bomb hundreds of targets? And you just casually dismiss the Axis powers' nuclear programs? The USSR had spies deep in the Manhattan project in the original timeline, which is where they got the knowledge required to create their own in 1949. This would also be the case in this timeline and they would also share that with the Germans, who had some of the best scientists on the planet (s. Operation Paperclip). You never even talked about the V2 Rockets or the secret gas weapon, Tabun, which could be delivered via the V2 Rockets to high value targets and none of the Allies had any useful countermeasures for those strikes from the atmosphere.
Even if we consider all of this moot, upon seeing the advancement of the nuclear arsenal, Soviets would undoubtedly pour a huge amount of resources into the German machine of war to ensure that the Luftwaffe is strengthened. Fuel and natural resources was the number 1 enemy of Germany in the original timeline, this would not be the case here. A lot of newer, more effective aircraft models would be developed much faster and a lot of German ace pilots would emerge, ensuring aerial dominance in Europe and even above the UK which would deny the Allies any chance of bombing the UK or EU.
America pushing back Japan easily is also not realistic. Considering how much naval force they sent to Europe in this timeline, there is absolutely no way they could compete with the Japanese in the Atlantic. And why wouldn't the Japanese just try to invade America?
Also the Americans offering the Soviets more of EU to ensure that they leave the Axis? Why wouldn't Germany offer them more parts of America, Africa and the Balkans?
Quite lazy when compared to the first part. You just wanted the Allies to prevail.
I don't understand why the Soviets don't advance in Pakistan and China.
Even Mongolia could have been involved in the conflict.
In another "what if Video", India has riots after the capture of Pakistan.
Soviets actualy did join with axis. Have you forgotten Ribentrop Molotov pact? Germans simpy broke agreement. Did Soviet union really choose to be on alied side? Not really.
Like I said in the first vid
"Then its an even fight"
@Big Smoke In what way?
Intrestingly, at 0:30 you showed "Морской котик" (tr. Sea kitten), and not "Морской лев" (tr. Sea lion)
Kittens are scary
@Kether Lecter Everett No thanks, I would like to remain literate
@Kether Lecter Everett Sorry about the seizure you obviously had while typing this post
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B2%D1%8B
It was actually a sea lion, deepsh*t
Without assured air superiority, the Allies would probably have put effort into a rocket programme.
I liked the alternate history, but it seems a bit biased towards the Allies. Who is to say Axis wouldn't be able to also develop a nuke in this timeline? They would certainly have more engineers avaliable. And seeing how the Germans developed ballistic missiles in real life, it isn't unreasonable to assume that if they had a nuke they might put it on a V2 and drop it on London or some other large city. If the Axis had a big airforce, as they do in this scenario, the Allies would not be able to fully retaliate without their own ballistic missiles, whereas the Germans could drop nukes on cities with V2s and there would be no way to stop them. I know this is all what if, but still it seems to me like USSR and Germany combined would be much more powerful, especially in the earlier stages of the war, than they were in this scenario.
Yeah the Soviets had nuclear technology which would have been an edge to the Axis.
How do you figure? This series is biased towards the Axis. The US had a productive capacity 2x the capacity of both Germany and the USSR combined in 1941. Whatever Germany and the Soviets produce, the US alone builds 2 of them with no real threat to it's productive capacity. Also, there is no way the Germans and Soviets land in Britain without first controlling the seas. That scenario makes no sense. The Mediterranean islands are also controlled by the best navy along with North Africa, which is controlled by the army able to provide maritime support for supplies.
The US literally built a navy much larger than the entire British navy in only a few years.
@@distinctga5811 yes, but without being at war with the soviets, germany could focus on britain, and especially eith soviet help, could probably knock them out of the war before the us even joined. After that, neither the americans could land in europe, nor the germans and soviets in america.
@@MaxCroat How would they knock Britain out of the war without controlling the sea? Britain's navy alone was more than capable of preventing this from happening. You're not making any sense.
@@distinctga5811 With the combined German and Soviet airforce. Also by building more submarines and sinking even more merchant shipping. I mean it is all alternate history, so no point in you claiming it is impossible. In the actual war, Germany wasn't that far off from winning the Battle of Britain. For various reasons, mostly misinformation, Goering changed tactics often, because his subordinates were misinforming him about the effectiveness of those tactics, so he didn't know when his planes were performing poorly, and even more importantly he didn't know when his planes were performing good, so he ended up changing the tactic which worked. That is just one thing that actually happened, that had a big impact on the outcome of the battle. This is a fictional scenario. If the Axis could win the Battle of Britain with sheer numbers (or whichever way), the British navy probably could not do much in stopping the invasion through the English Channel. It was exactly in WW2 that airplanes proved how capable they were in general, as well as against ships (hence CVs are the most important ships since WW2), and the entirety of the Channel would be in range of Axis aircraft.
"what if the soviets had joined the germans"
*proceeds to make them turn against each other*
11:46
USSR in alternate timeline: Stretching far to Scandinavia, Balkans, Sinai, Persia, half of Poland.
Stalin: Wonderful
Also USSR in alternate timeline: Gets only a chunk of Manchuria and other half of Sakhalin, and no Turkey.
Also Stalin: Unrealistic, alternate Stalin not doing enough purging.
Actually germans and soviets would gave built an atomic bomb until 1945 mich closer to Americans.
Please continue this scenario into the Cold War. A three-way Cold War > Our timeline.
Sounds pretty hot....
@@tantainguyen4290 And sexy too, I remember watching a video from some years back on a cold war between the US-Western allies and the Axis Powers.
Three way cold war betwwen axis allies and comintern whould be awsome
@@Zen-sx5io link
@@jwdominionpyroraptor4775 It's been some years since I watched that video, and I couldn't find it when I looked.
What if there were no sides in ww2 ?
What if it was a free for all instead of team deathmatch
I see Binkov upload, I click.
"We shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!"
Great video but why isn't Spain in the Axis? The only reason Spain didn't join in real life is because of Wilhelm Canaris secretly convincing Franco there was nothing to gain from joining so that the Axis would have less support
This scenario assumes that no enigma machines would get captured or let alone the have the code broken. The importance of the "intelligence war" can't be omitted.
No anthrax or tabun either.
Yep the Soviets knew about the Manhattan project before Truman.
This scenario ignores a lot of stuff really
Interesting video series, though surely Germany and the Ussr would make further technological advancements with aviation. Not to mention further developments in guided munitions and more advanced air defense that would make it difficult to do any bombing campaigns
Let's be real the allies would win easily. Mad Jack would just take his massive claymore and swat the luftwaffe out of the sky like flies.
I thought after 3 bombs, the US ran out of all enriched uranium in 1945? Maybe I’m remembering my history class wrong
No, they certainly hadn't run out. It was more that they were still in the process of enriching enough to manufacture more bombs. Trinity, Little Boy and Fat Man were simply what was available by August 1945. But, had the war not ended after Nagasaki, they likely would have had another one or two ready within a couple months
@@QuantumAscension1 Exactly