@@shmeckle666 Took the words out of my mouth. The camouflage was for when they heard aircraft approaching, they would stop moving and the aircraft were too high up to really get a good idea as to what they were seeing. If the aircraft did come low enough to see through the camouflage, they'd be exposing themselves to anti-air fire.
Erik Cedergren indeed. And an aircraft only needs to be hit very timed with automatic fire-whereas a tank/armored vehicle needs much more than a few heavy automatic fire rounds to mission-kill/destroy it.
Dude the movie Fury must piss you off. Like in a “tank” battle with the German concealed they take out the last and middle first? Not first and last so no one can move? And they act like they are death traps when the US made like 69,000 Sherman’s to the 2000 Tigers that were a mess mechanically. So on paper “losing” a few thousand Sherman’s sounds bad while the Nazis “only” lost 900 Tigers. It doesn’t tell nearly he whole story.
Employee: hey boss i built this indestructible drone just think what we could do with it! Boss: ... tim, your fired, the world isn't ready for this kind of technology yet, now i have to find somewhere nobody would find it. Tim: b-but Boss: fired.
@@marxel4444 I mean they really didn't. They needed more tanks and planes especially to beat the Soviet Union, but obviously that would be pointless in reality, since they didn't wouldn't have the fuel to run them.
Hitler expressed his disbelief in the nuclear bomb. When Speer describe the potential destructive force, Hitler looked extremely surprised and then said that "well at least that's something I won't see in my lifetime". That was technically true. 😂
No the German scientists believe the amount of nuclear materials needed was dramatically higher than it actually was. So they didn't think manufacturing a nuclear bomb was an achievable strategy. Mainly because their math was incorrect. They didn't actually need large quantities of uranium or plutonium. So they didn't actually realize it was achievable amounts of uranium and plutonium.
@@michaelmckesson6997 I read somewhere that when the Germans heard of Hiroshima, they thought that the Americans had managed to detonate an entire Uranium Pile.
Japan is on the wrong side of the Soviet Union. It's hard enough to damage the Soviet Union from the west. It's impossible from the east. There isn't anything of value there and it's a frozen wasteland. Not to mention that they'd be diverting resources from an already hopeless fight against the US.
@@Mar_Marine or the goddamn italians... i swear to god if i hear another italy player say:"i just got naval invaded, Germany can you send some help?!" i will lose my sanity...
In fact they are very related in the eyes of nazism because of the alleged conspiration of judeobolchevism that stablishes that the jews created communisim
It was like the catholic and protestant fighting all over again but instead of the fighting over who Catholicism is correct it was a fight over who socialism is correct.
26:37 I mean, not invading the USSR wasn't really an option for the Nazis. Their entire ideological foundation was based around the idea of ''Lebensraum'' in the east, the destruction of the ''Jewish conspiracy'' that was Bolshevism, yada yada. The non-aggression pact was always meant to be a temporary thing, from both sides: Stalin considered it a way to buy time and prepare for war better, and Hitler considered it a way to keep the Soviets off of his back while he dealt with the war in the west, and to avoid a two-front war. It was, in large part, the Soviet struggle during the Winter War with Finland that lead to Hitler underestimating the Soviet military prowess - in the same way that the Soviets had underestimated the Finnish military prowess -, and thus lead him to declare war ''prematurely'', so to speak. Yet even if Hitler had waited longer before declaring war, I don't think it would've mattered too much either. The Nazis were, luckily, screwed from the start.
Ironically, not all german generals underestimated Red Army after Winter War. Some of they maked right decision about it - hard landscape, bad weather, good fortifications, competent commanders with good strategy and tactics was make finns hard opponent, but Soviet HQ made great work on mistakes, and broke the nut fast as can.
I've made some calculations a while ago. In order to start the two engines that should have powered the Mouse you would have needed 5 l of gasoline. That is half a canister. Every time you stopped, half a canister, when you accelerated to 20 km/h it would have cost you another half a canister, slowing down in order to turn would have cost you almost double 9-10 l. That would have been one of the most expensive vehicles to run in history. That is not a weapon of war, that is a joke
Just having people doesn't really mean much if you are unable feed them. I doubt they would be able to feed this army for more than a week. In another week it would collapse on itself.
Regarding your question on Germany's atomic weapons program, much of the infrastructure for the heavy water processing was set up in Norway. The Brits got wind of the locations via intel and damaged the facilities repeatedly, IIRC (via commando raids). The Germans never got past exploring the notion and the allies did their best to stymie their limited efforts. In contrast, the allies inherited many of Germany's best minds plus the Brits and Canadians assisted the American program. The top uranium sources in the world are Kazakhstan, Canada and Australia so the Germans didn't have a geographic advantage for the raw materials.
paranoidrodent and the fact that the german program was decentralized. So very unlikely to suceed in time. And the russians took the german research and develouped their own later. So the germans indirectly just boosted the russian atomic project for the cold war.
...at the end of the war, Germany had a few grams of Uranium and they tried to get it to Japan* by submarine, but surrendered to the US Navy after VE-Day... ...and b.t.w.... ...the Uranium found its way to Japan... ...but not in the way the axis planned...! *...Japan hat not 1 but even 2 nuclear-weapon programs - one for the navy and one for the army... ...but the navy later stopped theirs, because they found it made more sence to put the money and resources to radar-technology...!
@Amber Hoke Most likely yes, but sure af London would have not nearly as many cultural sites as they do today. And Moscow would likely still be a nogo zone.
Maddinhpws they wouldn’t have made it into London or any of the UK for that matter with that bomb. Russia wouldve been hit with as many as germany could produce though.
@@Maddinhpws And most of Germany would have been heavily contaminated with anthrax, mustard agents, choke agents and blood agents. Britain had plentiful supplies of all and an excessive bomber force to deploy them. Given how many atomic bombs existed in 1945 (3) it doubtful that Germany with lesser resources than America could have topped tis number. So either way they were F****d.
13:40 A common complaint among German tank engineers was that german tanks could kill 10 tanks for each they lost, but the Russians and Americans always had the 11th tank ready to go.
Well yes Germany knew that they weren’t gonna be able to compete with the allies production capabilities so they tried to go for quality over quantity which is where you get the big cats pz 5-8
@@troytanner4369 Pz 8?? What have you been smoking? 😂 Regardless, even with the quality over quantity mentality, they still produced tanks that broke down more often.
@@turbowolf302 I see I have jumped the gun with my love for daddy stalin. I am just sick of unnuanced views of events which attribute entire events to one or two people. Stalin was a psychopath and a bit of a jerk, but to say that the great patriotic war would have been much different under a different dictator is silly to me.
@@benhurley7366 Another dictator might have not help Germany to circumvent the treaty of Versailles so Germany could not have tested their weapons or train their soldiers in Soviet union. Which would lower their effectiveness. Another dictator might have not signed the non aggression pact with Germany. That would keep Germany paranoid about two front war (memories of ww1) and it might have deter them from starting the war in the first place. Another dictator might have sign the pact, but without that clause where they split Poland between themselves. Because Poland is 800km of buffer between Germany and Soviet Union. If Soviet Union did never agree to split it, there wouldn’t ever be any surprise attack. Unless Germany learns teleport, by the time they get through that 800km territory, Soviet army can be ready in defensive position. Or even can send support in resources and soldiers to Poland to make that fight for Germany as slow and protracted as possible to make them too weak to continue on Soviet Union. UK and France already declared war on Germany in 1939, Soviet union could just join on that. Another dictator could have done all those things, and have German soldiers on their borders, but he might not have attack Finland. Without Soviet Union attacking Finland, there would never been “Finland want their land back” so Finland would keep out of conflict and Germans could not use their territory as staging ground to attack Soviet union from that direction. One less front for Soviet union. And those 320 thousand dead Soviets from winter war could be more useful alive during Barbarossa. Another dictator could have done all those things, but didn’t take territory from Romania when they were splitting territory with Germany. Hitler would then have harder time to convince them to help him with operation Barbarossa to retake their land, especially since he sided with Hungary to also take land from Romania. That’s already 1,5 million soldiers less fighting Soviets. More clever diplomat could have even try to earn Romania as ally, by coming to aid against Hungarian demands. Which could bring Romania from German orbit to Soviet orbit, so not only would 1,5 million less soldiers fight Soviets, those same soldiers might fight Germans instead, because Germany was completely starved for oil, and Romania was their biggest source during war. So Germans would have to invade it anyway, if they ever dreamed to attack Soviet union. Stalin beefed up Germany so much in hope that Germany will fight western powers and they all destroy each other so Soviet union could pick up the pieces. Even the first day of Barbarossa, there were still soviet trains on border to supply Germany with resources. So yes, if Stalin didn’t exist, there would be no Great Patriotic War. Tens of millions of Soviets would still live.
@ I agree in essence however its not that simple. I feel like Stalin cared less about ideology and more about politics and power. Hitler was an ideologist to the max and and so they are kind of incomparable for their motives in that regard. Stalin didnt commit genocide on the scale that hitler did, its just that anyone who starved to death in soviet russia is attibuted to stalin during a time of massive collectivisation and modernisation, and so thats where the massive numbers come from. The great leap forward in China resulted in tens of millions dead, but you dont hear many people saying that mao killed those people. Stalin was a piece of shit and he directly killed thousands of people, as well as a couple million dying in gulags which you can fairly attribute to 'him'. Mean while Nazi Germany is ethnically cleansing on a whole different scale. So nah, its not that simple. I am only mildly educated on this shit so i am open to rebuttals.
@Nick G What's your problem? He makes genuinely well thought out points and actually adds quite a lot to the community. I don't see the problem with that.
27:30 my answer is this: Germany could not, in any alternate universe, avoid Russia. They needed more resources and the most logical country to get it is from the Russians.
Salad Bar, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-agression pact between the USSR and Germany, dividing Poland and the Baltics and supplying Germany with Soviet resources. They had the necessary resources when they attack France and Poland: they got them from the Soviet Union. The USSR basically supplied Germany at the start of the war.
Unless they could in some magical,ungodly way transported the entire combinated Military forces and Resources of both Germany and Japan on to the U.S. mainland and somehow overwhelm us they were screwed,completely and utterly from the start
@@siva4wotblitzhero531 yeah sure, although the Japanese had a sizable navy, Germany not at all, they wouldn't had stood a chance against the British and American navy combined, plus the air war(carriers) where japan lost most of their carriers at midway and germany never had carriers, if they somehow launched an invasion for the us mainland they would just get destroyed
They would of invaded because it was what Hitler believed, he hated communism and Stalin hated fascism so they were destined enemies, Germany not invading Russia would mean you would have to change who the Germans are or as I should say were.
Jacob Hogan I doubt Stalin would’ve thought the death of a single man as a tragedy even if it was his own flesh and blood lol, but the latter is true for the most part.
The thing I love about the "what if..." is that no one actually asks how they get that miracle event/weapon. Because logistics is considered a boring thing.
@@RomWattexcept they had the materials. Believing they didnt have the materials is a mainstream fantasy to keep sheep from shaking. Italy HAD components. Germany had OTHER components. It is well known germany had 664 cubes of uranium. Some of which were proven to have been enriched. The very idea people believe germany was leading the science on nuclear research and then fumbled during the war only to be gathered up by russia and america is laughable and insane. Its like knowing porsche made neat car designs but fucked up during the war as far as tank designs but for some ungodly reason was hired by america to do just that make tanks. Except...wait...you apprently suck...so why scramble to acquire him? Just as an example of course. My point is germany had nukes of some capability. And worked on other wonder weapons. This is exactly why murica scrambled to gather scientists
@@RomWattI serve in the Navy and came from the Army Iran say both on the Reserve side and military side logitistics is the most important thing to anything. Some of our best leaders understood that. General Ulysses S Grant, Omar Bradley, Nimitz, Marshall, Eisenhower all understood in American history the importance of logistics that determines what your plays and understanding your enemies logistical situation helps you understand their decision making.
im guessing either stalin, or one of the surviving non-crazy officers would simply have pulled the red army back and waiting for winter to set in whilst moving to sever the wermacht's (infamously fragile- they were using pack animals in the 40's) supply lines- that was what crushed napoleon- he obsessed over taking moscow despite the tsar/the government having long evacuated....
Kira Yagami but call it fiscal stimulus and it’s ok. Financial crisis was eased by added digital zeros to the reserves. Uk and USA did this without inflation.
Coldfront15 mainly because a lot of the things that Wilson did weren’t as bad as he made it out to be, like his federal reserve system or his tax increases, or didn’t give enough credit to the good things that happened, such as the flawed-but-his-heart-was-in-the-right-place fourteen points.
@@wyattcorbin1629 His 14 points didn't really achieve much did they. This seems to be a common thread when people judge american history, its always the intention that matters, seldom the actual effects of said American intervention. Which as far as WW1 is concerned, was disastrous. (Much like most of Americas "great" campaigns).
26:20 Funnily enough since you mentioned redefining winning, Nazis sort of did that. They had a concept of "Endsieg" which meant "Final victory" or "Ultimate victory." It was many times referred in Nazi rhetoric and it was very vague concept: basically it outlined that Third Reich would be victorious, but excatly how was never really specified. Sometimes, it was when jews and sub-humans were eliminated. Other times it was that when "thousand year reich's future would be secured".
The only effective “Wunderwaffe” was probably the Stg 44 which helped inspire future versions of intermediate cartridge automatic rifles.
5 лет назад
@Pandazzle Pro Those helped greatly after Nazi Germany was already defeated but they weren't really, "wonder weapons" like the SturmGewehr was. That rifle was actually fielded and the V- rocket program was much more experimental.
The Sturmgewehr wasn't a wonderwaffle tho, it was an issued service weapon in full production, it had been since at least 1943... It was produced in very limited numbers compared to the Kar98s, MP40s and MG34/42, but it was far from wunderwaffe. If you call the STG44 a wonder weapon, then you'd have to extend that to the FG42, or some allied things like the M26 Pershing, at which point the term basically loses all meaning.
@@trainknut It was technically an experimental weapon which was given to German units in the Eastern Front to see if the idea of a rifle, and a SMG could be combined into one. It only went into full production once its potential was fully realized by Hitler.
The rocket airplane Me 163 comet, the first jet airplanes, V1 and V2, guided missiles, first anti air missiles. The Germans still use an updated version of the first all purpose LMG MG34/42.
There was no option for Germany not to invade Russia at all, as the idea of Lebensraum was central to Hitler's outlook on what Germany needs and must do.
On Germanys nuclear program: much said in the vid is true, (to my knowledge): 1. significant brain drain. Not only from Germany, but also from occupied terts. Fx. Niels Bohr was flown out from Denmark in a secret op. 2. Lack of resources. Germany was not far in the process of developing the bomb. They made conciderably strides in rocket tech however. But the sheer cost of developing the bomb was out of their league - also its true that at that particular time, it was not really accepted IF or HOW such a bomb would work (or not). So made sense to not waste ressources on an expensive "fantasy" project, when in the middle of a huge war. (They did use time on racial projects: concerned with physical traits, archeology and such, which was also a waste in the war effort - but essentially peanuts, compared to a nuclear program). 3. The program they did have was heavely targeted by the british already in the beginning of the war: The germans had they heavy water production facility in northern Norway. The british tried to both send a covert spec ops team in to destroy it - and also carpet bombed it when that failed. Both missions sort of failed, even though they did cause interruptions. However tired of the harressment, the germans decided to send the existing heavy water to Germany in order to protect it. That was the plan. However the british managed to sink the ferry carrying it in a nordish fjord. At the deepest point to - so it was lost. To summarize, it doesnt seem Germany was really all that commited to the nuclear bomb during the war. Was concidered a bit of a fantasy, expensive - and also losing crucial scientists + plus the already limited amounts of heavy water they had, rather early just made them ignore it. And in honesty they were right id say. No way they would have produced any bomb (no matter how small), concidering the circumstances they were in.
Christian Thaysen even if Germany had heavy water, they needed ALOT more resources to develop a nuclear weapon, hell they didn’t make heavy water for a nuke, heavy water was more focused on making a fission core that could run U-boats and special vehicles
"What if he had kept the agreement with Stalin." Soviets invade axis in 1944 with unstoppable advantages. Or possibly, Germany is at bingo fuel by 1942 due to British blockades.
The whole reason for the germans in WW2 was to defeat the soviets. The germans cared little for the Allies even towards the end 90% of the German army was on the Eastern front
@@albertofrankdiaz6664 People that don't understand the economics will always say things like that. The best video I could recommend for WW 2 is from TIK about oil.
In a sense they could have mode tanks just tanks and made an all for one hardcore assault towards the caucus area they could have gotten the much needed grain and oil
@@unknownalsounknown4238 That hardcore assault towards the caucasus was called the 1942 summer campaign also known as "Fall Blau". It ended with Stalingrad happening and the Germans losing what limited part of the caucasus they had gained.
The Clans would've crushed the IS if they just made more Timber Wolves, Summoners and Dire Wolves. Just make more stuff guys, come on. (TBH, the clans actually could have won, if every invading clan came correct like Wolf did. Wolf was the only one who knew war with the IS was going to be drawn out as hell, and that was BEFORE space AT&T (Comstar) got involved. Then again, the Wolves seemed glad to let their Crusader brothers fail, not realising it was a group effort. 1-21/5/3052 - Never forget.
Although he is wrong, to say that Germany could not possibly have won ww2 in any way is just ignorant. Even TIK, (who he referred to in the video) has said that Germany could have won on the Eastern front and therefore the war.
@@jarl8815 i mean yeah but for that too happen you would have the improve the nazis a lot with hinsight,like make them use a different production model that proved too be better with hinsight, which might even had brought many new problems they tried to avoid with there original plan(fuel shortages) In the end they had to make decisions with the information they had, based on their ideology,therefore they did what they did and they were always going to do that
@@P99s-s I don't think that they had to declare war on the US because of there ideology and that would have made the war very different. If they had captured the oil fields and Moscow at the end of 1942, then it's very possible that they could have won in my opinion. The oil fields were as we now very important and the fall of Moscow would have been a serious problem for Russian morale. I would cal a German victory unlikely bu defenetly not impossible. It's much more likely that the Germans could have won WW1, but that's a completely different story.
@@onekill31 i actually think germany had a better chance winnning ww1 than ww2, again you would have to massivley alter the decionmaking of many partys involved but for example if germnany had come up with a differrent plan than the schlieffen plan and wilhelm had not contested the british in the navy they might not have joined the war(the only did after belgium was invaded), without the uk in the war we might not see the us get involved(they had a lot of german speaking population and were somewhat simpathetic in the begining pre submarin warfare warcrimes and belgian invasion). IF all of this somehow had happenened we are speaking about a ww1 that had Germany,Austira-Hungary,Ottomans+minor allies vs France,Russia,Italy+Minor allies. seeing as how germany won ww1 in the east with help from the communist revolution i find i plausible that germany could take on france in a war of attrition since no britan means no naval blockade for germany and since britan,france and later the US would share the western front line without its allies france would not have the industry or manpower to win. Again all based on changing how people in hisitory behaved, they would never have done this irl
On the question "What counts as a win?" The winter war is one of those wars where the win is based on your own interpretation. Yes, Finland lost a bit of land, but didn't lose that many men compared to the Soviets. Is it a win for Finland or the Soviets? In my opinion, it was both a win and a loss for both sides.
For the atomic bomb thing, I watched a documentary stating Hitler was more interested in having weapons created as soon as possible. Creating an atomic bomb would be difficult because of 2 major factors: the radioactive material needed was hard to get at the time (well, they were in the middle of the war) and they have no manual or guide on how to do it as doing it would be their first time (thus developing it would take a long time). Since there was a war going on, Nazi Germany certainly would want to concentrating in getting immediate supplies, ie petrol.
hound3000 need some hugs not to also mention the fact that the German Nuclear program was only ever created to find an alternative to Hydroelectric and Geothermal power or to make them more effective.
I recall on a documentary once that part of why they opted not to develop it was in part a time issue. Simply put, they projected late 40s as the earliest it would be available and if had not won the war by then they were screwed anyway.
@@tenofprime Yeah, I agree and it made more sense to get petrol first as the immediate supply to fuel for their vehicles. So, any sort of radioactive material would be the last thing in their minds.
@Call Me Ishmael yep, WW2 Germany did not have the resources to fight a long war. Nowhere is this more evident than the eastern front, the Soviets simply threw more people and equipment at the fight until the other side ran out.
Not really, they "invented" the jet engine, the cruise missile V1 and potentially the first intercontinental missile V2, world's largest canon, the mouse, guided missiles, the first self guiding torpedoes, the rocket airplane Me 163 Komet, the first assault rifle, first mass-produced chopper, first surface-to-air missiles etc. All of those things could potentially have bin a failure or taken a decade to finish. So I don't buy it, if someone promised Hitler a weapon that could annihilate a city he would have given them all the resources they wanted, period.
"You ONLY have russia between the two", simple the largest, most producing, most stubborn and most afflicted in casualties faction of the war, separation both theatres. The axis powers being separated doomed them, it's like fighting back to back, but the biggest bully is in between you two.
Not really the most producing if you look beyond just tanks. US easily made more stuff and made as many tanks as was needed but also needed to build ships, etc, and Russia got tons of trucks from the US which allowed Russia to focus on tank production, etc
@@thearisen7301 and many planes as well. there were about 13,000 planes from the usa sold to russia. its not nearly as many as the armored trucks and tanks, but its still a sizable amount of aircraft
With out American rail cars from Lend-lease, that would have effectively cost the Soviet Union the war. No factory moves would have put the Soviet Union in a severe equipment shortage. The push into the Caucuses could have worked and the fuel issue for Germany would have been significantly less.
I remember reading somewhere that when the Allies captured a german nuclear weapons lab site they found that alot of safety concerns had been ignored. Basically said if they turned the reactor on it would have killed everyone around it with radiation poisoning. I will say that tech wise the only nuclear bomb the nazis where close to being able to build was a dirty bomb. But that would not have been that destructive in the short term which is what the nazis needed.
Some points about the German atomic weapon. Even if they did not give up their nuclear project, when could've they actually finish it? '45? '44? Was the war winnable by that time? What about the resources to actually build it? What about air superiority needed to actually deliver the bomb (especially if they wanted to hit an important target)?
Nanaya 7e I think what people confuse the most with the German Nuclear program is that it didn't have any intention to be weaponized as a Atomic program nor did anyone think it was possible. All the sights in Norway where they conducted the German Nuclear program were dedicated to finding a new way to form Hydroelectric power, which had some questionable results in itself and the scientist didn't see this as much to go off anyway. Which when you think about it makes a lot of sense and it makes a lot more sense now put into context on what type of nuclear program the Nazis were actually conducting.
No they aren't. Potential history really didn't back up his views with credible arguments. It was all mostly strawman arguments. They're two key examples. 1. Comparing Hitler to Napoleon. This insanely stupid argument hurt my heads. You can't compare a war fought more then a century prior to a modern war fought with instant radio communication, motor vehicles, railroads & aircraft. It's an objectively stupid premise. 2. The whole "if you take Moscow they'll keep fighting". This argument assumes events after 1941 would just play out exactly the same. This of course is an impossible scenario, because of the logistical importance of Moscow. Moscow control the rail & road network of northern & central Russia. If the Germans take Moscow, Leningrad would be cut off from the rest of the Soviet Union & immediately fall to the Germans. The port facilities would immediately be rebuilt & supplies would flood in by sea. The defensive posture in northern & central Russia would much more secure. This would massively aid the southern offensive toward the caucuses & Stalingrad in 1942. Potential history just ignored the logistical & strategic impact of these alternate scenarios.
@@keitht24 " Potential history really didn't back up his views with credible arguments. It was all mostly strawman arguments." My boy in your examples you are doing the same thing. -Point 1 if you just punch a straight line trough moscow you will leave your sides exposed just like napoleon did radios, motor vehicles, railroads and aircraft cant do much if your strategies are retarded. -Point 2 you cant take fiction for granted. You are just making sentences without even backing them up with some credible arguments making them ironically mostly strawman arguments just taking them as granted. You became the very thing you swore to destroy my dude
@@Nicolas-ic5bx First off, my Napoleon example speaks for itself. Anyone bringing up Napoleon has already lost the argument in my opinion. Like I said, it's an objectively stupid reference. Second, I didn't say just punch a straight line to Moscow. I never said anything remotely similar to that. The Germans did reach pretty close to Moscow & were only turned back by the last of the Russian reserves from Siberia. My third point wasn't a strawman argument. If Moscow is taken by the Germans, it would have a domino effect. It cuts Leningrad off from the rest of Soviet Union. Without even the most minimal aid, Leningrad would fall almost immediately. Moscow controls the rail & road network in northern & central Russia. This would make it logistically, extremely difficult, if not impossible to mount a major counter offensive against the Germans until Moscow is retaken by the Russians. In actual history, Germany still had the initiative in 1942. With a much stronger strategic position controlling Moscow & Leningrad. The outcome becomes much more plausible for the Germans.
@@keitht24 I undestand that these circumstances could make it easier for the germans in some areas but is the realization of those things that in my opinion would not have changed anything in the bigger picture
If Germany had waited and not invaded the Soviets, that would have just gave the Soviets time to build up their army and by the end of the Axis vs Allies war even if Germany won the Soviet would be fully prepared while Germany would be lacking a lot of manpower and resources after their war
Pointless, tragic. The German scientists on their program were a) on the wrong track b) had a tiny fraction of the resources required, and c) were actively sabotaging their own project. The heavy water would not have made a whit of difference.
In relation on the A bomb, the point he is trying to make is that Germany wouldn't have had a nuclear bomb to ponder over if they would want to use it because they didn't care much about the nuclear science needed to build one
Not attacking Russia wasnt an option a) for ideological reasons b) for resources and c) if they hadn't attacked Stalin would have. War between Nazi Germany and the USSR was inevitable. Now maybe they would have done better in a defensive war, but I doubt it
You c) point is a very much debated topic amongst historians, so I would recommend you do some reading on that! In context of this video, let me represent a "what if" instance. if Germany would have been in a situation where they were losing against the Allied forces while having maintained the non-agrresion pact with the Soviets, it would make sense what you are saying. Stalin would have every intention of scooping up territory in eastern Germany at the time if the Allies were closing in on the victory. However, would there be a war between Germany and Soviet Union as the aggressor, if the germans had won their western war against the Allies in the scenario where the non-agression pact where upheld by Germany? That would be a very complicated matter, depending on the german economic condition, manpower and readyness. Stalin feared Germany as much as Hitler feared the Soviets. Could it result in a cold war, much like the one we saw in our reality? I would place my bet on that scenario, even without the Nuclear aspect to it. Also, would the occupied western population help Germany in the scenario of the Soviets as the aggressor in such an event as explained in this comment? The Red Scare was already a thing long before the second world war, and conflict in all the western countries between communists and other ideologies were a common problem. It would therefore not suprise me that the western world would stand together in such a scenario against Soviet aggression, but this is all dependent on a german victory against the Allies.
@@krunske I think assuming that a cold war would form between Soviet Russia and Germany is suspect. The Cold War was defined by two characteristics; The threat of the massive amounts of damage a nuclear weapon would cause (along with the stockpiling of said weapons) AND the distance of the two nations doing the stockpiling essentially assuring at the time that actual troop fighting would never occur. The logistics of the US and the USSR going to war on the ground or sea was extremely messy and would drag many other nations into the conflict. It is why the only battles in the Cold War were proxy-ish battles fueled by ideology. Germany and Soviet Russia are not that far from each other, especially adding in how weak the militaries of the countries between them were. Neither of them had means of opposing each other outside of bombing and ground forces with the former being a fairly bad option in Russian weather for some seasons. WW1 had taught both nations how important logistics, planning and being the first one to make a move was. THAT is why action by one side is inevitable. Stalin might have feared the German army but that very fear would likely have been what caused him to strike before Germany had a chance to consolidate their newly conquered territory. As for Germany vs. Soviet Russia post the defeat of the allies...I doubt the situation would be that simple. The US hasn't joined the war in this scenario and The Red Scare wouldn't be enough I would think for them to throw in alongside Germany, especially if Japan still intends on attacking the US in order to take their island holdings. Peace with Britain does not mean an alliance, especially for similar reasons. Japan wants Great Britain's holdings in the east and might not have agreed to any such peace treaties before claiming them. But even disregarding that Germany would have difficulty mustering manpower from newly conquered nations, nor would their regime really want to considering how into eugenics they were. Russia and Africa still has the oil they need and a peace treaty with Britain blocks off some of the latter depending on the terms. Considering that an invasion of Britain was considered impossible (having a strong navy works miracles, folks!) the Brits were always going to be the chink in the armor that Soviet Russia needed to stand against Germany.
I love when civis laugh at camo, yes its funny looking against a normal backdrop like a open plain or in transport. But take that same camo on tanks, planes or ships and put it against the backdrop its developed for and watch how quickly its not longer a laughing matter. Camo was developed to keep the soldier alive will maximizing killing potential or staying undetected while escaping. During WWII a ship slipped by enemy ships by painting the ship as a island and adding plants to it and moving strictly at night with no lights on internal or external. Camo can save lives and does. I love your videos and wish you where my teacher as a young kid. You bring a view point kids can get into and learn key points of history outside the mainstream stuff that skims over events. Sorry seems I'm late to this party lmao.
The only feasible non atomic “wonderweapon“ I can think of would have been the massproduction of the StG 44 a.k.a. the worlds first assault rifle that was used on a larger scale. In real life they made about 300000 of them if I'm not mistaken while they produced about 20 million K98k bolt action rifles. But even that would have only prolonged the inevitable.
Moritz Wolloner i don't think it was that feasible to even create that many considering it was made between 43-45 production efficiency while changing over from the former weapons would've been down as factories would try to streamline production not to also mention that between 43-45 the War had practically been already won and Germany's industry consisted of what was basically two guys and a screwdriver
It *is* their best Wunderwaffe, probably. They probably couldn't equip every soldier with them, but they could have made more if they started it earlier. Hitler actually hindered the program because of the infighting in the rifle development, and unwillingness to retool the factories. They had to name it "MP 43" and pretend it was a submachine gun to get it through.
It might have helped but most casualties in WW2 were caused by artillery. It might have changed the end date by a few days but the factory producing them was captured with thousands of them ready to be delivered, but not enough ammo.
jjquinn295- It all became a logistical nightmare anyway because of lack of materials and 4+ years of Allied air raids over cities, factories and railroads.
does this game also include the very real problem of Germany's hard limit on oil, cause games usual aren't good at covering the logistics aspect as much as the actual fighting. Or does it allow for choices that the actual people in power would not have made because of personal beliefs because if not then again as the video states you move from alternate history to fantasy.
Thing is, players manage to capitulate the allies really fast in 1940-1941 and not declare war on the soviets until they are done with both France and the UK usually
On the "build more stuff" argument- there's an interesting video at /watch?v=rHsyOXQx-jc on the Military History not Visualized channel. They discuss the fact that when the Germans actually did start making more tanks, they had to switch production away from making spare parts. As a result, when panzers were damaged or broke down later in the war (which Panthers and Tigers were fond of doing) their units often didn't have the spares to repair them. This left many vehicles either abandoned at the side of the road, sitting in workshops for weeks on end waiting for the parts to get them running again, or being cannibalized for working parts to fix other vehicles. Compare that with the US army and its large stockpiles of spare parts, which could quickly be fitted to machines that were designed to be easy to repair and maintain. The Germans simply didn't have the capacity to manufacture massive amounts of war machines and at the same time keep running the ever greater maintenance and supply infrastructure that would have been needed to keep them going.
(Just gonna preface this with the fact that I know more about ships than I do tanks) 11" is, IIRC the smallest gun ever mounted on a dreadnought or post-dreadnought battleship or battlecruiser as a main battery. (For reference, Dreadnought had 12" guns and Yamato had 18.1" guns.) The (proposed) turret on the Ratte was actually a turret from Scharnhorst with the middle barrel taken out.
The Germans nuclear program was based off of heavy water, a rare and expensive substance that they could basically only get in Norway. Along with that, the scientists were much slower and there wasn’t the money or materials to be put into the research. They could’ve had more heavy water, but there was a joint British-Norwegian (resistance) attack on their main heavy water source, basically destroying Germany’s main resource for its nuclear program.
Commenting on the end there about the atomic program, I think the main concern was that they were too early in the project to even see its potential. They believed that even if there was any sort of utility out of atomic power it would take too long to reap the benefits of the program, basically the war would have been over before they would ever even consider being able to make the bomb. It was seen that the resources were better spent looking into conventional weapons because it would have reaped more immediate benefits
I can see why these videos usually talk about scenarios regarding military and economy, because we have easier access to the data as well it's generally more visual, but I haven't seen a video yet, that mentions the general social structure of the German totalitarian system. Totalitarian systems in general are pretty important to learn about, since their influence can be far more impactful than for example a dictatorship, but since Germany became something of a mixture, nothing stood in the way of a populist megalomania making decisions on who is to be considered human and who is to be considered vermin. It's obviously more complex, but I think the internal structures and requirements are somewhat overlooked. The 'Win' scenario would probably be pretty absurd if we're looking how the system had to be sustained by extreme oppression, control and propaganda for everyone living in it and there was no real plan to stop getting rid of the 'enemy', doesn't matter if from outside or from within. That's why I would argue that whatever the goal would look like for them, it is unrealistic to reach or sustain over a big period of time and scale. Regardless, enjoyed the commentary as usual.
I believe that a lot of failed campaigns like Napoleon's is because their planing was centered around victory they never thought what if we lost that battle
At 17:03, this was just because the failed invasion of Mongolia (I can't remember the name) left the Japanese Navy ascendant in their military, and the Navy chose the option between North and South that would get them the most glory. Japan itself probably would have been fine with invading Russia, so long as the Mongolian invasion didn't happen again.
The navy and army were at odds and the army DID want to invade the USSR but as you said after a botched skirmish with the Soviets the navy held more sway in decision making
I had heard a few years ago on a show that a Scientist in Germany had supposedly figured out the science behind the Atom bomb but failed to complete it on purpose because he was afraid Hitler would use it and he thought it was unethical. Maybe you could dive into this and discover more!
yea that man is named Heisenberg. He activly sabotaged the program and tryied to tell the allys that germany is not building an A bomb so they wont build one.
Germans discovered fission in 1938. They also had 664 2.25kg uranium cubes but were not enriched. As the allies entered Germany some scientists gave the location of the buried cubes to the Alsos task force who recovered them. That was the reason they needed the heavy water from Norway. Probably a couple of years away from producing viable fissile material. Nazis had it on the back burner luckily. It was near the town of Haigerloch. Read about it a few years ago.
12:00 the funniest thing about that is Germany literally did do that and got more broke and hitler became a rising force in Germany and that’s the reason why WWII started in the first place
well " heroes of the telemark " did so most of the heary water to make a A-weapon, but in the end of the war the all most did have the it but missing the rest of it
What cost Germany ww2 was the British , they held long enough for the Germans to destroy themselves. Attacking russia in the east while also having a powerful enemy to the west on an island with one of the best navy’s in the world .
@Madam Meouff yes true just a couple ship sinking would mean thousands upon thousands dieing because of supplies being lost which happened in PQ 17 by the way that's a convoy number which German subs literally f***** the s*** out of it
@Madam Meouff Possibly, but the abnormally cold winter did most of the containment of the German troops. The Nazis simply froze in fuel, which caused the advance to be stopped. And then the factories that were transferred beyond the Urals earned full power, and the Germans got acquainted with the KV-2, which was created not for them, but for the Finns, but who cares? The tank of Kliment Voroshilov was clearly not liked by the Germans with its armor and gun, more reminiscent of artillery. But KV had a noble Tire! And to consider that the Germans would not try to cross the English Channel is stupid. Kingsmarine was not afraid of the Royal Navy, remember how many the British had to give for the sinking of Bismarck, it took a lot to the bottom, including the pride of the English Navy - Hood. (Although I still understand the move with the bombing of the population, instead of airfields and ports I can’t, probably Hitler was offended by the British air strikes)
@@two_Finally the Kriegsmaine strait up told Hitler to his face that an invasion of Brian was suicide. They were terrified of the Royal Navy. Which is actually shown by the story of the Bismarck, as Germany did everything they could to hide the ships knowing if spotted before getting in to the Atlantic the Royal Navy would intercept and destroy them. The only reason Hood was sunk was the German shells actually worked (they had a strong tendancy not to) and they actually hit, which from my understanding they were not the most accurate. Also if the Kriegsmaine were not scared of the Royal Navy like you said, they would have tried Jutland 2 suicide bogaloo and lost their entire surface force very quickly.
@@two_Finally Royal Navy 7 Aircraft carriers 15 Battleships 15 Heavy cruisers 49 Light cruisers 335 Destroyers Kriegsmarine 4 Battleships 6 Heavy Cruisers 6 Light cruisers 17 Destroyers 3 Pre Dreadnought battleships - These were obsolete The only advantage the Kriegsmarine had was a huge fleet of U boats but these don't win naval battles.
A country producing a greater number of tanks doesn't necessarily equate to higher amounts of production. Countries produce equipment in different ratios dependant on whats in demand. So the fact that britian was producing nearly as many tanks as Germany actually exemplifies Germany's lack of resources and industrial capacity as Germany would have a strong emphasis on tank production whereas Britain's focus would have predominantly been geared towards air and navel arms production.
