If the Soviets and the West went to war in 1945 - who would have won? 

Yea

But German became allies and still is third reich

Yes of course, the Soviet Union also attacked Poland after all

WW2 part 2

Probably

Therefore it's important who starts the war first, other side (the western side) would have no other choice than to fight or relive the german occupation again

@@abbfilmann3735 in the real if the allies started the war it wouldve failed due to internal opposition, exhausted soldiers, and preception. Rest of the world wouldve seen allies as backstabbing and untrustworthy. Vice versa for USSR.

@@scaryclouds1403 Therefore I placed the emphasis on who starts the confrontation first - for Allies it would be equivalent of political suicide, for USSR not very smart move to do either

@@abbfilmann3735 alternatively let's say for fairness sake its something like American solider and Russian get into a fight causing a full blown skirmish leading to a war.

@@abbfilmann3735 Russia was actually an alley of Hitler (at least in their minds) at first. And if America and England attacked Germany it would been a disaster. We didn’t have the capabilities to take on Germany alone - forget if u add the Soviet Union into the equation! We entered the war at the perfect time. When Hitler turned on the Soviet Union. Remember Hitler secretly built his Tanks originally on Russian soil. And I believe his air-force or Luftwaffe was originally being worked on, on Russian soil. Since it was illegal for Germany to do anything (militarily) on German soil. That’s why operation Barbarossa was so shocking to The Soviet Union. (Or Stalin)

Re-arm the German army and be rebranded as the main villain in the rest of Europe. The Soviets wouldn't even need to organize coups.

​@@VonFreklstein Very unlikely the allied troops would have tolerated it. Add some soviet propaganda on top of that...

That would have failed miserably. Eisenhower and Truman would have easily been against that.

Because it was totally unrealistic....very few in western governments actually trusted Stalin but were at least pragmatic enough to realise the western allies would be unlikely to score an easy decisive win in such a scenario. Hitler's efforts had only just proven that and USSR military when Hitler invaded was in pretty bad shape. Russia is just too large, the settlements too far apart that acts as much if not greater defence for Russia then actual military assets. The western allies were lucky to hold on to even western Germany...I don't see Stalin getting any further then that though even in an optimistic scenario (for him).

@@andrewmckenzie292 the only regrets I think America has (in WW2) is #1- giving up Poland (with Stalin’s promise that it’s only temporary to free Poland of German occupation) to the Soviet Union! That was a horrible mistake! The Polish were a VERY Catholic country having more churches than any other country in Europe! And allowing Poland to become communist. #2- Allowing The Soviet Union to take Berlin! And that was a huge mistake! Russia (the Bolsheviks) was horrible to their own people - they were Medieval to the Citizens of Germany! Raping and robbing everyone and person in sight! - not that, that hasn’t probably happened in many conquered countries in the past. But never in modern day, on such a huge scale. (Although the Japanese did it to the Chinese during WW2) But if u ask me that was the United States two big mistakes during and following the war!

That's the stupidest thing I've ever read

That's why we're talking about it and why it didn't actually take place. Realistically the human element would have made this war impossible even though both combatants were at the maximum military strength of all time in the history of humanity. Not counting nukes of course. obviously now ballistic missiles and MAD make scenarios like this totally unrealistic. I don't trust either side to stay conventional, especially with the existence of smaller tactical battlefield nukes. Things would get muddy pretty quick

I gotta disagree with ya! I firmly believe that’s why Patton had a mysterious hunting accident, and was killed “accidentally” by his own troops! (Not his per say but American troops) I think if he were allowed a smidgen more freedom we would have had a much longer WW2!!

@@roccosantanelli2802 I'm pretty sure he was involved in a car accident

Stalin would have advanced all the way across Europe..but he know he had no hope of over running Americans in Europe.. America now had atomic weapons to stop any further Russian advance, and vast fleets of bombers

I was just to comment the same, and as such in a long war, the allies would simply steamroll the soviets, there would be an initial push from the aggressor in the first phase, a stabilization of the front lines in the second, and then in the third the attritional strains would overwhelm the soviets since they were scraping the bottom of the barrel with regards to their manpower reserves. The end would happen pretty fast since it would be a cascading effect when the front finally start moving, also what Binkov is forgetting is that it was not just war material that Lend Lease provided, it was also things like canned goods, locomotives, and raw materials, again this shortfall would be negligible in the first phase, start to become an issue in the second, then in the third it would be sorely lacking and as such be a huge problem.

And unlike the Germans, the US had the biggest strategic bomber force in the world plus unlimited fighters to sweep ahead of them. Soviet oil fields would have been bombed around the clock and Soviet railways would have been smoked by thousands of US fighters, not to mention relentless fighter attacks on Soviet troops and armor.

@@Chuck_Hooks Actually Britain and the US loves building strategic bomber, the rest (whether Allies or Axis) hehe.

My Godfather was a Spaniard who hated the Communists so much that he volunteered for the Blue Division and fought against them on the Eastern Front...

Well, they (germans) all had a chance to fight the Soviets " ... In german uniforms and with their own german weapons. Without wasting time to surrender, change side, equip with US gear and weapons, get in to US uniforms and charge ( again?) the soviets. But i think that german prisoners just wanted to look "pro -west" and civilized to gain mercy from the western alies... But they failed.

@@george217 many divisions, blue, green, yellow... now are part of the soil as fertilizers. Lucky guys escape from soviet revenge but most the "divisions" never got back.

@White Ness shit happens. ;)

@@MeteorBIG Well, my Godfather got back and had the Knights Cross of the Iron Cross (for killing a LOT of Communists, I'll bet) to prove it...😜

Mother russia is now a scary little girl kkkk

Nice

@Reader Stuff what do you mean our fighters are completely outnumbered and outclassed and the rest are completely useless as interceptors.

the combat radius of a B29 is 3,121 km surely not 6X any comparable German aircraft. That being said, hitting the Urals would obviously depend on the location of the forward bases, Using Finland yes, they reach the Urals, with 3/4 or half bomb loads easily far beyond. Additionally, the oil field were well within range.

@@frankhajek6349i believe he is referring to the b36 which if i remember can reach the urals

Exactly he was so rite but nobody wanted to see or belive him

+ 15 million deaths for what?

Patton is overrated , mediocre commander like MacArthur.

@@romanfedotov1152 LOL

@@hankhill5622 Battlefield 6 Baby

Turkish Army vs Greek Army Military Comparision ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yUMnF1-kKfE.html

@@pathfinder6997 Supposedly Battlefield 6 will basically be a rebooted Battlefield 3. Like Modern Warfare 2019 to the original.

@@afroartist1086 if that’s true I’m gonna die from deep vein thrombosis after playing for 2 days straight

Or about the Cold War going hot. Not like a White House down or that crap. But like crazy combat in europe

@Xiping China soviet ideology was different to the west, they had the same war Ethic as Britain in ww1 around that time they literally pulled Everyman they could. If the west had the same approach we would have outnumbered the soviets.

@Xiping China The Soviets had no way to cross the either ocean or ways to stop the supply chain coming to europe they had no navy and the only long range bomb threat was coming from US it would of been over before it even started.

@Randall Scott Daway The USSR had only 2 functioning long range bombers the Tupalav and as I said earlier the war time production of the USA especially with the B17 and B29s being cranked out at a rate of over 1000 a month with bases in China, Europe and Alaska the US could bomb at its discretion and leisure every major city in the USSR cutting off the forward Soviet troops in Germany with no hope of being resupplied.

@Randall Scott Daway Americans had air superiority

@Randall Scott Daway I sincerely doubt they would have been able to match the amount of interceptors we would have been able to crank out

Allied airpower would've shocked the USSR. They had never been subjected the numbers of bombers, fighter-bombers and fighters the Allied possessed. Another shock would be the sheer numbers of Allied a/c operating hundreds of miles behind the front, ravaging convoys, carpet bombing troop concentrations, etc etc.

@@LuvBorderCollies allied airpower struggled to reach Germany how were they gonna hit Moscow? And the red air force was huge, had more fightercraft than the west even. The allies focused on bombers

@@cpob2013 They don't need to hit Moscow to cripple the USSR War effort. The Caucasus Oil fields were vulnerable. No Oil No War

The russian oilfields are not vulnerable. The Nato supply was. There was 1 month of diesel reserve available in Europe...and that was a very optimistic assumption. . Suez would be shuttered. The North Atlantic and Northsea under massive threat. Baltic sea under russian control. Black sea a russian lake. Shipping around the horn not happening. The 150 Russian subs could stay on patrol almost indefinitely and were invulnerable to attacks since they dove deeper than the Wests..

@@808bigisland What are you talking about? This is World War II... not the Cold war. The Western Allies had THOUSANDS of ships! Those 50 or so Russian subs would have been gone in a couple of months (if they stayed in port) and they weren't nuclear. They couldn't patrol almost indefinitely and they couldn't dive deeper. And besides the arms we were giving to Russia, we were giving them convoy loads of raw materials and food. Once the west stopped shipping that they would be hurting big time. Once the West's air force had wiped out the Russian air cover it would have been a shooting gallery. Again we're not talking Cold War equipment and numbers. This is a WWII scenario.

Don't forget Nationalist China they'd gladly have allows use of airfields in exchange for assistance against their communist problem.

but would the western public or troops support the war they just got done fighting the germans in a very costly victory just to be told we are back at war this time with our former ally

​@@kazakhstanisastate4614no internet back then. Media although not government sponsored, when it came to military usually toe the line of printing what the government says as factual. Only after the fact would they look at with a microscope

what you said about Poland was also true for the other big central/eastern european country, Romania, they had a huge anti communist resistance in the end 40s and early 50s, which diminished way till the end of the 60s.

The ussr population at the time was 170 million, and a common misconception is that the soviet heavily relied on the lend lease tanks late war. They helped but by 1945 the soviets had made there own tanks that easily outclassed the m26 and centurion, such as is-3 which was feared by every nation outside of the bloc at its time.

Americans say that is their right to have firearms in order to protect themselves and to fight a tyrannical government [100% agree] - my countrymen did just that against the communist until the late 60's. In Romania there was a strong anti-communist resistance that did not want to surrender the country to the soviet red plague. We had been invaded by the Russians, just like the rest of Eastern Europe...nobody wanted this. With very limited access to firearms, the resistance fought the communists in the mountains of Romania in order to keep a bridgehead for the moment when the Americans and the British would come to the rescue and join the fight to push the soviets out of Europe. Unfortunately that moment never came, the armed resistance was eventually defeated and my parents and grand parents had to wait for another 45 years for freedom. My countrymen would have fought side by side with Polish people, the allies and the other eastern nations against Russia. The scenario presented in this video does not portray the reality of Eastern Europe at the end of WW 2.

@@michellesimmons8998 The Soviet population was impressive sure, but by 1945 they lost some 35% of men aged 20-50. Add to that all the men that still had to work in fields or factories, and it didn't leave very many you could conscript without starvation at home. Lend-Lease in terms of tanks isn't terribly relevant, sure (save perhaps for the winter of 1942, where British tanks made a good portion of Soviet armor), but the primary purpose of lend-lease was to help Soviet logistics. the Allies supplied thousands of trucks and locomotives, and were the best source of high-quality gasoline and several rare minerals. If the USSR were cut off from those supplies they'd need to divert even more men (which they were already short on) to work in the industry, and even then they may not get the same output as they did with Lend-Lease. As for the IS-3, it scared the Allies, but it wasn't that successful of a design. The big gun's long reload didn't go well with anti-tank combat (where you have to estimate range and correct off that), the interior was more cramped than even in the IS-2, and the mechanical reliability left a lot to be desired. Plus, with only 350-500 built in 1945 (compared to some 2000 Pershings) it would be far from the main tank of the Soviet armored divisions, which would still have to rely on T-34/85s, by most means inferior to Shermans.

You really think that Allied populations and armies would be very supportive of another war? There would've been mass demonstrations and defections immediately.

_ _ 8 _

stop crimethink

There is no war in Ba Sing Se!

N

I dont get it

And then open concentracion camps.

@@jakubkarczynski269 like the gulags?

Many of the German troops were rearmed during the cold war with the same uniform and equipment

@@shanewoody4232 Jews used Nazi equipment during first Israeli wars.

@@FasterthanLight11 gulags were closer to modern day prisons than concentration camps dude

The return of large amounts of demobilised troops actually played a role in causing the famine. My bet is Stalin would either push through regardless of the human cost as usual, or order a chunk of the army to return home to farm.

don't forget to mention what could of happened without the food from lend lease

I think pretty well, because they would be in a war-economy. Out of the 34,000,000 soviets that were mobilized in the World War, 20 to 24 million remained alive, add the soviet manpower reserves on top of that, do you genuinely think it was easy to wipe it out? Also, if unthinkable was to happen, it would happen in 1945, not in 1946 or 47, this would mean the USSR would prioritize and increase food rations to feed its people. Also, the global food shortage in 1946-47 was the worst in history, famine threatened asia, Indo-China, Central and Eastern Europe, bread rationing was introduced in the UK for the first time EVER, and even the US and UK requested food aid from stalin to ease the worldwide shortage.

@@Yo-ps2pf Wasn't it the other way around? The US Lend lease program sent From factory equipment to Planes to food, in fact If I remember correctly the US industrial capacity was so great that it already had 14% war production capability...in 1937, I also doubt the if war were to still continue with unthinkable going into action these US leases would be a bit of headache. not to mention allied airpower was better both in Technology and Training (don't get me wrong the soviets also had good planes and Pilots) not to mention US bomber and CAS capability especially the B-29 and P-47's. British MI6 would also help in the bombing of Soviet factories Edit: I was correct the United States sent 3.2 billion tonnes of food to the USSR

@@NokotanFanCentral No, because many people will be fast enough to mention the supposed the Lend Lease, lets compare the already existing production of the USSR with the supply that it received from the US Lend Lease: Lend Lease / Russian product (1941-1945) aircrafts: 14,795/134,100 tanks: 7,056/109,000 artillery cannons: 8,218/825,200 oil: 2,670,000/110,600,000 (tons) steel: 1,500,000/39,680,000 (tons) (Somehow American Steel won the war!) food: 733,000/64,121,000 (tons) The truth is that All of western allied battle fronts opened after the USSR started winning the war single-handed. And Operation Overlord was carried out in June 6th, 1944. Before this, USSR has already won the battle of Moscow in 1941, battle of Stalingrad in 1942, battle of Kursk in 1943. By the time 1944, April, the Soviets has already pushed the Germans out of Ukraine and entered Romania. They were already winning. During this time, the allies never provided any very useful intelligence and information to USSR. Also, where did you get the 3 billion figure from? the US supplied the USSR with lend-lease. This is usually supported by two statements. Firstly, people are told some out of context numbers, let’s say the most popular is tanks, trains and trucks. Secondly, people might get some dubious statement about how important it was from a historian who have no idea how economy works, or a Soviet historical person who had no idea how the Soviet economy worked. When someone challenges the belief, the usual procedure is to google lend-lease, which will allow you to find a lot more out of context and usually completely wrong statistics. My favorites are the US embassy in Russia, Radio Free Europe, Russia insider, or unsourced free PDF papers top google search results. This usually results in people including new categories, like aluminium, aviation fuel, gunpowder and food. But they still absolutely fail to compare them to Soviet statistics. New quotes can also be introduced as well, the favorites are Stalin, Zhukov and Khrushchev, none of which of course were involved in the planning of Soviet economy in WW2. There are so many problems with this approach to lend-lease, but I will highlight some of the problems briefly. People do not compare lend-lease statistics to Soviet production. How can someone say that an item is important, without knowing how much it is compared to Soviet production? People do not account for stockpiles, for example, when it comes to trucks, a lot of people simply show Soviet produced trucks vs delivered trucks. They completely ignore that the USSR had about 1 million trucks already produced before WW2, which was used. They also ignore that Soviet factories produced American trucks, which were often delivered in parts. People do not account for timeliness. For example, many statistics, include items delivered after WW2 was ended, to suggest this was important for the USSR in WW2, which obviously is highly misleading. People also tend to ignore that most lend-lease was delivered after the USSR had already won Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. At which point most historians agree Germany had already lost the war. People do not do something as basic as converting units, when reading historical documents, people completely disregard some are in Imperial ton, some are in US ton, some are in metric ton. Even some historians as late as 2017, do not grasp this. In a more general sense, people do not grasp the scale of national economy, particularly of a country the size of the USSR. For example people constantly bring up food to me, no one understands this seemingly. The USSR consumed at least 600 million metric tons of food in WW2. They received approximately 3.9 million metric tons of food in lend-lease. This is 0.65%, some people refuse to understand that 3.9 million metric tons of food is actually nothing over a 4 year period for a population of over 100 million people.

They could have counted on Germans too.

@@CsImre and Poles if they managed to push east

that would have change in case of further war.

@@CsImre tell that to the Volksturmm, the Germans were hellbent on resisting the Bolshevists

Maybe they had used “liberated” troops extensively because of their manpower shortages It’s questionable if they’d remain loyal to the Reds

I think Soviets could hold up until mid-1947 if the war stays "conventional" if the US decides to carpet bomb factories and fields, while combining that with nukes, Soviets could probably surrender by end of 1946 like you said.

The soviet union was in prepared and low on morale during operation barbarossa, and now you're thinking the same as The German High Command that USSR will fall by 1947. War is not just a numbers game, as proven by History even the most advanced and most numerous force will still lose to a very determined enemy, see Saudi v.s. Yemen and / or USSR v.s. Mujahaden and / or USA v.s. Afghan, v.s. Vietnam

Not by 1946, even with nukes the war lasts several years. The allies simply didn't have the manpower to push the Soviets back far enough and it's far easier to defend then it is to attack.

it would have been a long and bloody war as the video says as well. every side hopes for a quick and decisive victory, but it is very rarely so.

@@18vladz the war against the afghans has more rules than ww2

So HaS sTaLiN

If you want to read more about this kind of thing a really good book series about this would be the Red Gambit Series by Colin Gee. It is pretty in depth and covers helps to empathize with the soldiers on both sides.

@@ryanbeske5504 Oh thanks for the suggestion, I'll see if I can buy it.

Original Name No problem!

Same!!!

I would have killed my self

Simple. Threaten Russia with a nuclear strike. Maybe one dropped. Europe all the way to the Urals would escape further destruction. The Atom actually save Japan from door to door destruction.

Soviets: ah yeah, loot and raep never stops

@@Celestial1000 People then were NOT soyboys.. ANOTHER TYPE OF MEN THEN

But the same thing was happening to Britain and France Britain had no more trained men and they were running out of men that could used to reinforce the divisions. Let alone make new divisions France did have manpower they could draft bit they were mostly coming from Africa. They would take long to get to the frontline

USA would not be able to make it that far into Russia aswell

Russia is easy to invade. There are no natural barriers. All populations to the rear would be eager to resist the horrible Soviets. Soviet factories would be destroyed by B 29s, escorted by superior allied fighters. Why would the allies depend on Portuguese ports when Le Havre and Rotterdam are readily available? 1944 on the Western Front saw record cold temperatures. Sheesh!

@@sidecar7714 Because B-29s deployed in Europe and bombing Russia is a fantasy. Besides everybody in Western Europe would be fighting the aggressive Americans and their Nazi friends.

@@lape2002 How the hell did you come up with that tosh?

Somehow I doubt the Americans and Soviets would have cared about that in 1945/1946...

@@Emdee5632 amen, the less europeans the better for them

Oh just wait, it wasn't the World Wars that ended the European people, but the policies that followed them.

@@towenaar4142 Huh?

@@Emdee5632 you can definitely say that about Soviets, well documented. But the Americans, Brits and all the other allies did alot to avoid unnecessary damage. At least with on the ground fighting. Bombing care was taken, but didn't always work out. Americans daylight was better at that. Brits Night time bombing was less accurate, so even if care taken. Dresden being a outlier rather than the norm. If there was a good reason for it, I have yet to hear it.

Your the type of comments people need to be watchful of, your delusional is uncanny, the Soviet would have gave the Americans a run for their money. Stop believing West media.

@@MrAce2000nukes

Well church hill is the one who wanted to Invade also the Soviets and Allie’s were both spent

@@MrAce2000 the Soviets were quite literally receiving 2/3rds of their food supply in March 1945 from the US, they absolutely did not have the agricultural infrastructure to sustain their army at that point in time and were receiving daily shipments from Murmansk. In addition to that the Soviets lost 27 million people during a 4 year span, 80% of Soviet males born in 1923 did not live to see the end of the war, had they gone to war with the US they likely would have killed off an entire generation of people in the process. As well as the Soviets lacking any sort of long range strategic bomber, the US was producing about 300 planes per day and were the ones ravaging Japanese and German industry, the Soviets did not have an answer to accessing American industry across the ocean, while the Americans very well could obliterate any major Soviet targets with air superiority. In conclusion, even if all else failed, and the Soviets somehow were in a position to win, the Americans had the atomic bomb and the Soviets did not, their capital city and entire government would be reduced to ash, to which they would have no choice but too capitulate or face total annihilation.

@@MrAce2000the Americans had a nuclear program, the Soviets didn’t at the time. The Soviet Army was also crippled after WW2 so the Allies would have won. Might have taken a year or two but the Allie’s would have won eventually.

Soviets had 12000 , (Twelve Thousand ) IL-2's in reserve , their version of the Spitfire , I wonder how many 1000 B-52 Bomber Fleets would have survived an onslaught , thats why they never went ahead , in fact the opposite would have happened, the Red Army would have ended up on the North Sea Coast.

​@@brendonnz1964 How can you be so wrong in such a short comment? Il-2 is a close air support aircraft which had a flight ceiling of 5500m, Spitfire was a FIGHTER, the only common thing between them was that they both flew and were military aircraft. Next, B-52s had their first flight in 1952. And even if you are talking about the B-29, its flight ceiling is 9710m, How did you imagine a plane made to hit land targets could hit an aircraft flying 4000+ meters above it? Short answer: It can't even see the B-29s. However the soviets did have fighters that could fly as high as 10000m, But those aircraft were designed for low altitude flying, meaning that said fighters were too slow to reach the bombers and even if they did they would be lacking firepower, maneuverability and tactics to take said bombers down. It would take a year or two for them to deal with that.

The Soviets would have as much success with the B-29 as the Japanese did, which wouldn't be much. The whole point of the B-29 at that era was to fly high enough to avoid most enemy fighters while giving the crew a pressurized cabin to work with, flak would take some down but most fighters would struggle with it especially if escorted by P-51's.

@@castor3020 also even if the il2 were used as cas they would get shot down immediately by allied airforce Still can't believe this dude thinks il2 is the same as spitfire and can counter long range heavy jet bomber that won't exist until 5 years later

@@castor3020 not to mention the lost the avgas with the high octane rating for superchargers and other forced induction required to work at high altitudes.

The only problem I see is how would the US justify more war agaisnt a former ally. I think it's unlikely they would act first but if the USSR had attacked (also unlikely), allied victory was certain.

@@SrCoxas how do you think this couldnt happen. Litterally within a few years you have the Red Scares starting and then after that McCarthyism. The Berlin Airlift was in 1947 so we were already openly antagonistic within 1.5 years.

baraxor lol, the only reason the Allied had more aircrafts than the Soviet at the start if the war is because the Luftwaffe had over 75% of the Planes and the best pilots on the eastern front, so they sustained more losses. At low altitude Russian fighters were muuuch better, at high altitude the Russian had yaks with vk-107 engines and i-225s that still outperformed p51Ds, Griffon spitfires, and P-47Ds. The superiority of allied fighters in WW2 over the Soviet fighters is a pure myth. The Soviets could easily intercept B-29s. The Allies could not do the same bombing that they did on Germany: reasons? They would face stronger opponents (bf109Ks and ta-152s were superior to allied and Soviet fighters, but the fact that German pilots were poorly trained largely compensates the superiority of German fighters, and by 1945 red army pilots were equally trained if not better trained than the Allied ones), they would face a country with 400% bigger numbers than the Germans, they would have had to bomb a surface much bigger, they lacked fighters to escort bombers deep behind the Urals. While the Soviets could stop the Allied bombers, how the Allies would stop Il-10s? At low altitude the Russian fighters performed much better than the Allied ones. The only thing holding back the USSR was the lack of manpower to launch any offensive.

@@ferrarisuper Another brainless amateur neglecting logistics. The soviets would basically stop having an air force at all. Maybe half of soviet produced aircraft (manufactured with lend-lease tooling) were made of lend-lease aluminum and domestic production of the additives necessary for aviation fuel was practically non-existent. Good luck replacing aircraft or even getting off the ground with the 70-80 octane gas they would have had. Considering you cited an experimental aircraft as an argument for soviet capability, it's pretty clear you're talking out your ass anyway.

Russia had pushed Germany from Warsaw to Berlin in a fucking month

Not really, they produced A bombs at a very slow rate, and they dont have missiles, theyd have to use planes that could be shot down and have the bomb possibly captured

@@chadthundercock4806 in 1948 the United States had over 50 Atomic bombs before the Soviets had their first

If only. On one side you have some war hawks from the West, foaming in the mouth to see the destruction of Communism. On the other, you have several tankies and self-described 'anti-westerners' who casually dismiss anything to the contrary of their views as 'American propaganda'. It's disappointing that nuance is dead and that hyper-partisanship is the new norm.

@@SP-rt4ig I bed to differ. Humanity has not changed a bit. If you think these posts are emotionally charged, and off base -- check out what was passing for political chatter in the 19th Century -- pick any country. Folks these days are actually calmer than their great-grandparents. Blame the world-wide flow of information and history. As a side note: most tyrants who lead aggressive conflict have never left their country of origin. There are exceptions, but not many. Tojo, Hitler, Stalin, Mao -- these guys were not tourists! They filled their immediate staff with other fellows that had never travelled, either. In contrast, Churchill, FDR, De Gaulle were all men of the world. Famously, FDR practiced collective leadership. Suppressed at the time, FDR was actually too sick -- he was dying -- through most of the war. He kept short hours -- especially from 1943 onwards -- the period when the US really went into high gear. Remember that the US landed two corps in Normandy in June 1944 -- and a Marine corps in June 1944 -- half-the-way around the world -- and only two-weeks apart. BTW, in manning and support, a Marine division is twice as expensive as an Army division. Getting wet cost a ton of money -- and all Marine formations were 'shock' formations... 50% extra man-power relative to an Army formation. All during this frenetic military activity -- FDR was kicking it back with his doctor and Congress. He did not micro-manage the Pentagon.

false

That’s false Russia had lots of raw material, Soviet could end the United state’s if they allowed female conscription, but they would end the war at a deadlier cost

Baloney.

One of the main reason germany attacked USSR was because of abundance of resources it had and this guy is saying that they lacked material

Exactly... a limited & Chokable industrial supply base and outmatched by the game changing American force multiplier of splitting the atom... Russia would have done nothing except surrender like Japan in the face of overwhelming technology... Bomb shelters were NOT designed for radiation or blasts on that level... Stalin would have been buried alive & more Russians would have STILL lived if he had been killed... We may even be allies today perhaps like Japan & Vietnam Now?

Also part of ukraine

There were much more Poles in the Red army, than in the West. Not just divisions, but whole army groups, consisting of communist Poles. At that time they would have supported their comrades in arms, rather than UK or US

Rat UK and France were the first to sell out Poland to Hitler. Communists were majority in Poland and significant in Romania. They would happily kick western asses if given the chance.

@Michael Colapietro you wrong man... Stalin is always described as hitler but hey, it's not true: gulag were just prison camp where you worked for being reintegrated in the social life the type of work was normal. A lot of gulag's "captain" used their power to basically sterminate the prisoners but when Stalin recognise this thing he suddenly stop this thing. The Americans numbers says that 20 milion people died in gulag but in reality they were just 500 thousands... in front of the two Americans nukes in Japan is a laugh... stalin was a dictator, but he saved the world from the nazi

@@Ajb.bgr_ Why are the 2 nukes seen as worse then any other weapon? Dead is dead. Alll parties were guilty of killing civilians . And if you have to choose between your own people or the enemy's , the choice isn't that difficult. If stalin had nukes he would have bombed the shit out of the nazi's. And the he probably would have used them to conquer europe. Stalin was a dictator and the soviets had a huge part in defeating the nazi's.,.... But didn't do it alone.

Can we get C&C gang in here?

KHIROV REPORT

@Hussein Nothing says fun like making up facts about Einstein and applying labels you don't comprehend.

I drive a truck everyday thats a close brother of the Studes. Very simple engineering, longlasting and easy to manufacture. Same with farm stuff. The Red Army was purged from officers by Stalin. It took till early 44 to fix that. After that it was assessed that all Allied forces could not take on a battlehardened RA with its own supply line reaching into Germany. 2.5 years later nuclear parity was achieved. Stalin could not move in in those 2.5 years of nuclear stalemate...The RA and Moscow would be heap of radioactive rubble if he did.

Well, nuclear weapon in Japan has showed it useless in strategic or tactical meaning and it was more like psychological weapon. In two words: there's almost no military sense of using atomic bombs, especially back then, when US has just a little bit of them. Also, its hard to imagine, that US with allies, even together, would "easily destroy" Soviets, because they had more airplanes, because USSR presented to the world one the best airplanes. And even more: US and its allies gained more experience in the sea and ocean during war with Japan, when Russia gained enormous experience on the land war, thanks to Germany. More likely nor Ussr, nor Allies would reach any success in that kind of war. When Cold war broke out there was a clear example, that WWIII between Western allies and Russia was pretty unreal in meaning of reaching some results in "knocking down Russia" and that example was US plan "dropshot" which has served more as Propaganda instrument, because it's pretty unrealistic.

​@@АлександрДаминин The strategic value of dropping Atomic Bombs om Hiroshima and Nagasaki was it changed the mind of Emperor Hirohito. It made him decide to stop fighting the US. The strategic value of nuclear weapons today is it prevents war between nuclear armed countries. India and Pakistan and India and China are examples. When WWII ended in Europe the US had not used atomic bombs yet. VE Day was in May,1945, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in August 1945. The US had Little Boy and Fat Man and a third bomb in production. Twelve bombs were planned. Patton sounded the alert about Russia's intentions and he was told to shut up. The allies were making preparations for war with Russia. The two bombs would have been shifted to the European theatre for use on Moscow and St Petersburg and the third would have been used later against any massive Russian troop concentration. Bombing an enemy capital and its major cities was strategic thinking during WWII. Stalin did not order the Russian Army to go further west because he had spies inside thee Manhattan project and he knew about the bombs. He would have felt personally threatened because he abandoned Moscow as German forces were approaching. He thought he was going to be arrested when government officials came to his Dacha to convince him to go back to Moscow. He didn't order the invasion of Western Europe because he knew about Americas atomic program.

​@@RobertoAtkinson-q3xno, Japan surremdered because the soviets declared war on japan, and japan wanted them to be the negotiatoris of a peace agreement between japan and the us

@@mexicobasado8177 ​ Neither the bombs or Russia's entry into the war convinced the Japanese military to surrender. All three events convinced the Emperor , not the military, to surrender. The Japanese military mounted a coupe in an attempt to stop the Emperor from announcing surrender. The Emperors residence was the scene of a gun battle between his guards and members of the Japanese military who were looking for the surrender tape, in the Emperors voice, that was going to be broadcast to the people of Japan. . At the Teheran conference Stalin agreed to enter the war against Japan after the Germans were defeated. Germany was defeated by May 8 1945 and Russia declared war on Japan on August 8 1945 two days after little boy was dropped on Hiroshima. Why did Russia wait three months and after Japan was hit by an Atomic bomb? Maybe it was because Japan defeated Russia in the Russo Japanese war of 1904. It looks like Russia got courage after the US dropped the first bomb. Stalin had spies in the Manhattan project and he knew the US was building a bomb. Was he so afraid of Japan that he waited for the US to drop it on Japan before declaring war on Japan? The answer is somewhere in someone's memoirs.

@@mexicobasado8177 ​ @mexicobasado8177 Neither the bombs or Russia's entry into the war convinced the Japanese military to surrender. All three events convinced the Emperor , not the military, to surrender. The Japanese military mounted a coupe in an attempt to stop the Emperor from announcing surrender. The Emperors residence was the scene of a gun battle between his guards and members of the Japanese military who were looking for the surrender tape, in the Emperors voice, that was going to be broadcast to the people of Japan. . At the Teheran conference Stalin agreed to enter the war against Japan after the Germans were defeated. Germany was defeated by May 8 1945 and Russia declared war on Japan on August 8 1945 two days after little boy was dropped on Hiroshima. Why did Russia wait three months and after Japan was hit by an Atomic bomb? Maybe it was because Japan defeated Russia in the Russo Japanese war of 1904. It looks like Russia got courage after the US dropped the first bomb. Stalin had spies in the Manhattan project and he knew the US was building a bomb. Was he so afraid of Japan that he waited for the US to drop it on Japan before declaring war on Japan? The answer is somewhere in someone's memoirs.

US had only 2 A-bombs in 1945 , the question is could the rest of the army hold until they produce 10-15 more?

Mike K.s The US Navy would’ve dominated with their carriers and planes, and help the army hold the line along the shores with cruiser and battleship artillery support, along with the Royal Navy’s ships

Amurhicans are the silliest bunch in history. I only took your own cops to bring your own country down. USA = 3rd world country, get over yourself you bunch of neo-nazis.

Mike K.s onewhosaysgoose America was like better dead than red jk but seriously America did most of the work in that Pacific, hopping from island to island and then Russia comes in and tries to take japan, this could’ve resulted in a conflict if they somehow made it to Japan.

@@mikek.s1707 This guy had bad luck. He witnessed (but survived) both blasts. After he survived Hiroshima, he said I gotta get out of here and get home. Home was Nagasaki. www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.history.com/.amp/news/the-man-who-survived-two-atomic-bombs&ved=2ahUKEwiGsNP12fvrAhWoHzQIHauBA0AQFjAFegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3Q2Ttdcbap-do82KjsF439&ampcf=1

Bruh what the fuck is a Sherman or crusader tank supposed to do against a t 34 or KV 2? Ram it? By 45 the full soviet union had been liberated for about a year and the populations of Minsk Kiev and leningrad were now available to produce and enlist. Its like if in the last year of the Civil War, new York and Boston suddenly joined the union army. Both of you clowns seem to forget the allies couldn't field even 2 million men because of supply lines. Remember how Patton and monty competed for campaigns and they only had gas for one? And then they picked monty and he tripped over himself in Holland? Yeah those issues hadnt been solved in July there just wasn't any shooting. The armies could only fight as fast as dock workers in Antwerp could unload. Meanwhile the reds had almost 7 million in europe alone with every railway bridge and back road in half a continent as a viable supply route. You kids sound like the wermacht on the eve of barbarossa. Oh sure Patton charges into Berlin in a couple weeks and you write home that it will be over by Christmas. Then he runs out of gas, gets enveloped, and it turns into another stalingrad. Zhukov would be giving stalin a tour of Paris for new years. Not to mention the outrage on the home front

What this video does't consider is the political turmoil in France and Italy at the time. In 1945 the communists got the majority vote in france and a big chunk in Italy. If the Allies attacked the soviets AND recruited former Nazi armies it would be very likely that there would be leftist uprisings in France and Italy. Maybe even a communist coup or full on civil war. Same would likely happen to Greece. Its also a high possibility that Spain would join the allied side in this scenario. India was also on the verge of revolution and might openly rebel against the British rule, same goes for many other colonies of allied nation(example: Middle east, Indonesia, Indochina) this would likely tie down some parts of the allied army. Leftists in the UK would also likely start strikes against the government for attacking the USSR.

@Stratos I 😂 you forget Russia actually invaded Afghanistan with the intention of taking it over and failed hard. America was after specific people and wasn’t there to take the country. We could have turned it into a ditch had we chosen to.

@@viddobrisek6953Great comment. I also wanted to write about it. It is a pity that this video did not address political issues, as well as other aspects of that time. Everything was very ambiguous there. But I think then the video would have lasted many hours.

So who would win

@@clonetrooper2782 US/UK due to superior production, logistics and firepower. We would win in a steady attritional slog.

Were talking about us vs soviet union

@@clonetrooper2782 at the end of WW2 the US military along was as large as the red army. US also had a far superior Air Force, dominated the worlds oceans so it can invade wherever it pleased, and by far the superior industrial power. US would win, it would’ve just been too costly.

@@artruisjoew5473 The wild cards in this would be Turkey and India. Turkey maybe not a true wild card as it knew Stalin was in trouble with Stalin for not joining against Germany sooner. That would put oil production and Southern Soviets forces of even the short range fighters. But Stalin could say he would forgive Turkey if they joined against the West. I believe this was tried and Turkey joined NATO. So I still go with assisting the west. The US bargained with India to help in the war in its push against the British after the war. Continue fighting might erode that belief. They provided 1 million to the common wealth military. I believe it was about 1/3 of its ground forces. But economic wise ww2 was a great benefit to India. Only 2nd to the US. still think they would stick with the West.

But the Soviet manpower couldn’t last forever. They had just fought a war from 1941-1945 and had lost millions. The United States did not suffer casualties like the Soviet Union so eventually we would outnumber them.

@@Juan-qu4oj The thing is even after the war, the soviets still had a higher population + a higher industrial production than both the US and UK, why would them outnumbering the West be a problem?

@@Yo-ps2pf because they just lost 9 million soldiers and wouldn’t be receiving American lend-lease any more

@@Juan-qu4oj And they still had a higher industrial production than the US and could field tens of millions of more men.. not sure what your point is

@@Yo-ps2pfThey didn’t tho. All throughout the war, the US produced about the same or more than the Soviets.

You don’t look at history much, do you?

@@looinrims fill me in then wannabee ass corporal

@@crackcbainefl2675 damn dude no need to get a stick up your ass, I didn’t claim to be a corporal, I just said you don’t look at history much if you think “former allies becoming enemies” isn’t one of the only constants in history

@@crackcbainefl2675 Greco-Persian wars, then the Peloponnesian War for example. Communist China and Kuomintang China literally right after WW2 ended.

@@kylevernon Ik that former allies betray each other after conflicts, Im not clueless.

@Big Smoke Yes but nothing comparable to the almost unlimited capabilities of the US.

@Big Smoke The POTENTIAL of the US is enormous because of its resources and manpower.

@Big Smoke The Reich had a good factory base, but no raw materials to fully utilize it. Fuel and rare metals (tungsten) especially were always a problem, and the primary reason why the German Army couldn't ever be fully motorized, even with infinite time.

@Big Smoke The Reich was never fully prepared for a full scale war. Especially on the magnitude of WW2! Half the German Army relied on horses! Most of the infantry had to get to places by road marching! 95% of allied infantry hopped on trucks! The only units that relied on horses for the US were stationed in the US to act as border patrol because their were no reliable roads near the border with Mexico at the time.

Yeah powerful economy but weak government and low stability

@Timmy Dragonborn True but you have to remember that a large portion of that land is just empty.

Naval power would not do anything to the soviet union, because all of their territory is pure vast land, thats why invading russia is impossible, the ussr would have conquered germany, and france, they wouldn't have invaded england, and most likely they would've looked for allies in China, battles would have focused on france, england, belgium and possible poland, but it would not reach ussr land, in the end, i believe the allies would have seeked armistice with the ussr, to avoid such unimaginable casualties.

@@ACRus19 Allied Carriers would move to the Black Sea and attack Soviet Oil Fields in the Caucasus Regions. Additionally, the Allies could use B-29s, which the Soviets couldn't reach with their Fighters, to completely level Red Army's logistics, forward armies, airfields and, ultimately, factories. # The Red Army was scraping the barrel with their manpower reserves and had been conscripting people they previously deemed unfit for service and from former Axis countries like Romania to fill in the ranks, but it wasn't enough. If the Allies flatten a few Soviet Armies, their number advantage is gone and they can't replace it. Additionally, food imports from the USA kept the Soviets out of a famine at the end of the war. Without those imports, the Soviets can't feed their people or armies. And 2 of those Armies were majority Polish, who only fought with the Soviets because they were fighting Germany. Those Poles, still bitter about the 1939 invasion and betrayal at Warsaw would have loved a chance to turn their weapons on the Soviets, robbing them of 2 armies. Sorry, but the Red Army doesn't last a year. Famine, logistical problems and factories getting nuked cement an Allied Victory.

@@ACRus19 The Navy would have been able to take out their supply lines, and also launch amphibious assaults to out flank the Red Army.

Agreed. Point is also that the West had massive bomber fleet. USSR, none. Fighters comparison: perhaps USSR more but poor assambling. Same for tanks. On top everything between Oeral and France was desolated. Long vulnarable supply lines, etc. Etc. Food shortages since 1930s... stop of lend lease. It just wasnt looking good for USSR at any point. This video should be 1 minute. Churchill was right by thinking to move eastwards. We will always regret this today...

@@mcb7208well i mean in the end, we won, even if russia is still antagonistic towards the west they have no chance against us anymore aside from nuclear weapons which due to MAD is very unlikely

​@@mcb7208It would have left the ideological question open. USSR failing onnits own at least is a big example people can point to.

I agree I wish they would have touched more on the US Navy. All those aircraft carriers were not worked into the overall strategy employed in this video. Still a fun video playing with “what if” scenario.

Anything going into the Baltic would be torn apart by the red airforce Do you think they don't have a military?

@@cpob2013 Sure they do, but the red army at that time relied heavily on American supplies. American trucks, tanks, boots, food and ammo all found there way in huge proportions to the red army.

Would soviets forgive the western allies after this ? I would say that soviets deserved their share of europe after doing most of the job in the european theatre of ww2.

@@KillerofWestoids The who? The soviets got their ass handed to them in this scenario, they are no longer a factor. St Pete gets leveled by the combined Pacific fleet of 38 battle ships and 22 aircraft carriers throwing everything at at. We want the land, so we won't just nuke it. Then once the land looks like a parking lot, we build runways and every city with over 500 people gets nuked basically. The only thing left to say squat will be the cockroaches. Now go away

Turkish Army vs Greek Army Military Comparision ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yUMnF1-kKfE.html

Food was minor. Raw numbers without comparing to soviet production look big, but were meaningless. For the worse, lend lease only reached the USSR in quantity by 1943. So they passed 2 years of the worse times without it, by then they were already winning. The Soviets had still lots of farmlands in southern Russia, kazakhstan, the caucasus. The ir food was chicken, fish, fat, wine, beer, fruits, and vegetables, mainly in stew and soups, famous is the babushka soup, made with vegetables And chicken donated by old women across the country as the farms were empty with their sons and husbands in the front. The major blow to soviet food production was the loss of the western farm lands which represented 35% of the soviet wheat production. Lend lease food was mostly used as rations for tankers, front it's which couldn't use hot meals and civilians refugees. Fun fact up to 1948 the soviet occupied Germany received better rations than the western one and people where moving there "people will ratter eat a bigger communist ration than starving one from freedom" said an US officer then a d they stopped the plan to starve the Germans. So the Soviets could and did fed people. All Eastern europe from 1945 and with no lend lease. They armed and fed massive armies and the people there. The famine after WWII was for idiotic policies to make corn in cold regions instead of wheat in the 1950s. By that time webin Argentina sent millions of tons of meat and wheat for free for humanitarian reasons.

I love it when people go "we send X" 1) YOU didnt send jack shit, you werent even born 2) It makes it hard to talk about the issue because it clearly makes your personal bias and lack of objectivity obvious 3) It makes it unclear about what exactly you are talking. Who exactly is "we"? The allies, only the USA, only the UK and colonies? Also, if only "you" would have been so nice and send Iran food as well after invading them in 1941 and causing a massive famine killing millions (and the forcing Iran into colonial treaties regarding their Oil ressources that would directly result in the Iranian Revolution later on...). But "you" invading neutral countries and starving them to death in the millions isnt bad, its jsut bad when the germans or japanease do it, am I right?

@@noobster4779bro how is this even relevant to the topic? Go cry somewhere else

​@@noobster4779XDDdd you are like 12 what are you crying about ussr was sh1t and we did send them food.

Bombs weren't that accurate. Wiping out large tank formations wasn't going to happen. On the other hand, wiping out supply lines would happen because in that case it's numbers that matter not being accurate.

@@redhunter8731 bombs are not the first choice in weapons to destroy tank formations.

@@redhunter8731 bombers weren’t close air support aircraft. P47s, Typhoons or Mosquitos could be used in that role, using bombs, cannons or rockets. Besides there are accounts in ww2 of planes destroying a large amount of tanks. This one German pilot using Ju87 with cannons destroyed over 200 soviet tanks.

Accuracies of bombing runs on tanks was laughable

@@ahmedmaniyaruni4300 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel German pilot who destroyed over 500 enemy tanks

You're a God 🙌

Wow you're really determine.. nice

Is it like HOI4 but mobile or rather a grindy building and waiting game?

What about Communists in China

@Carl Gaming It didn't stop the Mongols. Nothing stops the Mongols.

@Carl Gaming More recently in 1918. The Allies did a similar job to re-establish the Eastern front of World War I and rescue the Czech Legion.

At that moment, after 1950 the soviets would absolutely destroy the european continentz and then it would be a nuclear clusterfuck with USA.

@@Lucas-ew5lk it wouldn't. The ussr would lose

The soviet army in 1945 was the most experienced and enormous in the world,a soviet soldier in 1945 for combat experience is equivalent to 3 US soldier

@@LorenzoBruni-ol6pt thats not how experience works. and besides the ussr would fall to the western allies

@@engineerenginering8633 yes Is how works,they combat for 4 years in all over Europe in harsh condition

Thank You, I was wondering when someone else would bring this up, too!

@@Pietrek_Channel Oil the USA and British would go hard after the Caucasus Oil fields the Germans didn't bomb them because they wanted them intact. They would light the biggest fire the North has ever seen. Plus the USSR was getting almost all it's aviation fuel from the USA.

Especially after the raping and slaughtering of the civilians by the Red Army.

What will likely happen is the us nukes major cities of the soviet which make them more mad and they will push to Paris and conquer all of Europe and wait until an armestis is signed

Maybe, but was the american population going to support an endless war ? Probably not because they wanted to end it with Japan

Shut up baby killer

@@rohitroll2119 Moron.

You are delusional if you think a Western force allied with former Nazis attacking a former ally in July 1945 would have been welcomed by any other than crazy nationalists in Poland and the Ukraine. Mostly communist French resistance would have made life miserable any form of US/British logistic efforts passing French territory as they would have viewed it as the new 'fascist army" and their capitalist supporters. Same goes for Italy where the Garibaldi communist brigades pretty much controlled large chunks of Italy or in Greece where the communist DSE army reigned supreme. A VERY LIKELY scenario is France under recently elected communist leader Maurice Thorez as Prime Minister and Charles DeGaulle declaring France's neutrality and opposing the use of their ports for Western Allies disembarkment of troops. A similar scenario might have happened in Italy as recently elected Constitutional Assembly composed of two-thirds Socialists and Communists would certainly NOT have viewed the presence of Allies and former Nazis in their recently liberated territory. Therefore the only reliable place where the Western forces could deploy their so-called numerical manpower and material advantage would be the port of Antwerp, extremely close to the Red Army's range.

@Libs Hate Montesquieu Yes, that's right. My Father was head of "G" group, at the National Security Agency which oversaw Group of Soviet Forces Europe. He discovered the plans for the Bolsheviks to invade Afghanistan way before the invasion. Many other things. Dad had same opinion as you and your Dad.

Although such war would cost several million lives,I think it would be for the best.Just think in what kind of the world we would be living right now...

Exactly, or just bombed Baku, Maikop(sp?), and Grozny. That was 80% of soviet oil production. On the subject of Soviets manpower and production lend lease supplied something like 3/4 of all artillery shells 57% of aviation fuel, and nearly all the radios in tanks. The soviets were out of men, they would have had to demobilize men just to start making supplies. You had 11,000 tanks supplied, the elite guard armies were almost exclusively equipped with US tanks again without US parts and technical know-how where they going to get replacement parts? There is no one left to produce anything. Soviet forces would have collapsed had lend lease suddenly been pulled and those supplies used against them.

yeah. The polish resistance movement was very much still potent at this point in time, and would pose a serious threat to the soviets. You could probably also get dudes like Von Manstein to head up huge numbers of German ex nazis and POWs in fight against the soviets. Finland could probably also be convinced to restart the winter war, and the British Raj could maybe even mount some sort of invasion into south-central Russia. The Chinese civil war would probably merge with this 3th world war, and this would not benefit the soviets.

THESE ARE COOL ASSUMPTIONS WITH NO GROUND ON REALITY. FINLAND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN "HAPPY" TO PROVIDE THEIR TERRITORY AGAINST THE USSR, YOU SEEM TO FORGET THE PEACE TREATY OF 1944 WHICH EFFECTIVELY PLACED FINLAND INTO NEUTRALITY TO THIS DAY (FURTHER RATIFIED IN 1947). NO MENTION ON HOW THE WESTERN ALLIES WOULD HAVE MANAGED TO BRING UP THE SUFFICIENT FORCES INTO THAT DE FACTO NEUTRAL COUNTRY WITHOUT BEING DETECTED BY SOVIET COMMAND. USING FORMER NAZI OR JAPANESE FORCES IS THE OTHER INCREDIBLY CRAZY IDEA THAT PASSES TODAY AS REASONABLE. WOULD ANY OF THE SO CALLED "EASILY DRAFTED" MANPOWER BE COMPELLED INTO FIGHTING AS WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST FORMER ALLIES SIDE AND SIDE HAND IN HAND WITH NAZIS AND JAPANESE FASCISTS?? SERIOUSLY?? FACT IS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A BLUNDER OF MASSIVE PROPORTIONS THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN OUT THE INSTIGATORS (CHURCHILL, PATTON, MACARTHUR AND MONTGOMERY) VERY EARLY IN THE CONFLICT.

lape2002 you forget the German army was co-opted to defend the frontier in Germany against the soviets, so no I don’t think it is a cool assumption with no basis in reality no matter how much you enjoy your caps lock key. As for Finland I agree, but nuking Moscow was also not hugely important again bombing Baku and the other caucuses oil centers and ending lend lease would have effectively crippled the now fully mechanized red army anyway. All the while listening in on the troops talking on their US made radios that the soviets would have had no way to do the same to the allied forces.

Similarly the B29 Superfortress could do a lot of damage to Vladivostoc

Yes im sure the soviets had no planes, definitely didn't produce 150,000 of 'em that destroyed the Germans and Berlin.

I don't claim to be an expert on navies, but I think I read about a few hulls of Sovyetsky Soyuz battleships being completed? They were never armed or actually used, but he might have included them

@@lukedufaur5368 they were never close to being completed. The soviets had no capacity to even manufacture the armor plate they wanted. The Russians were lent a British Battleship at one point. It was so poorly maintained that the turret rusted in place when they got it back.

I think they had one or two P. Velikiy class battleships, but they were inherently outdated, since they were built by the empire. Sum: 1 Gangut, 1 Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya, 1 Ismail, 1 Maurat, 1 P. Velikiy (all outdated, most recent is Ismail built in 1920 if I'm correct)

Nope, The Romenians switch side by thier own and fought the Germans in the Balkan, Further there were Soviet loyal armies from Czechoslovakia and Poland. Furthermore there was Mongolia for the far eastern front. Second point, In theory yes, practically? No, the border area of USSR to the Middle East and China, even the Caucasus. Are extreme mountainous and deserted area's. Supply troops and even let them fight there is difficult and extreme costily and favour the defender extremely. This troops have to come from Europe of East Asia, weakening those and take months to station troops there and prepare operations. Furtheremore why attack there? It would take the allies hundreds of miles before reaching vital Soviet infrastructure. Miles overwhich supplies must be transported on non existing roads, open for soviet partisan to act on. Attacks on the Caucasus region would face similar dificulties for the allies non-existing supply lines and terrain heavily favouring a defender. A defender that has learned a lot mountain warfare when germans tried to fight in Caucasus mountains. Thirdily, they needed the US and UK oil as it was of higher octaine level, needed to fuel aillied vehicles especially planes. Soviet equipement was designed to function on the lower octaine level fuel comming from the Soviet oil industry. So the loss of the supply of High octaine level fuel would be only a problem for the Soviet air force rather than tank or vechicle park of the Red Army. Fourth although Baku was in flying range of Allied bombers, there is problems with plan that would fail it. Soviet Air defence and the Caucasus Mountains, could prevent Allies from reaching the oilfields or cause extreme loss. Mountains were dangerous obstacle for aviation still in the 1940s. Finally, who would support such a war in the West? In the 1941 allied propaganda have created the idea of alliance and bond between soviet and allied nations. It showed the resovle the soviet had and casualties they took, creating sympathy. Would you think that people would simply accept, well they are the enemy now? It took four years for this sympathy to cool down and for the cold war to become a reality. Ofcourse not all people would be pro-soviet, but many were before the war and they number have grown. France faced massive strikes from the left in 1948 with many being sympathic to the Soviet. Italy had large left movement with many being under arms as they fought the Nazi in Italy from 1943. Greece was in a civil war with pro-soviet forces being on the win in 1945/46. A war was possible but would face an enormous backlash by the public in the west as they would find it as stab in the back or simply wanted one thing peace. They were tired of war. For the soviet things would be easy as the propaganda could a just capitalist doing becoming the bed-fellows with nazi's. Harnassing the rage about the stab in the back but also building on the fears that allies would finish the job what german started, exterminating the slavic people. The use of atomic bombs with thier destructive powers would strengthen that image. But the soviet would face same issue, the people being tired and exhausted from war. And this the main reason that war would fail or did not happen in the end. After 6 years of war everyone was tired of war and when end finally arrived, the people were hesitant to return to it. We see it in Korea, the west send troops for the UN force but thier numbers were relative small and it was in general unpopulair war and governments on both sides limited thier commanders so that they did not escalate the war.

@@egbertpopken5580 I agree totally with you

BIG BROTHER?

People’s republic of China seizes India, Japan, Mongolia, and Persia, along with defeating Siam and taking south East Asia. This results in Great War against Neo Bolshevik Eurasia resulting in seizure of the Central Asian area and the Far East from exhausted Eurasia. But everyone has nukes now so they decide to peace. Oceania Tis for Thee.

Having the benefit of being able to know the last 100 years of world history, and the ire I feel towards Putler (being of Ukrainian decent myself), I really wish Operation Unthinkable had been green lit. Think of what no communist Russia and China would have meant for modern global security. No war in Ukraine, no Taiwan conflict, no coup by a Junta in Niger, no Cuban Missile Crisis, no Vietnam, no North Korea, possibly a slightly more stable middle east too, but that whole shit show is actually mostly our (The West) fault.

@@nuru666Ukraine will win-it will cost much but they will prevail against the filthy russians

@@nuru666 yes, I'm 100% it was the communists responsible for the US gassing the vietnamese people, for the US overthrowing Libya's Gaddafi and depriving it of a good economy, It was also communism's fault of the War in Iraq, it was also communism's fault because of the war of Ukraine (not US taxpayers money going towards the puppet zelensky), and I'm sure it's communists fault that the USA dropped 2 nukes on japan killing tens of thousands of civilians, and killing 900k japanese civilians in the firebombing campaign.

if America had 14% war production capability in 1937 I guarantee it would take the soviets way longer (maybe up until the 50's)

This is true the conscription age was raised to 55 or 65 (I forget) in 1944

Check out the Strategy Stuff channel, my take is that Soviets would follow the Eurasian/Heartland strategy while the US would favor Sir Julian Corbett, Limited War strategy for maritime powers, which is basically what George Orwell depicted

I think seeing every major city in the Soviet Union vaporized the bombers could reach would be more demoralizing

@@mattmopar440 I doubt the allies would have done that but given the fact that American and Britain considered using nuclear weapons against military targets soon after WW2 (a bit later for the UK) i feel like that's be a likely outcome. Whole bases just vapourised in an instant with survivors telling other soldiers of the horror of it

@@mrcaboosevg6089 I think with Roosevelt dead a Truman Churchill combo would have been devastating Churchill would of been Ok with leveling everything in Soviet union and Truman wouldnt stand up

@@mattmopar440 all that would do is make sure the Soviet people support the war 100% to the last man. And make the Americans look no better than. The Nazis, since they start this war and kill civilians en mass.

SilvanaDil the US did not have any nukes at that time. We used both atomic bombs on Japan

@@silentsurvivor2197 exactly and the USSR and US Captured German scientists

@@liampetersen7548 the USSR was 4 years away from their first atomic bomb. USA was one month away from their third.

Silent Survivor Did you watch the video? Up to 12 nuclear bombs would’ve been produced by 1946 had there been a World War 3.

@@raam1666 Just three atomic bombs and Japan still not finished. Therefore you let the ludicrous idea of atom bombing the Soviets go through before ending the Pacific war?? Is that serious logic?? Plan was for attacking the Soviets on July, just as the first A-bomb was getting ready with all chances of spending it deliberately to avoid Dunkirk part two with the US/UK replaying their role in 1940.

If only MacArthur had his way... the world would probably be a better place.

Had McArthur had his way, imagine the oppression in the Middle East and South and Central America that could have been avoided. Go through the history of the last 70 years and think of the things that would have been avoided if communism had been stamped out properly as it should have been. The world would be a better place, and I can guarantee you that politics in the US would be a whole lot different. Unless and until the world gathers together and utterly eliminates the scourge that is communism, including the people who advocate for it, the world is and will always be at risk of slavery.

@@thatlawnmowerguy9 you are referring to?

@@vaughnblaylock6069 Uhh but communism IS dead. Plus, the problems in the middle east wouldn't go away because communism did, a lot of their problems stem from an older issue called the sykes-picot agreement

@@abbyalphonse499 Communism is dead? We are in the opening stages of Cold War 2.0 with China, with Taiwan playing the role of a 21st Century West Berlin. Venezuela adopted a Cuban style government as recently as 1999. It’s FAR from dead. MacArthur and Patton had the chance to save the world a whole lot of misery and suffering, and we blew it.

You are biased lmao, the usa would not have won

Baby Yeed lol? Did you read anything he said? What about that seems unrealistic? 😂 and again, if all else fails the US now had the option to drop an atom bomb

And the only reason the Soviets eventually got info on how to make the bomb(which they wouldn’t get perfected for a few years after this) is because of the Communist traitor Rosenbergs. We had air superiority, Russia had no blue water Navy at all. We would’ve blockaded their ports...which we knew all about, since we kind of gave them tons of supplies with the Lend Lease. We could out-industry Russia. Crazy to think that Pittsburgh alone turnt out over 60% of the steel supply for WW2! This is all without having Britain, who would most definitely put us way over the top of them. The Soviets were great, but let’s not kid ourselves, here. They’d be screwed without the Lend Lease. Zhukov and Stalin even said they couldn’t build up reserves without it! Essentially aiding all of the countries and our own at the same time shows how fast our industry was. Yes, their T34s were the best, but we had tank busters for that, and their Katyushas were lethal, but we weren’t dumb enough to be out in the open like Germany was to get annihilated...we would have taken them out with aircraft before they became a problem. Did I mention Russia had no blue water navy and we could make atomic bombs? St. Petersburg was the most likely target, and easiest to access if it ever came to that.

Russia would get smashed.

@@kruger7796 Russia would realistically have gotten destroyed by nuclear weapons, but if we're talking fighting on the battlefield, it's much harder to say. Germans inflicted two to three times as many casualties on the Russians as they took from them, and the Russians kept coming. It took the Germans six months to reach the outskirts of Moscow; it took the Soviets three and a half years to reach Berlin. Yet they did. Perhaps this resolve would have broken, perhaps Russian manpower would have been exhausted, but the Western Allies would have been in for a very difficult fight against the army that beat the best of the Wehrmacht in a pitiless war of attrition while they were playing around in a sandbox against Italians and a skeleton corps, or in France and the Rhineland against teenaged conscripts. I would bet that Patton would have been very surprised if he'd gotten his wish. The Russians don't call it WWII, by the way. To them it's the Great Patriotic War, and they earned the right to call it that.

@@riptidemonzarc3103 The Soviets really only start to outnumber the Germans in late '42 and into '43. But besides that, Germany had a whole slew of problems that the Western Allies don't really have to deal with. Supplies being a major key point, and Manpower being another. The U.S. remained relatively untouched for the entire war, and had at on point almost 16 million personnel. With most of it deployed to the Pacific to fight the Japanese, it is really incalculable thw fighting that would have occured in a continuation of the Second World War not counting Nukes. Nukes just end the game quick and in a hurry.

@@riptidemonzarc3103 You seem to forget that the Germans were also fighting a 2-front war. Sure, they had most of their forces on the East, but they still held a lot of troops in the West to defend from the Allies, including more Luftwaffe Fighters due to the Bombing Campaigns by the Allies. Had Germany NOT had that second front against the Allies, they still wouldn't have won, but they'd have bled the Soviets even drier. By 1945, the Red Army had no manpower reserves left and were conscripting men that were previously deemed as unfit for service, along with conscripting men from "liberated" countries like Poland, which made up a majority in two Soviet Army Groups. With more men on the front, the Germans would have racked up more casualties against the Soviets and destroyed more Divisions entirely. Still wouldn't have won though, just killed more Red Army Soldiers. On the other side, the Allies still have HUGE manpower reserves to bring. Sure, the UK was running out of trained men and had to spend time training more, since UK training took a bit longer, but they still had Armies in India they could bring after Japan surrendered and they have their colonies to draw forces from. The US is better off since they had an even larger population and barely lost anything during the war, with untouchable factories churning out munitions and equipment at rates the Soviets can't keep up with. Add onto the fact that the Soviets won't be able to interdict those supply ships due to having no modern warships that could be considered as threats.

@@riptidemonzarc3103 Bruh Russia would be starving first of all.Allies supplied Russians through the whole world war.Russia had no chance against the west.

Don't forget the nukes.

@@Sloppy._ You think the B29 has enough chance to get 1000 km into enemy territory. and the Soviet city was much smaller than any other country; moscow only had a population of 3 million people

@@carkawalakhatulistiwa the US had better a better Air Force, also the nukes would probably be used on military targets not cities…. also it was a joke in the end

The TU-4:

@@carkawalakhatulistiwab36 convair

Yeah most americans in the comment section think that the atomic bombs could be produced in large numbers and be teleported above Soviet cities.No bombers that could be shot down involved LOL.Even binkov mentioned the difficulties but they ignored him

Easy? No but it would have been a forgone conclusion assuming popular support at home held( which TBH I am not sure it would have). The Soviets had taken a beating in WWII and they could not sustain that type of effort for multiple more years. The allies also unlike Germany had taken great pains to invest into their long range strategic bombers. In time the soviet air force would be brought down like the German air force and then its open season on soviet industry,supply lines and tactical support. The war would be bloody no doubt and the soviets would enjoy some success especially early on. In the end they soviets enjoyed many advantages versus Germany and the axis it would not vs the allies. It greatly outnumbered Germany in terms of populations. It had more ease of access to critical resources and while for most of the war it could not strike German industry the western allies were able to mid to late war. The soviets after already suffering many loses would have to fight an enemy this time that had suffered relatively few and had combined population higher than that of the soviets. The US alone was comparable. The soviets this time would have no one to strike at their enemies industry and lack the ability to do so themselves. The western allies would not suffer from a shortage of key resources such as oil and rubber. To top it off as the soviets get pushed back furthers and further the allies would be able to hit soviet industry. The cards immediately after WWII would not have been in the favor of the USSR..

@@Whatatwist2009 dude if it was a possibile war, the allies would have attacked immediatly. Noone could win the war, the sov couldn't take france and the allies couldn't bomb russia. The allies airforce was superior, but not enough

@@Whatatwist2009 also, the population in europe, usa and russia wanted no more wars and there would have been revolts on both side. Aniways, this is an impossible scenario because no governament wanted a long war

The Pope alone can conquer the whole world

@@nobleman9393 Nope, he'll be the False Prophet, not the Antichrist...

@@george217 What? By definition, the Anti-Christ is the ultimate False Prophet.

@George Borden Martin Luther was a heretic who started a man made religion

@@theobserver3753 Where'd you get that? ML was ex-communicated by the Pope BECAUSE he was holier than thou... a "Born-Again-Catholic" who was taking the Pope & Company to task for everything from Indulgences to Simony. He wasn't creating a new religion at all. He was -- in modern terms -- an evangelical. He didn't come up with ANYTHING new -- sourcing all of his indignities based upon long established Church doctrine. Those in high Church office tossed their cookies when they read his indictment// petition nailed to the door... for they were guilty as sin.

I know one Thing For a fact, If we would have a choice WE the Germans would not have gone to another war. We would not have cared who Ruled us so the amount of germans that would Fight For einer Side would basically be nonexistent

The Soviets saved Europe from the Germans America did nothing

@@Gympotato9981 no lol. Stop commenting the same thing over and over. Soviets would get wiped out. Stay mad lol

Soviet attack Jepang with 1,5 million army. After lost 27 🤣million people

Exactly. While obviously costly, the Wester Allies would be almost impossible to lose after a while. Even if we don't count the nukes.

Americans were not as willing to lose people as the Soviets were. The US withdrew from Vietnam because they were not willing to keep losing people.

@@monkeyman321 That's not why they left, but I am in no mood to get into this now. Still, thanks for your point.

Everything!

Probably a dozen A bombs a few hundred thousand more casualties and a huge area of Russian that's no longer habitable ?

They would just run out of men. By the end of the war the Soviets were using men that were not supposed to be fighting on the frontlines anyway (older or younger men). They simply could not take a few million more casualties. The USSR would collapse simply because they would have no more people to throw against the numerically superior and better equipped Allied forces

The soviet would be able to draft from their conquered lands

@@alexandrejosedacostaneto381 What was actually the allied forces after the second world war? Please illumimate

@@dabeez4454 They could try, but I don't think they would succeeded. Majority of countries conquered by soviets were on a bad term with communism and Union itself. Probably they would resist conscription and if taken anyway, they would turn sides on the first occasion. In some D-Day movie there was a scene in which two Czechs were conscripted and sent to Normandy. They didn't even shoot at Americans just tried to surrender as soon as possible.

@@dabeez4454 they had damn near constant armed rebellions with near complete popular support for them in most everywhere for the next 3 to 5 years after the war. That would be turned up to 11 if they were fighting the western allies and their government in exiles and if the Americans and Brits were trying to liberate them.

they used the onky nukes they had on japan it took months before they were able to produce more nukes

@theonioneater9307 There was enough material for two more nukes still available. Look up demon core. Drop one on Moscow and it's job done.

A 70 year old joke: A Frenchman finds a magic lamp with a Jin that will grant him 3 wishes: - My first wish is that Red Army attacks France, but only for one afternoon and than they return home. - Ok. Weird. What´s the second wish? - When they get home, they turn back to attack us again. But just for an afternoon, then they go back to USSR. - Ok. Even weirder. Your final wish? - They attack us the third time, then go back home. - Done. But can you tell me why? - Imagine what the Germany is going to look like after the Russians go though it six times!

@@uegvdczuVF Damn that is a dark joke😂😂😂 is great never heard of it before

Us didn’t have air superiority lil bro

@@th3ninjabut they had nukes and since they stole the ICBM from the Germans it would only be a few years before they didn’t need aerial superiority. Even if they didn’t have it they could still probably land a bomb

@@IanHimself28 umm nukes every week are you crazy? it took MONTHS for the USA to build one singular nuke and there were thousands of workers who support the USSR who would most likely go in a workers strike

@@IanHimself28 300 nukes from 1945 to 1950 what? the US produced 4 nukes in total during ww2 1st being the trinity test then Hiroshima and nagasaki with the 4th supposedly used to nuke a japanese city but was scrapped due to japan surrendering and was then used as a testing nuke bomb besides even if the US produced 300 nukes now europe will most likely be in soviet hands

@@IanHimself28 yes it would go on for years but realistically the soviet union should have nukes due to many soviet spies in the manhattan project

@@IanHimself28 besides it would take months for another nuke to be produced and if so soviet planes will most likely try to destroy any plane capable of releasing a nuke

@@IanHimself28 theres also the problem of shipping the nukes from america to europe it could take weeks or even months and the soviet union knows this so they would probably use the time to ship a nuke from america to europe and try to break through the lines and also the nukes need to be dropped onto their target. ICBMs,SRBMs and MRBMs do not exist yet

One thing that is never considered is that Brittan and the US had millions of people tied up in fleets that are designed to hunt uboats and escort convoys. As well as build these fleets and support them. That is no longer needed. And Britian can either transfer them to the infantry or stop new recruits from going to the navy as these people are used to plug other naval gaps in lieu of new ascension. The manpower situation in the Soviet Union would be the exact opposite as now they would be needing to send men back to start manufacturing supplies the allies are not providing anymore and to rebuild and perform air defense duties during the inevitable strategic bombing campaign.

Also the western allies fought an industrial war not a soldiers war like the Germans and Soviets they had a small fighting tip with a massive logistical base they simply blasted their way across Europe

@White Ness are you actually comparing the soviet industry to the Americans? Come on the Americans bought and paid for winning the war even Stalin acknowledged that.

@@paulodingle2142 You missed "at the start of the war". After that, the American Industry could easily body the Soviet Industry without breaking a sweat.

@@youraveragescotsman7119 I didn’t say that the other fella did. Agree American industrial might at the end of WW2 was phenomenal.

Thank You and I agree, Ive been posting as well how Allies would have total Air and Sea Superiority which equals win another good point you make which I forgot is manufacture of the war effort clearly in Ally favor.

Even Naval superiority. The UK had hell since they had to hunt U-Boats, defend the invasion in Husky, Torch and D-day, along with bottling up the German Surface Fleet. The Soviets have barely any Navy to speak of, no modern warships (barring the Kirov-Class Heavy Cruisers, but they were WAY inferior to Western designs), and their Submarines were worse than what the Germans had. If they tried to interdict supply lanes, the Royal Navy and US Navy will detect, find and stomp them before they even get a single torpedo off.

or lend lease or the iraq iran occupation. the soviets had no rubber usa sent them every pair of soviet boots...

We also should consider that this videos doesn’t take consideration about partisan operation or allies not joining like Italy which had a too big communist population to enter this war without going in a civil war on day one

@@bo1bo1bo1unlosode the Brits dealt with a communist revolution in Greece with ease with a tiny force. They wouldn't have trouble dealing with them in their home countries with a supportive population willing to inform on them.

Well the Americans still haven't maxed out their population for the war. They now have a ton of manpower sitting around building useless stuff for this war such as liberty ships. Furthermore the US and Brittain has built a massive navy or destroyer escorts, submarine hunters, escort carriers, and merchant marines, as well as the port facilities to handle that. It has tons of prewar treaty ships that can be decommsioned because of the new stuff comming on line that requires much smaller crews. Decommision most of that. Cool theres .5 to 2 million more men for the armies. The Russian on the other hand stripped many industries of manpower, among them food, transport, and petroleum because the us was supplying it. Now they have to go back or the army has to go without. The Russian have a way more dire manpower issues then the Allies ever did.

@@imjashingyou3461 the CIA and the Brits dealt "easily" with the Greek civil war in the span of 3 years and with Stalin not supporting the Greeks. All this would have been extremely different during Operation Unthinkable with Stalin supporting the French resistance, the Italian Garibaldis, Tito's partisans and the Greeks in sabotaging the hell out of the American, British and Polish forces and their Nazi friends.

@@lape2002 how would Stalin get materials to them much less even communicate with them. The allies control the airwaves and its very hard to communicate that war. There isn't free trade. And Stalin doesn't have the navy or the air force to deliver anything. Prayers dont get you much especially since the primary force for supplying these partisans was the allies who obviously are not doing it now. The history proves they were not very strong to begin with. They are hardly mentioned in post war accounts of these countries. They had little to no political effect till the 50s and 60s over a decade later. Barely anyone knows about the Greek Civil War, including people i have met in the British Army. Thats how minor it was. The british got the majority of the country under control right away. They were brutally effective in Indochina until the French took over right before Mihn was all but destroyed and rooted out.

True but if the allies were going to attack the Soviets they would have had to have had the mindset of Patton to even start that war. So even though your point is well taken and true, it wouldn't have been applicable in this scenario.

@ the leaders being madmen like Patton wouldn't change the fact that the soldiers don't want to fight a suicidal war of aggression where they would be the bad guys for attacking first.

@@SelfProclaimedEmperor They would have been the good guys for destroying communism. I'll bet if they could see the world today and what communism and what the dogma of Marxism has wrought, they would want to go back to destroy every last one of them.

@@vaughnblaylock6069 Modern SJWs have nothing to do with Marxism, they are a new and more vile plague. Even the Marxists were usually culturally conservative. Supporting man/woman marriages and stopping race based riots.

@@SelfProclaimedEmperor But the doctrine of Marxism has led to this point. Even the leadership f BLM admits that they are "trained Marxists". Trotsky spoke of the benefits of constant upheaval and revolution, and that's pretty much what we're getting now.

Nukes.

Paton was the only one with balls to say the truth back then. Unfortunately it cost him his career.

@@IanHimself28 Bloody and slow, but near sure.

@@IanHimself28 I left out the nukes, otherwise there is no point in any discussion of the question. below is a repost of what my take would be. Nukes intentionally left out. If the Red Army attacks, maybe the get to the Rhein from where they'd be worn down and for simple logistics and numbers reasons be pushed back to the vicinity of the 1939 lines, from where resistance strongly stiffens on the Russian side and the West has less "justifiable" cause to carry on. The West attacks, the Red army will hold them back, likely for quite sometime, then assuming the West has the stomach for the blood required would be able to reestablish the 1939 lines.

it wouldnt have came to it tho. the soviets will have an advantage in the beginning, but then the nuclear extermination of the soviet union will begin in no time. first targets would be major cities in the west, then cities near moscow, moscow itself. in 1945 soviets have no chance.

In RL there had been even been a medium scale guerrilla fight in all Soviet new conquests for a few years after the war.

And if stalin put out a bulletin telling french communists to do the same, suddenly, tens, maybe hundreds of French communists who had already been in the resistance for years would start harassing the allies

French and Italian MUCH LARGER AND BETTER ARMED resistance forces would have made life impossible for US allies even more.

@@artruisjoew5473 A-Bombs available were extremely limited and aimed at Japan, not a single chance of heading to Moscow unless it is a surprise (and suicide) attack. You fanboys are hilarious!

On god. The fact that it's even a debate is comical. The Russians would have had no ability to retaliate they'd been steamrolled

You dummy, they could have just pushed to west Europe and held Western European citizens hostage after wiping out their tiny exhausted militaries, and lived within their cities amongst the people. u gonna nuke the Europeans too? Also 20 bombs of that size that dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki aren't gonna do jack in the vast territory of the USSR, (you could check their blast radius online, they looked like super tiny dots lol just like ants.) -soviets would also have sleepers agents all over USA ravaging it in the worse ways possible after all they managed to steal your nuclear program in the 40s by using secret agents too. not even your presidents were safe, after all jfk got sniped hard and that was the 60s, So imagine what hundreds of determined sleeper agents could have done to your cowardly American nation in the 40s. -Your nuke trump card isn't much of a trump card after all, it would have been your own suicide pill. And soviet fighters in 1945 could easily compete with America's best at the time, aka p51h or f8fb/f7f and they out numbered you to the high heavens even at 5km altitude.(Unbelievable that the rusty russos out produced you in both tanks and planes even while their land was literally under invasion and USA was safe and cosy lol. Definition of fat lazy incompetent americans.) Check the specs of soviet figters from 1945 dumbo and also there's something called under ground factories/facilities, USA had no satellites in the 40s obviously, so good luck scouting the biggest land mass on earth knowing where the might be creating their own nukes.

These nuclear warheads were very weak and slow to produce. In addition, not all American planes would have reached their target - they would have been shot down by Soviet air defenses. And within a few years the USSR created its own nuclear bomb and nuclear parity arrived

​@@Anonymous-qj3sf It's not like the war will go on until 1949 though. Soviets will ask for a ceasefire in 1 year at the most.

UK and USA didn't even have a combined total of 1 million deaths while USSR had about 27 million. USSR wouldn't have been able to fight an entirely new war against Britain and America, especially considering that America had atomic bombs unlike Russia, who didn't get their first atomic bomb until 1949

@@JDP2104 The Soviets had British and American informants who were part of the Manhatan project so they would have easily been able to develop an atomic bomb in 1945 and they were prepared for a war against the allies in the latter stages of ww2

@@hueyfreeman1983 whats the use of informants if you can’t create your own nuclear bomb on time? Remember that the ussr created their first bomb on 1949 and that was already peace time. How can the ussr create one in war time? Whats more pressing is even if the ussr have one the only US state it could bomb would be alaska since they lack the massive long range strategic bombing planes that the US and the UK have.

@@user-wh8co2wi4y In a war time they would have rushed into making it and no country had missiles back then, its likely that all American aircraft would have been shot down and even more likely that America wouldn't have even got involved had this happened

@@hueyfreeman1983 that is plain wrong, one bomber escorts exist. Two, the US would definitely be involved in such a war especially since actually have vested interest to do so ahem UN. Three, you can’t rush such production since information spread would be tight in the US and it is a nuclear bomb, you are wasting precious resources if it fails! Edit: atomic bombs can also be used in the frontlines as tactical nukes. Cities are not the only target if such a war occur

Could you imagine if Germany could perfect their tank technology and combine it with American production and quality control. Not to mention the centurion also coming online. As a military veichle enthusiast thats my wet dream.

@@casematecardinal the T-44, IS-3 and SU-100 would be fair matchups to them

@@thatlawnmowerguy9 maybe. I mean the germans were developing what were essentially saboted aphe rounds. Either way I see this as an absolute win

@@casematecardinal really? APHEDS sounds good, why didn't it come about?

@@thatlawnmowerguy9 they had them in the works but the war ended. Mostly just schematic stuff but it was there.

The British would have 100% destroyed their Caucasian oil fields on day one.

Long range bombers based in Turkey would definitely have been able to damage the Caucasus oil fields.

It's actually a bit of a false narrative. the USA gave about 11 billion and the UK 400 million worth of supplies to the Soviets. The war cost the soviets 190 billion, so it's a very very small percentage. Plus the Soviets were the only ones to push back the Germans in Europe on their own. The Soviets could have finished Germany off without the allied invasion of Normandy.

@@Writeous0ne Guess who funded soviets to defend when they were losing badly against germany? USA. USA sent the soviets 10,000+ Tanks, almost 200 billion dollars, western allied equipment etc. Joseph stalin admitted that without USA he would have lost the war. The USA did most of the work in WW2, fighting in 2 fronts, funding soviet resistance, funding the british to repel german forces sending britain 20,000 tanks and much more. The west still did most the work lmao.

​@@aimxdy8680soviet produce 120.000 tank on their own,the allies Land lease arrived on 43-44 when they are already advancing

That was in case Stalin tried to seize all of Austria.

Evidence that this happened beyond the hearsay? I have never read of anything approaching this and seriously doubt its authenticity.

off topic: ah, nice starcraft reference there :)

How could you prove the assumption that AIr superiority would have been an assured affair for the Western Allies? Bear in mind the Soviets fought a completely different air war in the Eastern Front at much lower altitudes than in the Western front and over Germany, where the USAAF/RAF backbone of Spitfires, P-47s and P-51D performed rather poorly compared to Soviet Yak-3s, Yak-9Ts and La-7s (P-39Qs too), the French Normandie Niemen Capt. Marcel Albert himself rated the Yak-3 above the P-51D and Spitfires which he disliked. High altitude strategic bombing of troop concentrations is also a moot point as they were notoriously imprecise and dangerous to friendly troops too (see Operation Cobra bombing of US troops on July 25th 1944 for that matter), most likely forcing the USAAF and RAF to fight the Soviet VVS at lower altitudes, where the latter was in its complete element while the earlier were not.

@@lape2002 Strategic bombing wouldn't be used against troops, but against plants, bases, cities etc, similar to Japan. From what I know the Yak3's advantage was low altitude maneuvering, as it was both slower overall, & less maneuverable at altitude than the P51 D, which would have accompanied bombing runs. However the encounters would be at high altitude due to the B29's being used in bombings. The normal altitude for a bombing run with a B29, is 31,000 feet, this is almost the flight ceiling for a Yak3. It would be in big trouble at this altitude against the faster P51, which had a higher ceiling, & better capabilities at that altitude. Not to mention even in this video he alludes to the overwhelming number advantage enjoyed by western allies at this time, in the air. The Soviets would be heavily outnumbered, & would have difficulty replacing the planes they lost. Also the first generation jets from the US, & Britain would be in service years before the Soviet counterpart. Given the western allies, an even greater technological advantage. As to China they had not embraced Communism yet, & wouldn't do so until 1949, when Chiang Kai-Shek was defeated by Mao, after the US failed to send agreed aid. This most likely wouldn't have happened as not allowing communism to take over China would be a US priority.

@@jonv8177 yes but again, the bombing of plants, bases and cities were pure assumptions. The only aircraft that had the sufficient range to undergo such tasks deep inside the USSR were the B-29 and the Lancaster, the latter being easily intercepted by Soviet interceptors. The B-29 was only able to be deployed from a few airfields in the UK that had the required 8,500ft runways. and the Soviet Russian plants and cities were completely out of range of the B-29s stationed in Britain. A massive bombing campaign in 1945 would require a complete and time consuming re-disposition of USAAF and RAF bombing force into Western Europe bases (possibly in France or Italy) as the B-17s and B-24s did not have the range to bomb the Red Army's logistics deep into Eastern Europe from British bases nor did the escort fighters have the range to carry them into the lion's den and back. So all chances point to mostly discarding the heavy bomber force option in the early months of the conflict as it would have necessitated crucial time to be re-deployed into bases out of the UK and reconstructed as an effective fighting force like seen in the air war against Germany Therefore most Air war fighting would require the USAAF and the RAF to fight the Soviet VVS at tactical height (low to mid ranges), inside which the qualitative edge is all but secured, as the Soviet fighters would pretty much be fighting in their turf while the Western allies defending at altitudes they are not optimized for (P-47 was a pure high-altitude fighter, hence why it was relegated to minor defense duties in the hands of the Soviet air force) and more crucially, AT A 2-1 NUMERICAL DISADVANTAGE since the Soviet Air Forces possessed over 12,000 fighters while the Western Allies, only 6,500. Not exactly a walk in the park if you ask me.

@@lape2002 in the European theater alone the Western allied air support outnumbered the Soviets 2 to 1. This doesn't include the additional 20,000 planes the US had in the mainland, nor the 13,000 in the pacific. If brought to bear, that's now gives the Western allies a 5 to 1 advantage in just current aircraft. Again not to mention that both the US, & Britain would be fielding new jet fighters within months, that would destroy any fighter the Soviets fielded. It's true that at the onset their where no runways long enough to accommodate the B29, in Europe. However building or extending a Runway is not difficult, especially considering that you wouldn't be under constant threat, as in the pacific. Also like I sadi the US would be in China, & coming at the USSR from that direction, effectively dividing the Sovieys attention. Even the presenter in the video admits it's basically a no win scenario for the Soviets, he just overestimates the time, & lives lost. In almost every area other than number of soldiers the Soviets are a bad situation. It would take no more than 1-2 atomic bombs dropped, even on strategically unimportant targets for the Soviets to come to terms. Stalin didn't care about anyone, but he wasn't a fool. He would know that a fight was useless against an enemy that can wipe out a city effortlessly

@@jonv8177 I think again you are over-estimating the capabilities of re-deployment in 1945 like if it as 2020 (it is still a hard thing to do nowadays). Back in 1945, re-deploying a massive armada from the Pacific or Mainland USA to the ETO was certainly not a simple affair, the British bases were already over-populated so it's a moot point at the very best. And as mentioned, the trouble is not to deploy the said aircraft in the UK launching pad, but to place them in the European mainland itself so bomber force is effectively able to reach the supply lines of the Red Army deep in Eastern Europe, never mind the actual capacity of reaching Moscow or Leningrad to drop an A-bomb which would have been an extremely doubtful enterprise given the distances and defenses in place. This is where building a 8.500Ft runway becomes an important challenge as well as a political trap, since both France and Italy had mostly pro-communist leadership (not even mentioning China at this point) so placing a thousand bases to bomb the Soviet Union in a surprise attack would certainly not go unanswered. Again, it is mostly fantasy, totally impossible to achieve in mid-1945 where this scenario takes place. So we are back to square one where only the forces in presence at that time count, not the spurious ones based on assumptions, and where the Red Air force still manages to deploy the 12,000 aircraft (most likely exaggerated number ) as they effectively were in reality and the USAAF/RAF has to fend them off with equal odds at best and under unfavorable operating conditions. This is exactly how the Luftwaffe Experten were decimated over their own territory as the USAAF forced them to fight unfavorable odds and pretty much outnumbered.