Was Germany's Defeat Inevitable in WW2? Turning Point? And more... TIK Patreon Q&A 4 

Based

Mother nature is always three steps ahead.

Problem with Hitler was he never tried to fix the problem. He always just treated the symptoms. The Germans idea to solve their oil crisis was to take it from somebody else. In the late 30s (1938 I believe) biodiesel was discovered in Belgium. There was no shortage of farmland. Had he invested half of the Marks he spent turning coal into gasoline on biodiesel and switching his tanks to diesel engines he could have solved the Wehrmacht's oil shortage without firing a shot. The best leaders in history have always found solutions to problems. Instead of applying band aids to symptoms. Hitler was always one of the latter. FDR wad am example of the former.

German Coal turned into liquid fuel. Diesel

​@@kellyaquinastomthat more than clearly wasn't enough

hah true.

Anything but their own currency. A 2020 50,000 Venezuela Bolivar note can't buy anything.

NinjaSheep lol

Wtf???

The absolute and only truth. :-)

Yes, never underestimate the mighty duchy!

They fought in Korea, which I'm guessing would be scored as a draw. So not a perfect record.

That hit to close home

Bolivars, Otherwise Known As Monopoly Money

I read that they import their printed currency and it costs more to buy the currency than it is worth.

currently, The US dollars irregularly but the the Government regulators Look the other way , everything in the streets is now priced with US dollars rounded up two the closes $ US Bill denomination so one "Arepa" is $0.50 but you have to buy 2 of them to pay with $1.00 Dollar bill because no one give change back. Currently The Government mandate Minimum wage is at $1 a month with $ 1 extra that the government subsidies but Most International Companies pay they the Minimum wage around $150 a month

@@odysseus2656 wwwwww

This channel is not sponsored or managed by youtube..

@@kaywonderer And? It's still a breath of fresh air ON this platform.

@@4h844 not really, he doesnt say anything controversial or fresh.

@@kaywonderer I'm explaining to you the comment you seemed to not understand. Overly left brained ?

Im sure that was true of the entire eastern front lol. It was all a meat grinder.

I heard of much betrayal of high ranked positions on the eastern front.

I am curious to read your opinion on why Germany's defeat was inevitable. I believe it was because Germany was still operating a peace time economy prior to 1939 instead of a wartime economy

It’s what the Brits do

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ' - Genesis 1:1 " is when I was convinced.

Jurassic period. Clearly Hitler can not win the war that he will wage 150,000 million years from now.

I would have to say the turning point for me was when Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins.

@@panzerfaust375 the Dinosaurs leave Germany because they don't like the weather, so that's why there's no oil in there.

It's been all downhill since then...

lol

one of the best comments i have ever seen

@Jim lastname Stalin was a bastard. It wasn't just him, though. After the war, USA sponsored ex-nazis to kill off partisans in Greece, for instance. Empires don't like armed groups with experience fighting tyrants.

I thought he said Halderp lol

Regarding the Greek partisans, the Greek civil war was the opening stage. of the Cold War. The British started the support efforts, with the majority of the old Partisans being Communists.

true but it wasn't one isolated Germany army trying to take it, 6th army actually did very well within Stalingrad itself and had essentially taken the entire city, the operation was lost on the flanks outside Stalingrad and hence 6th army was defeated without actually fighting. An equivalent of Stalingrad would not have happened in Moscow because the entire mass of Army Group Centre was focused on the city- the Red army was nowhere near strong enough to complete an encirclement and then containment and destruction of Army Group Centre in 1941/42.

You are naive ! First off all the CCCP had a second capital Kuibashev-Samara !

@@Cornel1001 😆 The Soviets losing Moscow would kill morale. Not only that but their lifeline of supplies from the US was viyal to moving troops and artillery

@@smithnwesson990 Morale ?! The soviet leaders never lost their morale ! Not a single second ! The rest were expandable ! The OKW never had a clear plan to conquer CCCP. They never understood this country, this military power. They made same estimation like : soviets lost 85% fight capacity in just 6 months. 85% from what ?! Even now this strength is a secret. The number of the divisions, tanks , planes, shock armies, CEKA armies are pure Secret. Even now they pretend was no soviets troops, on the border of Finland, Germany, Slovakia, Romania and Turkey in June 1941. Some of the units were in meter away from the official borders. Not too many , just 5 millions ! USA and GB help for CCCP was not vital. But they were there, and that count when soviets stopped the army in Berlin in 1945. Even was vital, for days or weeks, they will never recognise this situation. CCCP industry was in state of war since 19 August 1939 ! So at Stalingrad they produce tanks not tractors, in that night shift already ! Hitler move to the war industry the entire economy in 1942 ! I will say he lost his morale in that day ! Next to any hopes to win the war. The front line generals advise Hitler for peace since November 1941 ! Low morale was already well installed on Wehrmacht. I will say you pointed in the wrong direction, with the morale .

And even taking it isn't the same as holding it. The Polish-Lithuanians took it in the 17th century, Napoleon took it in 1812, and the Crimean tatars took it a bunch of times on and of. But nobody except the latter were able to translate that into any kind of meaningful strategic advantage.

Unfortunately 40 years later, things aren't quite so rosy... 😞

No nazi

Don’t mind the idiot replying to you

@@altaiaurelius Did you mean the anti-nazi guy?

@@koj2698 the guy who stereotypes the original commenter as a Nazi for being German.

@@altaiaurelius The funny thing is, isn't that the Polish emblem???

Awesome! That's good to hear :) I really want my Battlestorm videos to be the best quality possible, so to get this feedback is fantastic. Thank you!

You and me both.

@@TheImperatorKnight If you keep it up to the quality of the crusader videos you will make a lot of people very happy, they are excellent.

@Psychic Electron I'm finding them as dry as a David Glantz book.

It's really detailed, and well-researched, so unlike everything on mainstream TV. I'm sick of documentaries that show those Panthers at the gates of Moscow. Except for the Man in the High Castle.

For me the turning point was when the British soldier didn't shoot the disarmed man with a funny mustache

You are right. Scarlett O'Hara tipe. Very talented, but so many things to do. Plus stupid ideology of race and social - darwinism. Nothing of Spengler.

@@just_a_random_n00b_ Göring

For me, the turning point came when Bismarck dreamt up socialized medicine: fee.org/articles/socialized-medicine/. This is when the hereditary elites tried to buy off the working class with Free Stuff, in an attempt to head off the commies, back in 1883. Of course, he saw things as a false dichotomy between the ruling aristocracy and the commie takeover, rather than LETTING laissez-faire capitalism take root and the workers become shareholders, rather than serfs.

For me, the turning point was when the Big Bang happened.

It's all thanks to my Patreons!

Hi, I love your channel. Saying that, regarding the topic, I think that Germany could never, ever win WW2. Arguments: 1.) Germany barely had resources to defear Poland. Halder in his journal stated that they had issues with production capacity of gunpowder. That Germany had a steel deficit of 600k per month, that.Guderian had losses of 15%-20% but total replacement was not possible. This situation described was end September 1939 when the main raw material source for Germany was the Soviet Union. 2.) Germany couldn't conquer entire France. Of course, France capitulated but if Germany had the logistics, manpower, resources wasn't a more logical ideea to occupy entire France - nice roads, nice weather, conquer industrial centers of Lyon, Grenoble, Toulouse and so on. In addition, Germany had issues keeping the conquered contries under control France, Yugoslavia, Netherlands and so on. The reports of the Gauleiters (appointed german administrators) always complained for lack of manpower to keep the population under control. 3.) The attack on Pearl Harbor - on 7th of December1941 rhe fate of Germany in Soviet Union was sealed. Japan was the major german ally which could had a huge impact on soviet military operations. After the attack on Pearl Harbor the soviets were sure Japan will not attack and could start sending important amounts of military reinforcements from the Extreme Orient via Transsib. There many others but I think it suffice for now. my2c

It's my eyes that water.

My mouth dries up. My bookcase (well, one of several) looks like this, but Glantz is a long drive in the sun. You really have to want to get to your destination, but it's worth it in the end.

You should see my library then, bruh! I don't want to brag about muh library-dick-size, but I'm sure you'd have some fun with it as well.

Hindsight ?

Yep. Any road that did NOT lead to a German exit prior to August of 45, lead to Germany being nuked.

@@stevenwillicombe9505 History. The Manhattan Project was aimed at Germany from the beginning. If Germany was still fighting in August 1945 the West would have had the weapon, the will, and the delivery capacity to use it.

​@@mapac8866 The Uranium US used for nukes was possibly seized from Germany.

If Germany did well and used its me262 how could they drop nuke in europe anyway?

Problem with this is that Stalin actually had guessed that this would have happened and that Hitler would go for the oilfields and concentrated large portion of the army in the south. Funny but this is what Hitler actually wanted aswell, this direction was changed by Halder prior to barbarossa to go for Moscow instead. Another problem is that they had really hard time advancing in the centre with huge manpower and equipment advantage. So chances are if they gone for south, they would have risked massively to be cut of with counter attack from the centre. Imo no matter how you look at it, barbarossa fails. Soviet union was just to tough of a cookie to break.

@@Stockfish1511 Actually, the North African Campaign would have allowed Hitler to win imo. Italy suffered great defeats against Britain early in North Africa due to poor planning. Had Italy and/or Germany put more effort into North Africa early on (I'm talking about securing the Suez Canal in the Fall of 1940), they could have cut the Suez Canal and hurt the British that way. More importantly, the British would lose influence in the Balkans, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq as a result. Yugoslavia would probably have joined the Tripartite Pact and not suffered a coup, Greece might try to stay out of the war but would be pressured into the Tripartite Pact (or they would suffer a joint invasion with no outside help and be defeated in late 1940 or early 1941). Turkey would then lose faith in Britain and allow German supplies and troops to move through Turkish borders, if they don't get pressured to join the Axis outright. With an axis invasion through Turkey at the start of Barbarossa in April 1941 (2-3 months before reality which would make the Soviets even further from completing their overhaul of their military), the Soviets would lose the most important parts of the Caucasus in possibly under a month, too fast for them to recover their oil storage or destroy the oil fields. This would also give the Axis a land route to North Africa and the Middle East, starting in April 1941. Unknown factors in this scenario due to expanded Axis influence would be the fates of Spain, Portugal, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Arabian Peninsula, and Africa as a whole. Spain supposedly planned to join the Axis upon the Axis reaching certain objectives in Operation Barbarossa, which never happened. In the scenario where the Axis invades the Caucasus via Turkey, they would presumably end up crushing the Soviets as they run out of oil to run their planes, tanks, trucks, factories, etc. That would then be Spain's cue to join the war, presumably taking Gibraltar via the element of surprise, and Portugal would now be a potential target. Portugal might cave to pressure from Spain, but if they hesitate, the Axis might take the initiative to avoid the opening of a new Western Front and invade. In any case, Portugal would be controlled by the Axis one way or another. With Gibraltar gone, the Allies would be locked out of the Mediterranean. That would leave Malta and Cyprus as easy pickings. Without North Africa and the Suez Canal, Britain would now be fighting along the Nile (and this situation would already be underway by January 1941, so before Barbarossa by 3 months). To secure a land route to Italian East Africa, the Axis would then fight south along the Nile River, pushing the Allies out of Sudan. From there, the Axis could hold position in East Africa, go west towards Free French territories in Central Africa (Chad, Cameroon, Central Africa), go south towards Kenya and Tanzania (incidentally opening a land border to Portuguese Mozambique, where we're forced to speculate on the status of Portugal again), or even go southwest into the French and Belgian Congo. If they chose to go south, which I think they would, they would use the Albertine Rift as a natural barrier and proceed down the east side, gaining the opportunity to push through into British Zambia and Portuguese Mozambique. Fighting West to secure Chad and Cameroon would likewise be done. All of this I could see being done with the Italian ground forces numbering somewhere in the range of 200,000-500,000, happening by the end of 1941. By that time, Spain would be Axis and Portugal would be either conquered or Axis, leaving Mozambique to be either freely invaded or freely traversed by the Axis. Basically, fighting down the east coast of Africa could realistically threaten South Africa by mid-1942 at the earliest, which would cut the British Navy in two, but presumably the U.S. is in the war on the Allied side by that point. In any case, the British would be tied up with the Italians in Africa for years after the Axis secures the Suez in 1940. Meanwhile, Iraq was pro-allies, but IRL they suffered a pro-Axis coup. Not sure how an alternate timeline would go, but safe to say the Allies would have low influence in Iraq. The Arabian peninsula also might be threatened by the Axis. The parts that aren't already Allied would likely stay neutral, but they might trade with the Axis. Similarly, Iran, which favored the Axis prior to the allied invasion of Iran, would trade with the Axis, or maybe could even join Barbarossa, giving the Axis a front into the Stans and into the British Raj. They would almost certainly be sucked into the war at some point or another even if they don't join Barbarossa (northeast Iran is pretty much too far from Germany for Germany to maintain a high force count there, so Iran probably wouldn't invade the stans but just fortify the border and maybe the Germans would fly sortie against Uzbekistan). Afghanistan also was supportive of the Axis, and would also have a chance of being sucked into the war. They wouldn't likely capture any territory, and might even fall, but they would tie up a small number of Allied forces. Presuming Africa and the potential Iran-Raj front could tie up British forces for years, the Japanese might enjoy significantly greater advances against the British when they eventually go to war, and India might be destabilized due to the independence movement. The weakening of the British and multiple countries joining the Axis leads to the collapse of the Soviet Union sometime in 1943 or 1944. From there, the Germans either turn towards India or the British Isles. Under these circumstances, with Iranian and possibly still Afghani forces already fighting for the Axis near India, Germany might send significant forces to south Asia, leading to the British losing India. By 1945, India could still be holding out, and the U.S. has already started to destroy the Japanese Navy if they haven't already (the Japanese really caved in naval power in 1944, while they were sort of holding out in 1943). By 1945, the U.S. has the nuke. But who do they use it against? Germany and Italy are too far from Britain to nuke, not to mention Germany has a strong Luftwaffe in this scenario. Only a nuke attached to a ballistic missile could threaten Germany and Italy at this point, and the U.S. doesn't have any. If they have Iwo Jima or Okinawa by this time, which I imagine they probably do, they can nuke Japan. But without the Soviet Union, with the British collapsing in India, and with China possibly surrendered by this time, Japan would not even surrender in the face of a handful of nukes, and could possibly develop weapons to shoot down B-29s. The other Axis countries could also move supplies and forces via Russia to Korea, then flying them in to Japan, and Japan could again contest the skies. The U.S. would need to invade mainland Japan. This wastes time, and by 1946 Germany has all of the available resources to pummel the British into submission. The United States becomes the last member of the Allied side, and must agree to peace by 1948, as by that time Germany is at least close to having nukes, and while the U.S. would likely also have ballistic missiles by that time, both sides would understand that a long drawn out conflict with no fronts would not be worth it. Thus would begin a cold war. The initial peace would likely not be great for Japan after being occupied by the U.S., and if the U.S. agrees to withdraw from Japan, the Axis would throw Japan under the bus and split influence over the Pacific with the U.S. All of this just from the North African Front. Really, Operation Compass. And it was only really Italian incompetence and German complacency that allowed Operation Compass to succeed.

@@J7Handle That was a long post to read. But to me african campaign wouldnt not change anything nor taking turkey etc. Problem was that Axis was out of time. It was then or never. Soviet union was having a massive industrialization. The economy was growing at massive rates and they army was getting stronger and stronger. Not only this Stalin new war with germany was unavoidable and had big factories and other plans to grow the army. So if germany say waited another year or two it would have failed far worse because the soviet army would be at insane size, better prepared, better fortified lines. I think Hitler should just not attack soviets. They tried, but it was a tough cookie tbh

@@Stockfish1511 Wait a year or two? Yes it would have been worse, but I was never suggesting that. In fact, my suggestion was to move the invasion forwards to April instead of June. Also, I saw that the USSR had 86% of oil production and 50% of oil reserves in Caucasus, and in 1941 USSR was in the midst of expanding the military. Getting a deal with Turkey to invade through the Caucasus would take the oil fields in 2 months, and that would end Soviet industrialization. I wasn't suggesting to take Turkey but to have Turkey join the Axis. Trying to take Turkey would be a waste of time of course, but getting Turkey to sign the Tripartite Pact would not be. But swaying Turkey would require taking the Suez.

There are more breaking points. It simply could not be done : too big teritory, logistic problems, infrastructure, human factor. . . man could learn from Napoleon defeat, but ambition was too great. The Germans did not count all the facts properly, and they understimated enemy. because of well known attitude to the Slavs generally.

Yep

Even a temporary armistice would have been a huge boost to Germany.

I once heard that even Hitler himself knew they could only win if Britain joined them.

The lost Battle for Britain was a major setback for Germany not a decisive defeat. There was none. But the summary of lost campaigns in North Africa, at Stalingrad and in the northern Atlantic Ocean made defeat certain. Yet, nobody knows what would have been the outcome of the war, if the invasion of France in 1944 had failed and Germany had enough oil and raw materials to produce more jet airplanes and thousands of rockets before the atomic bombs were ready to use.

it's Arkhangelsk. anyone who know's Russian has an ear bleeding every time you say archangel.

@@Alexandroslav I apologize. My sources are written in English and apparently not that accurate. I have also heard it pronounced without the "sk" far more often than with, even in educational videos, so I am afraid there are a LOT of bleeding ears out there. I hope I got the second city correct.

@@robertneal4244 yeah i know, every english documentary does say archangel, probably because they fail to pronounce it (lack of trying i think due to the butchering of many easier names), the other city's name is fine. tip : the G(e) in Arkhangelsk is read like the G in 'Give' (including the i). thanks for replying.

​@@Alexandroslav But "Archangel" sounds better and "prettier" in English than "Arkhangelsk", which frankly sounds like gibberish to their ears. ;0

@@jamestheotherone742 it translates to "of archangels (location)" so yeah.

I would agree the odds were against them before the war started, but there was still a chance. As it went on the odds kept getting worse, but Fall Blau/Stalingrad was the last opportunity for the Nazis to go against the odds and potentially win. After that, they were done. It was just a matter of time.

The key decision was the following: Germany accepts a negotiated by Stalin in 1942. Germany could have won if you consider the following: 1. War is a means to an end; achieve your end goal and you win. 2. Very few wars end with one side totally defeated, nor is it usually the end goal (excepting a civil war). Wars between countries usually ended in a negotiate peace with one side getting most or all of what it wanted. WWII was unusual in this way. The fallacy of the Germany could not win argument is that it disregards the 2 points above and assumes that only a total defeat (unconditional surrender) of the enemy defines victory. Germany missed at least two opportunities for victory. Several reports (after Stalin died) give credence to the possibility that Stalin sent out peace feelers in the Autumn of 1941 and also in 1942 to negotiate a peace with Germany. In such a peace Stalin was prepared to give up significant territory in Western Russia. In this case Germany could have used the freed up reserves from the East to defeat the British in the Middle East and obtain the oil fields there; then direct all efforts to building up an Atlantic Wall against invasion from Britain. Such a scenario was possible and would have been considered at least a partial victory for Germany and a partial defeat for its enemies. Germany would have gained the land, food, and oil it needed; this achieves Germany's objectives. Was defeat inevitable for Germany if all sides insisted on total victory - with hindsight, yes. But no one knew this in 1942, and Stalin was willing to negotiate on favorable German terms. That means in 1942 the conditions already existed for Germany to win - they held huge territory of Western Russia, and the Russians were exhausted. In this very possible scenario of a favorable settlement with the Soviet Union in 1942, Germany could have fulfilled most of its objectives; all that was missing was Hitler realizing in 1942 that Germany could never defeat the Soviet Union completely; Stalin was going to be receiving more and more aid from the US; Germany could not compete in production quantity of arms of the allies, and the Soviet Union had a larger population; so it was only a matter of time. Stalin did not know in 1942 that he could defeat Germany and he did not trust the UK or the US.

I don't see how anyone could have reasonably made a much better decision with the information they had available. Inevitably the German supply lines would be both stretched over a longer distance and diluted over a wider front as the Soviets would be closer to their supply lines and be able to decide where to strike. Then the Axis would run out of fuel then it's like trying to win a game of chess when you only have pawns and your opponent has all queens.

​@@Treblaine This is what the Germans knew in 1942: 1. The military intelligence from OKW had been wrong; they had greatly underestimated the number of Russian divisions and the number of tanks, planes and other weapons the Russians had. 2. The USSR had not collapsed in 1941 as Hitler had predicted and most Russians answered the call to defend their motherland. The Russians were gaining experience on the battlefield and learning 3. Germany was at war with the USSR, the USA and the UK whose combined manpower and industrial (and military production) capacities were several times Germany's. After the war field Marshal Keitel was asked when he knew Germany could not defeat the Soviet Union; he said after they failed to take Moscow (in December 1941. In 1941 the German General staff knew that the war with the Soviet Union had to be concluded quickly. When it had been concluded quickly, when the factors mentioned above were known, it was already becoming clear that total destruction of the USSR was not possible, and that time did not favor the Germans. So to say “I don't see how anyone could have reasonably made a much better decision with the information they had available” is simply not true. The information was available. The better decision was to make a deal with Stalin in 1942 when he had sent out peace feelers. If the speculation is correct then a chance to make a deal still existed in 1943 with Germany returning to pre-war borders. The problem was that Hitler and others at the top simply believed their own propaganda (though some like Goebbels later favored a negotiated settlement with the Soviet Union) long after it was proven wrong. Ironically, we are witnessing the West has making exactly the same mistakes now that the Germans made in 1941. They have overestimated themselves and underestimated the Russians. Here is the reality now: The sanctions have failed - Russia’s economy is growing while the EU is falling into recession. The Russians can out-produce the West in munitions, especially artillery shells where they have a 5:1 tp 10:1 advantage of the Ukrainians on the battlefield. The Russians have a huge inventory of shells (estimated between 8 to 10 million) while the West's inventories are already very low. They can destroy the opposing side’s material and troops at a greater rate.

indeed

WW2 was so big (people and resources) and dynamic that the mind isn't quick to take it in and see how the parts influence each other, and the whole. However the Germans were at their numerical peak in Barbarossa. The Russians had taken one body blow after another yet Adolf couldn't take Moscow even before the Russians have begun to get Lend Lease. Oil, money, food and the economic strength of Britain and the US are all factors in WW2, but after Moscow Adolf will never have as big and confident a force again.

The real point is that even taking Moscow wouldn't have made a difference. Winter counteroffensive still coming. Soviets simply had vastly more stuff than Germans anticipated. There was no path to victory for Germany and the West. The Great Brother War had left West weakened and divided and pretty much ensured Soviet domination.

The West did not lose WWII. I cannot fathom by what measure that could be said. The peace and the shape of the international order in the decades that followed were largely defined by the West. The Soviets resisted, but ultimately fell into line like everyone else.

@@googsey101 ? Don't see anyone saying the West lost.

@Christopher K Hill, Demographics, logistics, insecure communications and failure to follow Sun Tzu's and Carl von Clausewitz's advice doomed the Nazis and the Japanese from the beginning. And then war is simply immoral. Politics is violence and political governments of all makes, models and flavors are the bane of humanity; they are not Christian. Yes, even Amerikan politicians imposed all 10 Planks of the Commie Manifesto on We The People. Lincoln, Wilson and FDR provoked those with whom they disagreed and that lead to the slaughter of over a million Americans and the wounding and maiming of perhaps 6 times that number and then there were the broken hearts of those left to carry on, maybe 100 million?

can't the royal navy easily block the sea access?

'According to Anthony Beevor, during Fall Blau the Soviets had put out peace feelers, asking the Nazis, 'well what would you require for peace'?' What evidence does he cite?

@@thevillaaston7811 not having the book at my finger tips, I believe he was citing declassified Soviet intelligence reports, the Fall Blau example isnt the only instance of contact between Soviet and Nazis for a potential cease fire or peace during TGPW.

The Soviets tried to negotiate with the Germans as soon as late summer 1941 - via Swedish contacts. Indeed, any peace treaty with the USSR would change everything.

@@rafopderand8524 Where is that documented?

that can't no such document exists, anglo american propaganda

Exactly.

not really, there have been many historians who have criticized Tooze's analysis. and also its highly hindsight based that defeat was inevitable in Russia. The wehrmacht ran literal circles around the red army troop concentrations. There are many historians who claim that a few tactical and strategic changes and Germany could have had the treaty/victory they desired. Honestly 1941 is so catastrophic it really baffles the imagination how bad the red army was at counter attacking and manuevering. Also please remember that America's involvement in the European Theater was critical to victory in Europe, and that DID NOT need to happen. Again, be very careful with hindsight. People have a way of shooting arrows and drawing the target around it.

Also from Tooze's book you get a picture of the economic bind that Germany was in that created the scenario where Hitler could emerge as the leader of the country. Especially so when the US turned its back on Germany by shutting out its exports to the Western Hemisphere as a result of The Great Depression. The irony is that while Germany had no viable path to attaining economic prosperity while saddled with The Versailles Treaty where France, and to a lesser extent GB, that path did present itself to Germany in defeat. Tooze book is a great read which shatters a lot of myths and offers coherent, rational explanations (within the context of Nazi ideology) for the actions taken by Hitler and the Nazi government. Reading that book really is a prerequisite to discussing any of the decisions taken by the German government under Nazi rule with any authority.

@@dondajulah4168 Tooze presents some truths, but he infers way to far into them. Like for instance some people calculate the destruction of the soviet union during world war 2 and infer how it had been inevitable that Soviet union would be defeated and fall at some point like it did 1991. Therefore they claim 1991 fall was something bound to happen because WWII Happen. Fascists came to power in Central Europe partly because of communist scare. Therefore communists coming to power ensured that they would be defeated. I hate that kind of logic which doesn't give any thought to the fact that none of it was inevitable. Things could have taken a different path. There is many paths things could have taken for Germany after the treaty of versailles, they happen to embark on the path that caused a nazi takeover. Many different paths could have been taken once Nazis came to power, they took the path of mobilization. Many paths could have been taken after mobilization. Many different paths could have been taken in so many places in campaigns.

@@edwardjohnston6286 I didnt really find Tooze taking any position as to a pre-determined path for German pre-Hitler policy or even after Hitler came to power for that matter. The book points out how various events influenced the choices that were made during that period. On the other hand, I dont see how you can say that there were many paths for Hitler unless you assume that he abandons his ideology. For the most part, Hitler made choices that were not only rational but, for the most part correct within the context of an irrational ideology. What the book does do is very clearly is point out the extremely disadvantageous position which Germany found itself with France being existentially dependent on keeping Germany weak. Even the one factor (Soviet Communism) that had the potential to bring the major European powers closer together was negated by the existence of a strongly anti-Communist, anti-Russian Poland serving as a buffer. I dont even know that alternate paths are really even relevant to the book as its purpose is to explain the factors behind the actual outcome rather than to claim that path was unalterable.

Losing the hub of the centralised rail network would have crippled and isolated what was left of the country

Taking Moscow in mid September/early October, instead of dividing armor pincers to the North and to the South due to the infamous Hitler's Directive No 33, would have projected a really different story with the 'evacuation case'. Most of these 500 factories in and around Moscow space would be lost to the advancing Germans. Without going for this objective, during Barbarossa campaign, Germans have captured regions responsible for nearly 40% of Soviet pre war industrial capacity. Talking about Moscow significance, it is a duty to highlight its role as a crucial supply and mobilisiation base for the Red Army, hub of Western Soviet railway net, headquarters of the communist regime and the army, as well as a vital heavy industrial region (as above mentioned). Moscow was the center of Soviet state gravity. This union of republics was immensely centralized. I suppose, denying Kremlin's role in Soviet further resistance is an example of high lack of understanding a thing that Stalin and his minions have realized perfectly. If it was no important at all, why have they thrown everything they could to stop the Germans before the capital? 9 (!) newly formed armies were sent to form a Moscow defensive line (8 of them destroyed afterwards, just in two weeks of October). All the efforts were made to stop the Wehrmacht in the central part of the front. And finally, why Stalin hasn't left? He could have done it easily as you mentioned, moving in to Kuybyshev. I tell you why. Because it was the point of 'be or not to be' for the system he single handely created, on millions of enslaved Soviet people corpses.

@@direct1177 >stalin and his minions lmao

What's funny? Minion is a follower or underling of a powerful person. Stalin was omnipotent to any one in his surroundings.

@@direct1177 Oh, I am perfectly aware of this, I am a Pole, most of us know to the heart Stalin regime modus operandi. I was referring to TIK stating that he is unsure if Stalin will fled Moscow. I personally think that he eventually will if situation will become more desperate having in mind his mental breakdown after the outbreak of a German - Soviet war. I am however not so sure if it will lead to total Soviet Union collapse at least at this moment in time (Typhoon operation). Of course timing factor will play huge role here as you pointed out, if it will be earlier maybe, but remember that best Soviet divisions stationed in Kiev Military District. Will they fight effectively is another question because morale of a Soviet soldiers was already low and such a blow as loosing Moscow could undermine it further.

Great to hear! And will keep them coming, don't worry :)

That's interesting! Do you have a source for those consumptions??

@@TheImperatorKnight I do not have a published source. The numbers are from Russian military historian Alexander Tomzov via vif2ne.org military history forum.

If it was not for Mars commitment, 6th Army would have been reinforced and provided with logistical support needed to overtake Stalingrad, while Soviets were not able to reinforce Stalingrad without compromising other fronts. Mars was a meat grinder to lock down and drain German resources. Stalin and Soviet High Command knew it but could not politically disclose it or the morale would have collapsed. Instead Stalingrad was used to boost morale.

@@BigSmartArmed It is a typical conspiracy theory.

@@TheImperatorKnight - A. Isaev have emphasized that point a lot, but its also well known fact about shortages of ammunition for Soviets while Germans spending ammunition almost without restriction, which was a root cause of not been able to mount a successful offensive without ammo and good artillery support at Rhzev. Ammunition shortages for Red Army was going well into 1943, in that 4 month quite period in preparation of operation Citadel, Red Army stockpiled considerable amount of ammo. Also, once ammunition supply was cut off for F. Paulus at Stalingrad, then things turn nasty for 6th Army.

Yes, how the Soviet forces held their discipline in 1941 despite the massive losses is a key consideration - and there was nothing inevitable about this.

I don't agree that Moscow was overly significant, and generally support the analysis in the video, but I do agree with both above comments in that Soviet regime failure was the only avenue to German success and that we cannot really know how close that may have been historically. I think the key to the regime's ability to survive the military disasters of 1941 was the fact that they had planned for defense in depth, and had reserves sufficient to restore their losses. So long as they were able to keep replacing and growing their army they would remain hopeful. Keeping Stalin in place had the convenience of ensuring, in the meantime, that he would solely be to blame for the poor results...

@Lics Norgi Take the oil. German army fueled. Soviet Army unfueled. German army keeps going forward. Soviet Army rebels. Stalin assassinated. Total victory for germany. Seriously, you take Moscow idiots are so stupid that you probably think all the would be needed to make the US capitulate in a war is taking DC... DC, which even 40's American politicians admitted had no real value of anything except just being the head of government in the country.

@Majestic Satire If general of 10th army in Libya Graciany motorized few infantry divisions,he could have already overrun British 2 divisions in Egypt already in fall of 1940,but supply situation was terrible.

another front that Germany had to fight on, and the loss of too many troops when they had to surrender the Afrika Korp - tragic loss of a fine fighting force. bailing out Mussolini and Losing at Stalingrad

@The Truth Nor italians nor Mussolini were "absolute idiots". He thought, correctly, that Germany was going to win, and if Hitler won the war without the contribution of italy, his country would have been treated like a subjugate. He did the right thing under a political point of view, but not under a military point of view, but he was almost forced to join the war.

Z Klaric - I seem to recall at least one Italian unit fought superbly at Alamein...

@@mikereger1186 not only there. Read about the battle of cheren and the second battle of amba lagi. Or the battle of nikolajewka.

Rundstedt was entirely mistaken. The Red fleet was entirely a nonentity from start to finish. The war in the east should always have been about the oilfields. Rundstedt, just like all of the generals, was completely ignorant of Germany's economic plight.

Pretty sure Spain and Turkey would've joined the Axis at that point. @John Cornell

Lol

LOL

Oh don't worry, I'm pushing! Exhausted today though if I'm honest. I should be working right now, but I'm actually going to give myself half an hour or so to respond to comments.

@@TheImperatorKnight hit dat tree and carry on

The best that Germany could hope for was a stalemate. Basically conquer Europe knock the UK out of the war and build the Bomb. These would not have won against the US(technically Canada Australia too) but it would have prevented complete defeat. We can argue about whether the war would have continued. But once both the US and Germany had nukes and used them its quite likely cooler heads would have said the obvious. No one can win the war without damaging the biosphere in ways that are unpredictable. Granted this is 1940 such knowledge was limited at the time but eventually someone would have realised the basic fact that turning entire continents into wastelands is self defeating. So a ceasefire would go into effect. Even here the germans had only slim odds. But this is the most they could have hoped for. Complete victory with the nazis in the US was never realistic. Of all the alternate history stories out there the one in Fatherland is probably the only one with slim chances of having come true.

@@florinivan6907 Our fanatical leaders, if necessary, would have carpet bombed Western Europe with nukes to beat Germany. It would have been the end of Western Europe as a civilization. Germany did not even begin a nuke program.

That's a bit false. They only cracked the Luftwaffe codes & not the Army codes. It wasn't until May 1941, that the British captured an entire enigma machine from a German U-boat that had all the codes with them

@@iDeathMaximuMII most the war then

They actually put everything they were doing into the engima?

@@rohiths3554 so I heard, lots of info out there on it

American daylight mass bombing of German industrial centers assured the allied victory. The Americans had the luxury of expending vast amounts of war material in leu of the lives of their soldiers.

Yes, there seems to be a consensus among historians. But as I discussed, it could be argued that, economically at least, the turning point was earlier. Militarily, they could be right though about ~August 1941.

At some point I thought you will go back to the 1918 in your search for earliest turning point!

The Potapov's 5th army of the South-Western front. It retreated from the border only when given orders to and held Zhytomyr and Korosten as late as middle of August scrambling all german plans for Blitzkrieg. Too bad that commander Potapov died in the Kyiv pocket, he proved to be one of the best Soviet generals on defense.

@Lics Norgi _"if dday pushed back allies would need probably a year to try it again, by that time the soviets could be defeated"_ yeah .....how? You know that during summer time operation Bagration was wolling over the german central forces of the eastern front?

@Lics Norgi Bagration would still be running at the time of d-day and at this time it was already a sucess. The complete Army Corps Center was smashed. Stalingrad was a Joke against that and German Border was open after that. So even If they could free some devisions in the West it would Not Change much. Also the allies alredy pushed trough italy and Not all Army Units in the West could ne freed to prevent another Invasion A Victory in the West would have bought some time (maybe), but nothing more

Kursk may have been the battle that signaled the end of the German initiative on the Eastern front for the rest of the war, but I don't see how you can look past Stalingrad at the psychological impact on belligerents. For three months German radio said that things was going swell it's down grad and then the next news cast two months later is everybody's gone. It's the first time in the war that the Germans on European soil were soundly defeated at Stalingrad.

Your argument is better than the others presented in this set of comments.

David Irving cannot be trusted what so ever he has been completely discreditted.

I'm planning to in the future, yes. Although I can't say when exactly they'll be. I definitely will cover Lend Lease in more detail than I have done though, and the German economy as a whole.

TIK Thanks!

@@TheImperatorKnight i always curious about the german economic capacity to wage these war . do they enough financial resourses to fund their war ? how long can they sustain their deficit spending ( just my guess of course that they do ). its just my gut feeling that if they prolonge these wars for another 5+ years ,it would be unsustainable economicaly for them . maybe i'm wrong . it would be great if you make a video about this hahaha xD

Which means it is all Serbia's Fault!

@@noahfuller4128 So the history books tell us 😂🤣😊🤣.

U realize even in our timeline Germany successfully extracted oil in the Caucasus in the brief time they controlled it in late 1942-early 1943.

Good point

Britain surrender was irrelevant, as UK spent most of the war of defensive. It role in war was rather small, as well that of US. Most of US support went to Brits and even with UK falling it wouldnt make a much difference, due to the fact that all important battles took place at Eastern Front. This where war was fought and this is where it was lost. And "what global supply" chain ? Chain of what ? Supplies from where ? What blockade youre talking about ? Kriegsmarine had free reign in Atlantic. Royal Navy was primarily occupied defending Britain and US supply caravans. Soviets are ones that took on German war machine and despite extreme losses, they endured. Nobody expected that. It was one of the strategical mistakes made by German High command. They did not account for the fact that Stalin was willing to sacrifice as many as it takes. Soviet regime was deeply unpopular ?!?!!? Where that nonsense comes from ? Have you any knowledge of that period at all ? Winter War is a poor example, it merely shows extreme incompetence in one instance, as Moscow expected easy victory, they did not committed resources needed, nor took situation seriously til it was 2 late. Simple fact that Red Army managed to stop Wehrmacht, something that every other country in Europe failed to do miserably, already proves absurdity of your point. Your attempt to separate "soviet people" from Stalinist government is simply retarded. If soviet government was so unpopular as you claim it to be, then they would have second revolution, thats all. Most of the population remembered 1917 quite well. US wanted to get into this war. US government wanted it badly. It would allow them more direct engagement in what twas going on in Europe. Unfortunately this idea was extremely unpopular with people. But Pearl Harbor changed everything. How effective Soviets would be without US support ? About 95% as effective, because this is exactly how much difference US made, about 5%. First US shipments did not arrive till October of 1941, by this time fighting was dying down due to weather conditions and most critical moment passed. When USSR was most vulnerable and most likely to fail, there was nobody supporting them. In general, out of all supplies that came with lend-lease, Soviets received only around 20%. Most went to Britain. As far as numbers go, in most case numbers are presented in misleading fashion, to imply that US support played greater part that it did. Like claim that US supplied 80% of canned meat consumed by soviets forces during WW2. But when adding another little fact, that canned meat accounted for less that 10% of Red Army food rations, if suddenly doesnt look as impressive. Similar situation is with locomotives - even tho US supplied Soviets with ton of rail carts and locomotives, compared to USSR own production during war, when looked at USSR initial amount of those two, those numbers are not as impressive. 2.3 million tons of steel shipped thru lend-lease, in total...except that soviets produced, roughly averaged, 10 million tons of steel each year themselves. And, of course, aluminum. This one is technically true, except... At the beginning of the war, US produced 56% of world aluminum, with Alcoa holding pretty much monopoly on it production. So soviets would buy it even without war. Most ironic is, that prior to war, US was behind on it deliveries of aluminum. So large part of US "help" was just delivering what they already owed USSR. Also worth mentioning that due to short supply of aluminum at beginning of the war, soviets used alternatives, with majority of it aircraft being made out of wood(it may sound silly, but its not, pretty much all countries used it at that time in aviation). So it was hardly critical. By the time that aluminum supply became actually important it was already 1943 and Soviets were on offensive. Most "critical" supply that US provided USSR with, was trucks. But considering that Germans, with all their mechanization, had even else trucks that Soviets, and managed quite ok, id say it wasnt particularly critical either. Plus, again, Red Army already had sizable fleet of vehicles. In general, US support of USSR during WW2 could be described simply as "2 little, 2 late". US never supplied Soviets in sufficient quantities of anything, not to mention in time those supplies were needed the most, to make even a dent in Red Army fighting capabilities. US support to Soviet Union hastened and smoothed some aspect of the war, but similarly to D-Day it was inconsequential to final outcome. War would just last maybe a year longer, thats it.

"The Soviet regime was deeply unpopular and the Terror showed how bankrupt they were with the populace. The Red Army's performance against Finland suggested they were utterly incapable of resisting the Wehrmacht." Really? So, you are still believing in those NKVD 'zagrad' battalions from The Enemy at the gates? Who forced the tank divisions into an attack? NKVD tank battalions? You have no clue how many people were voluntarily waiting in the lines for hours to enlist. Ordinary people and kolhozes were buying tanks and aeroplanes for the army... some of them selling their houses for that. "It would have been understandable for the USSR to find a way out" The Soviet Union didn't have a way out. They were destined to disappear, the population was planned to be starved out with leaving only some slaves that would provide for the German masters. Google Plan OsT. (The same thing was planned for Poland also).

oh boy here we go Arm chair historian attack on it's way take cover

In spite of the harsh comments made by some of your critics, I think your analysis of how the decisions made by Germany's major adversaries based upon their strengths and self interests, combined, over time to ensure its defeat is pretty accurate. The kriegsmarine never "had the run" of the near or great waters of the European theater, in 1940, it lost heavily off of Norway and failed to prevent the evacuation at Dunkirk. The performance of the most of the Russian armed forces during the early stages of Barbarosa was even worse than the debacle in Finland. I could go on, but that's not necessary. In reality, the "inevitable defeat" of Germany required a lot of complex pieces to fall into place, none of which was guaranteed or preordained in 1939, 1940, or during almost all of 1941.

@@dpeasehead "Lost heavily" ? During Norwegian campaign Allies lost at least twice as much tonnage as Kriegsmarine did(not to mention that Germans still occupied Norway). Only way to claim that is due to the fact that Germans had fewer ships to begin with. But even after that German Navy continue to operate in Atlantic fairly freely. There was no blockade of any kind. If by "failed" you mean that Germans put fairly little effort to prevent it, then sure. Dunkirk was one of critical failures of German High Command, as those 300k soldiers could do fairly little to defend themselves. The fact that Brits had to use civilian vessels in evacuation, says how desperate situation was. Instead of crushing British military Hitler, still believing that UK could be convinced to join Axis, tried to negotiate. If Germans were to exterminate retreating British forces, and they could, by throwing everything they had at them, they would eliminate a whole third of British army. I doubt that UK would have ever recover from such blow. Nobody is arguing that performance of Red Army was atrocious early in war. If not for extreme weather of autumn/winter of 1941/1942, Germany would have an excellent chance at crushing soviet resistance. Essentially this war was won by weather, that allowed Russians to recover and rebuild, and then push Wehrmacht back.

every drop of aviation gas came from the US. 400,000 vehicles including 90,000 heavy trucks that let the Soviets could supply their offensives from the closest railhead. The percentage of American, British and Canadian goods across a huge array of critical products was very high. Planes, tanks, locomotives, aircraft fuel, lubricants, explosives, ammunition, uniforms, boots and an amazing array allowed the Soviets to end the war much sooner. I think they would have won in the end but much, much later!

Probably so. However, the U.S. was the only German foe that had the atomic bomb to guarantee Germany's defeat.

I can't see that Germany would have won against just the UK and the USSR. But, declaring war the US made the likely certain. In addition there was no good reason to invite the strongest economy in the world to join the contest. Disavowing Japan would a no cost gambit to avoid a second front and a lot of bombing.

Good Plan GL....here's my two Pesos......Focus on a larger Afrika Korps first, with....2 Pz/2 Pz Gr.divs &1FJ Bde🌴 ... [21Pz &15 PzGr... 10Pz & 90 PzGr + Ramcke FJ Bde] The whole campaign starts with other forces in December 41' using The Sp. Blue Div,The Sp Legion & German FJ's, to take and hold 'Spanish' Gibraltar, That brings in a most grateful Spain..Malta falls ...You control the Med............... Then starting in January, 41' with Rommel... Make the drive with your larger assets re:4 Pz divs & take Alex, Suez, Cairo... drive on to.. and ''crown'' The Grand Mufti & the New 'Pan Arabian Capital', Jerusalem (The Arab Legion is created)...........Then Vichy Syria (oil) ......Then Bring in Turkey...they get Crete and Cyprus (Sorry)... Jordan, Iraq & Saudi Arabia are liberated,more Arab Legions are formed in a massive uprising against Britain. Then.... with reinforcements (HGPz,Mountain troops ,Motor Inf & Assault gun Bde) and supplies through Turkey and on your new 'Axis Lake'....Do the big drive up to the Caucasus from the South in conjunction with the Turks & Cossack's,Chechen's etc. for Barbarossa in June 41'....''Operation Saladin'' Oh yeah, one on the side....Blow up & Blockade the Panama Canal locks with several false neutral Swedish flagged freighters and 5th column Spanish Foreign legion with (German)combat engineers the night before you declare war on America.December, 11th,1941...Prost..🍻💦 & Stin ygeia sas!🍾

@@rpm1796 I suspect the Russians would have stabbed the Germans in the side ... due to the long strung out supply chain from Germany to the Caucusus. It wportion of Russia.ould be very tempting. By this time Stalin was advised by the British that the Germans intended to conquer a significant

@@rpm1796 So. Once you piss off the RN and have the blockade going from loose (Navicert system) to hard ... where are the Germans finding 500 000 tons of grain to feed Spain with ?