Had the Soviets attacked Germany, they would've had their asses handed to them. Their generals, training, organization and weapons were still crap. This time it wouldn't be them resisting a destructive invader, it would be them as the invader. The rage and thirst for revenge that drove the Soviets forward in 43-45 wouldn't be there. The massive amounts of lend lease trucks that carried their army onto the push to Berlin wouldn't be there. As soon as the Luftwaffe gained air superiority, the Germans would've began encircling and destroying entire Soviet armies. Stalin would be in a very precarious situation domestically.
well, when the pact was signed between soviets and geramy, ussr started preparing to invade germany. they calculated that, they:d be able to defeat germany if they invaded in 1945. that's if germans were mobilized too, but if german army was concentrated on britain, they'd have to put almost all of their military assets to western front. this would result soviets not having any trouble invading nazis for the beginning of the invasion. when germans would be able to eventually mobilize their military the british would attack, and germans would be fighting a 2 front war, with soviets being closer to berlin.
@@georgianmapper7774 you forget One thing, at the Moment the axis force take suez then the states of middle East join eventually against the allies and soviet Union.
@@thebenz9871 would they? in the video i said that germans killed off everyone they saw in palestine, so middle eastern countries wouldn't want to join them.
@@sturmtiger3802 well, stalin was preparing his military in case of any invasion and yes, they offered to join the axis,but axis didn't want them. hitler left stalin's offer unanswered, he didn't decline bc then it woul cause some suspicion in soviet high command.
USSR didn't want war with Germany at any cost (Stalin still wasn't bothered to prepared until 2 days before Barbarossa, even when all his advisors and generals told him to prepare) and also USSR lacked tbe capabilities of invading a much more advanced Germany without American lend-lease. The population probably wouldn't have supported the war either as they didn't have any real hatred towards Germany (besides opposite ideologies and probably that they were war-mongerers). But apart from that I did enjoy the video, if Germany helped Italy a lot more in North Africa then I tdo think that that definetly would have been possible.
@@frenchcat8764 You're saying that but the Soviets couldn't even beat Finland. It was only in 1944 beyond when the Soviets could actually manage their military and win the war. Also, the Soviet industry only got good during the war when they started pumping everything they had into defending the country.
Afrika Korps had supply problems. If Barbarossa never happened, they still would have had supply problems. The military equipment along the Eastern Front, and the personnel, could not have been transported to Africa; it would have ended up on the bottom of the Mediterranean. The Brits would have won at El Alamein in any event. Hitler's biggest failure was in not being able to mobilize the workforce of Europe to outproduce the Brits and the Soviets. That's why he lost the war. He gradually ran out of equipment.
Yeah, agreed. I don't think the soviets would have had such an immediately powerful offensive, hell it can be argued that germany would have been able to push them back a good amount into their own lands before the soviets fully mobilized all its available manpower
there has to be a way for the British to hold cario im thinking cario would end up like a stalingrad situation for the germans logistically i think it might of been to much for the germans esp when the royal navy still controlled the seas or the med at least
By that point, I think the USSR would have no intention of attacking Germany but rather allying with it. There had already been talks between the two countries for a possible inclusion of USSR into the Axis, so if the germans never went through with Barbarossa, this would be the next closest possibility.
To my opinion this timeline is realistic The reason why USSR never attacked Germany first because it was in the middle of an reorganization and mobilization program Tanks have to be equipped with radio, New tanks have to be designed, Planes still have to be repaired and fitter with radar, Coordination of Tanks and Infantry have to be completed in other words If Germany never attacked the USSR first this would give the Soviets enough time to reorganize and prepare for an invasion as for Germany without war in the East and the main focus is at eliminating the British in North Africa and Middle East the Axis can only capture Egypt and even Malta securing the Mediteranean and I think the Axis would have a hard time invading the Middle east because they are overstretched and lack of oil
I dont think many things here would have happeend. For example ussr would have never attacked germany unless germany was either clearly losing or it beat united kingdom. Ussr was making sure uk lived as long as possible. Another thing. The soviets would have failed their offensive into germany. Their army was not very good at the time until late 1941 it started to improve. Now i didnt see if usa joined the war or not. Im gonna take a guess that they did. If they did they wouldnt have invaded norway. They would have definitly focused on italy and D-DAY
No, it would be stupid, as Nazis would send troops to the Soviet border. But yeah, USSR invading right after the Nazi landing is the most logical move, letting Nazi soldiers surrounded and drowned in Britain
My goodness, i finally found an scenario that isn't this western crap of "muh Soviet so weak, if wasn't by the winter they would be dead" I wish this go viral
