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)

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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...😜

@@hankhill5622 Battlefield 6 Baby

Turkish Army vs Greek Army Military Comparision kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r7t9oaliktGvlnk.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

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

@@Soyjakgamingbutawesome 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.

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.

​@@user-jp3wl4fg2h 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.

​@@user-zj2mg9oo6ino, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

_ _ 8 _

stop crimethink

There is no war in Ba Sing Se!

N

I dont get it

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

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.

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)

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

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.

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

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

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.

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...

@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

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!!!

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

lend lease wasn't as impactful that late on

​@colecoal1365 the lend lease also included uniforms, medical aid, and food. Those didn't stabilize for the Soviets until near the fall of the Berlin wall. And even then food was still scarce. And medical aid the more advanced stuff was still mostly outside of Soviet hands.

Lend Lease also included 57 % of all the AvGas the Soviets used throughout the entire war.

In order to bomb Moscow the West would have to establish air superiority. The Soviets had a reasonable air force and you can’t just bypass that and throw a bomb in Moscow. The reason it worked in Japan was because the Japanese had lost air superiority by that late stage of the war. The only targets the West could have effectively dropped a nuclear bomb on were in Central Europe, and I don’t think it would make a lot of sense to wipe out the cities of the counties you are “liberating”.

​@@csm5040are you ignoring the United States navy that would simply blockade the black sea and launch their superior aircraft from there?

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

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.

Polish troops would join US if possible. Poles were extremely unhappy with results of Yalta.

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?

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

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

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.

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

Plus, the Soviet never-ending supply of manpower replacements was bled dry by ‘45. Almost all of their divisions were at about half strength. They could never have brought them up to full strength in time if Payton opened up his blitzkrieg

Also don’t forget the soviets we’re completely out of food.

@@unifiedhorizons2663 they also had a famine in 1946 - 1947 so that's gotta become a huge factor to supplies.

*bad video

You're a God 🙌

Wow you're really determine.. nice

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

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

20 million Russians Dead

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

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

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

Don’t forget the technological advantage the west had over the east, the soviets focused heavily on metallurgy and more “practical” science at the cost of more innovative science, the US had radar shells, the oppenhammer (atomic weapons) more reliable engineered armor, better logistics (the soviets still used the push method while the us could get a cake from New York to France within a week) and the ideological advantage (the Ukrainians, poles, baltics and fins HATED the Soviet Union) etc.

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...

You underestimate soviet aviation that beated the Luftwaffe, allies had much less troops than soviets did

Cope

@@enitivy the luftwaffe was battered by the western allies, particularly britain. the soviets really weren't facing much of the luftwaffe through the war.

The US had x4 additional nukes in its arsenal before the end of Summer 1945, and had manufacturing lined up to produce TWENTY more nukes by the end of 1945.

@@enitivy Nope. The B-29 bomber flew above all but a handful of Soviet fighters, and the upgraded B-50 variant would fly even higher and could range at will across the Soviet Union from bases as far away as Egypt and Iceland.

@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.

@@abrahamcanales132 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.

@@abrahamcanales132 The Navy would have been able to take out their supply lines, and also launch amphibious assaults to out flank the Red Army.

Turkish Army vs Greek Army Military Comparision kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r7t9oaliktGvlnk.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.

@GeneralGamerYT and it's amazing how just being able to keep your troops fed is so important

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.

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.

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.

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.

Stop the cap. If you wonder of the main containment of lend lease of Aircraft fuel you can read from the article:"Fuel complement of lend lease". The main thing of allies fuels supplies that the most of them was used in moment of WW2 by the Soviet aircraft, indeed in the moment of the war it was helpful because most of the the refineries were either captured or destroyed by Germany and from 1941 to 1942 were important to the war. What about after the war history, most of the refineries such as the Grozny and Baku refineries were operating at full capacity and were producing over 1.7 million tons of oil per year by 1944. The problem of Soviet aviation fuel is its technological lag, because little time was devoted to its production from 1922 to 1939 from the beginning of the USSR. Only 16 years were given to Soviet science for the production of high-quality aviation gasoline, if we also take into account the fact that this was not the main goal for a young country mired in problems. But even so, she used albeit backward but proven 78 octane fuel. What about the allies, so by the end of 1942 they began to bring a completely different 87 octane gasoline, which was better in quality but did not fit most gasolines. The USSR bought it only in order to synthesize it in the future for the next generation of aircraft, but they still used 78 octane for their aircraft. By the end of 1945, almost all aircraft and aircraft manufacturing plants plus oil refineries were autonomous from the Allied Lend Lease. If you are interested in reading an article about this, I will write the main part about octane gasoline below: The problem was in the low technical and technological level of domestic oil refineries. 85 percent of the oil was processed, as in the days of the Nobels, by two old methods - direct distillation in stills and tubular atmospheric-vacuum installations. As a result, dark oil products prevailed in the commodity nomenclature. There was a "fuel oil" orientation, in which the yield of light oil products did not exceed 20 percent in the whole country. This seriously complicated the provision of fuel and lubricants for both the national economy of the USSR in general and the country's armed forces in particular. Capacities for the production of high-octane aviation gasoline were located only in two places - in the Baku and Grozny oil regions, which made them convenient targets for enemy aircraft. This became especially relevant also by the middle of 1942. Meanwhile, foreign aviation equipment supplied under Lend-Lease was designed for completely different gasoline. The fact is that in the West, combat aircraft engines have already run on gasoline with an octane rating of 87 to 100. Back in the 1930s, in the laboratories of the Anglo-Dutch Shell, located in the Netherlands and the USA, it was possible to create gasoline with an octane rating of 100, which worked with aircraft engines and the aircraft on which they were installed, real miracles. The takeoff run of vehicles decreased by an average of a third, the rate of climb increased by 40 percent, and the bomb load by 20-30 percent. The special demand for such fuel was initiated by the Second World War, which, of course, was the "war of engines." However, the military departments of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition also thought for some time about whether it was worth paying extra money for switching to 100-octane aviation gasoline. The long-running debate over the role of higher octane came to an end with the 1940 Battle of England. In its course, the British Spitfires and Hurricanes showed much higher flight performance than the German aircraft. At the same time, the British refueled their cars with aviation gasoline with an octane rating of 100, and the Luftwaffe aircraft were forced to be content with fuel with an octane rating of 87. But back to the USSR. Despite all efforts, the backlog of the Soviet oil refining industry in terms of production, which was somewhat increased by the end of the Great Patriotic War thanks to the use of imported technologies, was still serious. In 1944, the production of aviation gasoline amounted to 1.7 million tons against 1.1 million tons in 1941.

@@user-ee5ho5pg2v fuel or no fuel, you can't say that western planes at the time were better then soviet ones.

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.

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.

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

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.

Kevin Bryer lend lease is 7% of the Soviet effort, and is always OVERSTIMATED

Literally double the man power, Air Force and naval assets?

@@bruhb7611 assets? The allies were also supplying USSR with assets? All the allies and the world would concentrate on USSR??? All the allies had to do is slowly drag and dry USSR from resources. They were already starving and with Germany and Japan defeated, I mean how much longer USSR would last? Allies were well supplied and had already started to make technology gains to jets and tanks equal or greater to phanzers or tigers.

It would still be wwii though.

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.

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.

@Sean Thompson 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.

Don't forget that there are many German industrial equipment industries that the USSR has succeeded in capturing to meet these needs, they just need to take them to Siberia and it's impossible to bomb them.

United air superiority? That’s fast forward 50 years, I mean, your were only off by half a century

@@carkawalakhatulistiwa The USSR was not in a position to conduct another mass movement of factories, especially as its military supplies wete already dangling on the edge. You're also talking about moving them across half a continent at this point, while under constant bombardment from what is the largest airpower the world had seen to this point. The U.S. and British combined were setting records essentially every mission with total tonnage of bombs dropped. The USSR did not have effective high altitude interveptors at this point either making them essentially defensless. Speaking of which, much of the German industry had been devastated by this point by allied bombing raids and the Soviet advance. Lets say they manage to pull most of the industry back. The vast majority of Soviet oil was produced in a single easily reached spot. It doesnt matter how many tanks or planes the Soviets were able to pump out with their stolen manufacturing if they dont have the fuel to bring them to the fronts.

@@tlpineapple1 in 1945 Iran was divided between the Soviets and British. And there were no US and British bombers in Iraq so the Soviets still had a chance to occupy Iran, Iraq and Syria. before the US planes used their airport to bomb Baku Azerbaijan . and before United States reinforcements reach Palestine

@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Thats such a horrible assement of the capabilities of either opponent. First of all, there may or may not have been bombers, but there most certainly were planes. Even at the least you're talking about a couple of days to fly the bombers in position from africa and Italy. That doesnt discount the fact that the allies are not beyond suicide missions. Remember, the doolittle raid was conducted mostly as a propaganda mission, to show that Japan could be hit, and to boost American moral, and they did that with it being mostly a suicide mission. The Soviets meanwhile still had to move troops from the front, to the open a new front and push into heavily mountainous territory, invading multiple neutral countries that would only further harm their international relations and appearance, allowing political propaganda to drive the war. Further, this would open up a front with the British Raj, further tying down resources. Im nost saying its not past the Soviets to invade the middle east, but its not something that could be done in days. Even if they did manage it, now Turkey would be feeling mighty pressured at this point, especially given Turko-Soviet relations towards the end of the war. This would likely lead the Turks to if not joining the war, allowing allied fleets into the black see, opening Baku and the surrounding infrastructure up to naval bombardment. Even if the Soviets decided to invade Turkey, theyd have precious little to stop an allied fleet from making their way into the black sea. The simple fact is, if the allies wanted to bomb Baku, the Soviets would need to conquer everything within more than 2000 miles in a few days and thats only if they didnt expect the allies to undergo a suicide mission. A mission that would remove the soviets of fuel in a time where they already had low reserves and were being helped by allied shipments that would have since been cut off. Once the B29s were in the air and at their bombing altitude, the soviets had next to nothing that could reach them, and what they did have was next to ineffective at handling a squadron of B29s, this is why they need to conquer the region so quick, once up, they arent stopping the raid. Your argument basically boils down to: "They just have to invade over 1,000,000 square kilometers of poorly developed land with little to no infrastructure in just a couple days, while also holding Europe, its that simple."

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.

off topic: ah, nice starcraft reference there :)

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.