Tesco vs Morrisons

Indonesia vs malaysia,philipphines and brunei 2021!!!

What if the Chinese Nationalists won the Chinese Civil war in 1934-1935 and became Germanys ally instead of Japan.

How do I claim it in the game? I've downloaded it already

Can you do America vs Nazi Germany in an arena war? I imagine Germany would be connected to the New England region.

Doctor says "No patient is to be left for dead"

Lol

But all his brothers would be alive too. And that other Pvt. Ryan would not be traumatized about hearing his two baby brothers had died.

It would become Saving Ryan’s Privates

@@boejiden7093 That WOULD be in line with Southern California's priorities...

The chances of Japan making it through would be the same as winning the lottery the same day as England winning the Fifa World Cup

The Bob Semples would grease their treads with Japanese blood and guts!

The Semple is ** I N E V I T I B L E **

If the NZ Army was Charles Upham and 3 Maoris, My Money is on the Kiwis :)

I mean a fuckin farmer built them in a garage so...

Without American high octane fuel, the Battle of Britain might have gone the other direction, same with the Soviet air force. The real problem for the Soviets was food. Germany controlled almost all their agricultural land , without the American food supplies, the Soviets could not feed the population. Same goes for the British. Lend-Lease was much more important that people think. Stalin, Khrushchev and Zhukov officially stated that the Soviet Union would have collapsed without the material help from the West.

Its more complicated, but roughly True. I think food was for soldiers mostly, canned beef from US was called "2nd front" between conscripts (a joke about opening 2nd front / Dday). Food USSR was able to scrap.. Real problem were engines. T34 carried engines with aluminium cyllinders made of US aluminium. Cause at that time european territories producing that were under nazi control. And schassis for rocket launchers (katyusha) were all American motors. These of course could be replaced, but will take time to do so. My conclusion - if (and I believe so) nazies can't exploit Caucases oild fields, and America stayung neutral - with +25% casualities and +3 years of war USSR and UK will win in Europe. Taking about Asia... No idea, but seems chineese won't surrender after all done by JP

but would Japan really invade South East Asia? The reason why they did was because the US sanctions caused starvation, lack of oil and rubber in Japan. Issues that wouldn't have existed without the US trade imbargo. The british had a huge production of rubber in British Malya and could transport this to the soviets without a Japanese assault on the European colonies

So were basic items like; tubes/valves. The US supplied enough that all Soviet radars and most tactical radios used US tubes.

Britain and the USSR could still buy food resources and other resources, even if the US was neutral. The US was neutral in 1939 and both UK and France ordered a big order of tanks and airplanes from the US. Germany still couldn’t, because the British Navy wouldn’t allow trade with the Germans.

There's too many variables. By I think early 43 Porton Down had developed an anthrax bomb, which would have been practically as devastating to all life as a nuclear one. If the UK was on the verge of collapse or if germany had thought to try to cross the channel it's likely churhill would have used it and might have turned Germany into a wasteland that would have been uninhabitable for decades. The island where they tested the anthrax bomb wasn't declared anthrax free until 1990.

@@claytonberg721 Germany would have retaliated with nerve gas. Not as lasting, but a much more agonizing death. Cities would be doused with the stuff.

@@inurmomsbedroom123 Yes - Britain was not actually technologically superior to Germany. If Britain did escalate that far, Germany would most certainly have retaliated in kind. The US was further ahead in their superweaponry development because they had better resources and their industries were not being routinely bombed to shreds like British, German and Russian industries were. In Binkov's alternate timeline where the US stays out of the war, escalation from conventional warfare would mean that every combatant would suffer bio or chemical warfare attacks.

This is why Britain would have conceded after 1941 rather than keep fighting, with heavy concessions towards Germany. And in an extended Germany vs Russia war, we can also talk about the timeline where Germany creates and exclusively holds the power of nuclear weapons rather than the US...

Depends on whether or not the US puts an embargo on Japan. Is that considered indirect involvement?

@@scotttild It's not that simple, exporting more than importing (trade surplus) does not automatically means the economy is good. If anything, having a large surplus could actually be detrimental in some cases. Wheat grain surplus was part of the contributing factor to the Great Depression, because surplus led to price collapse. And ironically, the Great Depression got worse after President Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. A country can be self-sustaining without global trade, but it sure can't become powerful, if you don't export what you made, you're intentionally handicapping yourself.

Proves that the US needed to come in, even just for its own sake....

The US could have chosen to sell to both and all sides.

@@mickeyg7219 SMTA may have worsen the effects of the depression, but it wasn't a core factor in the creation it from start nor the actual catalyst to actually worsting it all. It was simply inappropriate the solution for the time for a growing problem, ironically, caused by global banks, trade, and economics

Keynes was right about massive government spending. Trillions spent on the war effort killed the Depression completely dead. Trickle Down and Free Market Economics will kill you. Go ask the Frozen Dead of Texas.

Funny because the reaction of the people of that era mocked it and lost faith in their ability to defend NZ with such a crappy Tank.

@Some One which is why I said “Funny” and then explained a factual reaction the public had.

You mean the burger buns used to keep it together

@Pro Tengu do you want a rainbow cookie

@Pro Tengu means a lot thank you

lend lease wouldnt change the outcome only make the war longer

I thought of that too. But at most 20% of German strength was devoted to the western front.

@@MoizRafay the western allies would have been fuked if the germans had 50% of their strength deployed in the west...

We supply 60% of trucks 53% of all ammo in 1941 to 45

When the archives opened around 1992 or so, there was a conference of Russian and Western WW2 historians. There view was, based on actual primary source material, that Lend-Lease was "much more important to the survival of the USSR even as early as 1942. Without Lend-Lease it would be DOUBTFUL (my emphasis) the USSR could have continued the war past ca 1943."

I think we should see these scenarios as a fun way to learn more about the actual history (in this case understanding the impact of US involvement on so many different aspects of this very complex war)

Well this is what war gaming is about. Professional planners do this for a living.

Ah the Us invented the Bomb...think you may have been lied to assuming you are American as the Brits were heavily involved

There's this misconception about German nuclear research they were nowhere close to figuring out how to build an atomic weapon. Same with the Japanese they knew about atomic bomb research but they weren't anywhere closer to figuring it out than the Germans. Also some prominent KZfaqrs keep pushing this notion that the Soviet's were gonna win the war before the Germans even crossed the border. The Soviet's didn't have unlimited resources to keep throwing at the Germans eventually they were gonna run out with the amount of casualties they were sustaining. Had Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Stalingrad all fell then their supply lines more than likely would of collapsed. From my understanding of the situation it was our SPAM and other food stuffs that were keeping them from starving to death according to General Zhukov.

It is, If America stayed out of both the World Wars who knows it would've become the power it is now if isolationism was still a thing

India: I don't think so

@@rudrakshpainuly1294 well no.....India had started to revolt against the British colonial government and plus netaji Subhas Chandra Bose's INA with the Japanese empire (which will be freely concentrating in the Indian sub-continent because USA won't interfere ) would have Liberated India without any trouble 🇮🇳

@@darthvader5558 No, he would've been suppressed in no time

@@rudrakshpainuly1294 IRL the Japanese ability to invade India was very limited because their navy was busy in the Pacific which limited their ability to send (and protect) supplies by sea - that's why the Bangkok-Rangoon Railway was so important to them. With a neutral US, all the ships and supplies sent to the Pacific IRL could be redirected to Burma by mid-1942 and a much more massive campaign against India could be supported. I still don't think the Japanese would have had the ability to conquer India, but what if they took a different tack and declared that they had no intention of occupying any part of India, but would recognize Indian independence and neutrality if the Indian people would rise up against British rule? And the Japanese would naturally offer to assist the Indian people in gaining their independence. I'm thinking Gandhi would still refuse to have anything to do with a military invasion, but the Japanese appearing to have a much greater chance of winning the war than they did IRL might have made cooperating with them a powerful temptation to other Indian nationalists. And there's zero chance the British could have held off the Japanese by themselves without the Indian Army. (Not to mention, this would almost certainly mean the loss of Egypt as well if all the Indian troops there were withdrawn from the fight.)

@@brucetucker4847 Eh, I don't think they would have pursued India. Why ever would you do that? They've got China right there ripe for the taking.

Australian Turtle Strategy

Or be the very last to survive only to be overcome in the end lol

Australia would probably get so pissed at the British leaving them to fend for themselves after Singapore that they'd join the Axis against Britain XD

Australia supplied 6 Billion dollars in aid to the United States forces during WW2. (1945 values). Every round of ammunition fired by MacArthur’s forces in the South Pacific was supplied by Australia…(along with food and uniforms).

The Emus would join the Aussies and take over the world. This victory would be short lived however after the Kiwis got together with the All Blacks and thrashed the Aussies. The Emus melted into the outback, undefeated as ever.

The US supplied 90% of the oil for the UK during the war, with out that moving ships around and flying airplanes becomes pretty much impossible.

More than that, UK would likely not have continued fighting after 1941. Once any hope of US joining was lost, they'd probably have to capitulate to Germany with a ceasefire agreement, keeping UK out of things entirely from them on. Without any morale boosting victories and even worse home devastation and suffering, any will to keep fighting among the general British people for a nearly hopeless cause would have diminished heavily. Churchill be damned, UK would resign from fighting to consolidate what it had left. Even in Binkov's timeline here, an uncooperative Britain would likely just mean a Nazi invasion of Britain at some point in the near future. Germany would have needed to bring Britain to its knees to secure stability. UK would have avoided this situation by giving in early on instead.

At the very least, it still would've created fuel shortages for the Soviets.

Synthetic fuel production was increasing in ww2 from 10million in 1941 to 44million barrels a year in 1944. Crude was also increased from 3million barrels in 1941 to 10million in 1944. Germany also had all the refinery's of the nation's they conquered I believe there was over 50 near ports alone majority weren't used due to not needing them. Not to mention Germany allies in Europe would loved to have oil even Romania who supplied Germany with 14million barrels a year from 41 to 44.

@@brianlong2334 It's all fine and dandy to have crude oil sitting in the Caucasus ready to be refined. It's also cool to have massive refineries ready to make some big bucks sitting in Germany or Romania. But the issue is transporting those crude oil to those refineries, the Soviets would have demolished most of the existing infrastructure, German held infrastructure in USSR was already overloaded with transporting supplies just for the troops IRL, how are they gonna load up millions of barrels of oil on that shitty infrastructure? In the first place, how are they gonna fix the sabotaged oil facilities? Those things may need some very specific equipment to get fixed and that's also gonna stretch the transport system.

@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 Vermany would have to refine in theater, and use what fraction they could to supply their own front. Naval shipping through the black sea might also be an option. The Regia Marina could potentially secure it if Turkey allowed ships through the bosporus. But it isnt really an important question. Its denial to the ussr, which was as is already heavily dependent on lend lease, especially for high octane fules. The USSR simply lacks the equipment without lend lease to mount the costly offensives after the turnaround of '42. The eastern front would bog down, and the USSR would be lacking its most fertile territory, a large chunk of its population, and many of its industrial centers would be actjvely under siege still, or within close proximity of the front.

Actually ,in reality Germans captured the Maykop oil fields intact and started immediately exploiting them. I do agree however ,that in Baku the situation would have been different.

Yessss

funny thing is A LOT of German American(huge German population) did go back and fought for the Nazi. If a German friendly President was in office during that time...it could have happen because UK/France and other Western Europa countries were considered competitor at that time.

@Mr. UnoriginalJoke ...right, I was referring to WW2. However, the Nazi was already in the German people. LOL!

I think he did that already. He has a part 2 of the US joining Germany on his channel. The video came out in the last 2 weeks I think.

@@PhillyPhanVinny That was part one. I'm asking for a continuation of that one :)

It actually may have been better. We should've sent all our resources to Japan to defeat them... and let facism & communism destroy each other in the mean time before mopping up whatever remained in Europe. We shouldn't have picked a side between those two.

"One can always count on the Americans doing the right thing... after they've tried out everything else."

@@LotsOfBologna2 hahaha.. destroy each other The Soviets would have won anyway, the only difference being that now they would control nearly all of mainland Europe and end up in a far more advantageous position that in our timeline

@@matthewdouglas8368 FDR did lend-lease sending a crap-load of military equipment to the Soviets, then compounded the mistake by opening the western front & the Africa & Italy invasion way earlier than necessary. Then after the war gave a bunch of handouts during the Yalta conference... and during the whole thing couldn't have been more buddy-buddy with Stalin. FDR's whole career showed him nothing but a communist. Soviets might have won but we gave them a disgraceful amount of help.

@@matthewdouglas8368 Whatever u say general sheep🤡

India: I don't think so

@@rudrakshpainuly1294 well no.....India had started to revolt against the British colonial government and plus netaji Subhas Chandra Bose's INA with the Japanese empire would have Liberated India without any trouble 🇮🇳

@@darthvader5558 Japan had been murdering civilians by the tens of thousands everywhere they invaded. No one considered them liberators. Indians knew this, and would have fiercely resisted a Japanese incursion. British rule would have easily been the lesser of two evils. In all likelihood though, Britain would have made a separate peace with Japan after the fall of Singapore if the US hadn’t been involved, because it couldn’t fight Germany, Italy, AND Japan by itself. Japan then would have had no need to invade Burma or India since its gains were secure. At least until Britain came back to reclaim its colonies after Europe was settled.

India knew from day 1 what the Japanese were doing when invading countries, India would of held them back no problem along with the UK, then Germany would of took Japan out of the war like they thought they could do with Russia you know the peace pack Germany and Russia had not to invade each other

@@rudrakshpainuly1294 The Indian campaign is completely irrelevant to Japan's defeat in WW2. The U.S. defeated Japan. Nobody else really mattered in the pacific theatre.

Binkov should do Free vs Axis France. I can't find any videos comparing their militaries. I know the Free French forces were decently sized

@@SlashinatorZ pretty sure the mainland French were much stronger than the French serving the British, naturally those armies had to be filled a lot with their colonial subjects as a last ditch effort to man its divisions.

Vichy France’s role in our history actually depends on your point of view.

@@SlashinatorZ In our real timeline the army of Vichy France, the continuation of the french army of 1939, never sided with the Axis. I gathered gross figures, the french forces first gathered by De Gaule in england (FFL) were about 75 000. The french army was of about 600 00, 2/3 in the colonies and when the allied came to north africa that part in the colonies refused to fight and massively joined the allies. It was the base, with the FFL of the "french army of liberation". The part that was in France was dissolved by Hitler and did not fight the german when he invaded Vichy part of France, with he did as a retaliation for not having fought the allies in Noth Africa. To that you can add the french militatia, a counter inssurection/paramilitary force that help gestapo in fighting the Résistance but they never went above 35 000 men. And the Résistance itself having some 100 000 fighters (inaccurate number). We could also point out that the french army of liberation recruited easily everewhere, with massive amount of volunters. It ended up having 1.3M men in the last fights of the french liberation. In my opinion I doubt you could have convinced the french army or a big amount of people to fought for the Axis. They deeply hated the german for WWI, 1939, the occupation, the STO and so on. Even Vichy regime only partly sided with them, giving the order to not fight in North Africa and then sink the french fleet in the port of Toulon when the german invaded for it not to be seized.

@@krisp1871 It's a little more complicated than that as a fair amount of free french soldiers were former Vichy that were in the colonies and had flipped after being invaded, the allied landing in North Africa in 1942 being the biggest event of that kind (and the mainland Vichy army was disbanded as the Vichy state stopped existing at that point)

But the British had already sent the best part of 4 million tonnes of British equipment to Russia before America joined the war and before US supplies had started to arrive in Britain in any serious quantity.

@@strongbrew9116 How? Operation Barbarossa didn't kick off until 1941, and the US was already supplying weapons, equipment and aircraft to both the British & French in 1940. In fact, Douglas DB-3 (A-20 Havocs/Boston) bombers ear marked for the French were sent to Great Britain following the fall of France.

@@earlwyss520 US lend lease did not begin until March 1941, and large quantities of US supplies did not arrive in the UK until early 1942. US lend lease to Russia did not really begin in earnest until mid 1942. By contrast, the UK had shipped 4 million tonnes of British supplies from the UK from September 1941 to mid 1942, which was early enough for the 7000+ British aircraft, 5000+ British tanks and 5000+ British anti-tank guns to be used in the defence of Stalingrad and on the Eastern Front in general during the winter and spring of 41' and 42'.

@@strongbrew9116 But, the US was already SELLING equipment to the French & British. The North American P-51 Mustang was specifically designed & built for the RAF in 1940, remember the USAAC didn't want it.

@@earlwyss520 It's not lend lease.

@Robert Wilkins Japan's oil needs would be too great for the oil fields they acquired from SEA. As for Germany, even in a scenario without American intervention, Britain still holds supremacy in the Mediterranean and Atlantic so Oil from Africa would not reach Germany reliably.

I think it’s not so much that they wouldn’t be low on fuel, it’s just that being on the defensive and against better odds would mean they’d use less, and the Allies and USSR would be under pressure as well so it’d ultimately even out

@@teslaman9065 Not really, TIK did a wonderful video detailing the issues that lead to Hitler invading Russia, they had been fighting a mostly defensive war hoping UK would just surrender but by mid 1941 they only had a few months of oil supplies left (despite heavy rationing) and they invaded Russia to get at the Caucasus oil fields in the hopes they'd get there before they would run out of oil... it was do-or-die as their economy was collapsing from lack of oil thanks to UK embargoes. Japan was in better shape, but still not at a level that would allow long distance projection of power into the Indian ocean.

@@ericlanglois9194 I’m aware that the oil crisis was significant, my point is that it won’t be as significant in this timeline. By that I mean that Germany will still have many of the same issues as historically, in some cases those issues will be reduced, but the main difference is that the Allies will also face very significant issues. Since the relative advantage they have will be decreased then the issues in Germany are less pronounced. Also German fuel production will continue to increase throughout the war, and once fighting in the east grinds to a standstill, and no western front to speak of they won’t need nearly as much oil so they won’t have as serious a shortage in the later years.

@@ericlanglois9194 as for Japan, they would be able to access the large oil reserves in SE Asia, since they aren’t at war with the US they would be free to exploit those resources, and wouldn’t be consuming as much for their navy and Air Force since most of that usage was due to the US involvement. Should they capture Sri Lanka (Ceylon), which was possible in our timeline let alone one without the US, then they would have a forward base to strike into the western Indian Ocean, and with both reduced consumption and increased consumption they can post a fair amount of naval power in the region, mostly submarine and small surface fleets for commerce raiding purposes.

Stalin would give a dinosaur a suplex and makes it his pet

@@Captain_Yorkie1 imagine that level of power riding out in front of your army on a goddamn T-Rex hahah

this dude Lol

Dino d day.

@@rocket_sensha4337 I really wish I was a badass painter because I would totally make this!

How would they fuel them? They had not even enough fuel for Barbarossa, they couldn’t fuel their vehicles in the normal timeline

@@tapeesa2866 The Bomber raids halved practically all production, tanks, guns, artillery, aircraft, shipping, munitions, food and synthetic fuel.

I noticed that too. I think Leningrad would have starved off the face of the Earth. What the German Army Group North would have done after that is anybody's guess.

@@concernedliberal4453 How Leningrad is connected with american lend-lease? Leningrad was starving not because there was not enough food overall in USSR, but because Leningrad was under siege - and it is not like lend-leased food arrived in Leningrad directly.

@@thedreamscripter4002 actually it did, during the winter of 41 and 42 when the lakes froze over food was shipped in by truck

@@pax6833 Yes - but I seriously doubt food from american lend-lease played a big role in exactly that event. Lend-leased food was mostly coming to the rear, to the workers on the military production, because own soviet food was mostly brought from the rear to the front and to such places as Leningrad

I felt he downplayed the effect the US Lend-Lease not happening would have on the USSR. Food was one thing, but what about the 15 Million boots sent to the soviets, or the 1.5 Million blankets. From what I’ve read the USSR wouldn’t have survived for very long without the US Lend-Lease.

And that's even if Einstein decided to go to the US, the lack of action from the US would probably prompt him to go to the UK instead, and they would test the bombs out in the ocean instead, Germany would have been nuked first, alternative title, Portsmouth Project, the Germans would have been loosing their minds keeping an eye on that city so close to mainland Europe that was the whole idea behind naming it Manhattan in the first place, having spies over there rather than where it was actually being studied and built Since there was two types of potential bombs, the US having the resources to develop both, I'd like to think whatever bomb the English would built would have been named Excalibur

Manhattan project relied immensely on British work with tube alloys. The British were far more advanced than USA and without their help it is quite likely USA wouldn't have developed a bomb by 1945.

I not sure but did the Manhatton even exist before December'41?

Remember, in this scenario, the US didn't get involved, so at most it'd be the British doing it at night by themselves. And without US troops fighting, the Germans would've had more of their infrastructure intact, meaning they could build more weapons to send to the Eastern Front.

Ironically German war production actually went up despite the us bombings. The factories were moved underground into mountains, slave labour was used and albert Speer was a industrial genius

In the 18:50 mark he briefly talks about how the UK by itself couldn't bomb Berlin all by itself but not much more.

@@davilimalol4612 They did bomb Berlin by themselves well before US involvement

The production rates for Germany would have been much higher, I agree.

Since with no US involvement, and therefore no assassination of Admiral Yamamoto by P-38, he would likely have survived the war, and strongly argued against an invasion of the US for the same reason that he did so in our timeline. He had lived in the US prior to the war, understood, & knew the American people, and said of an invasion of the US "behind every blade of grass will be a rifle shooting at us".

Imagine a nuclear powered japan vs non-nuclear america

Hawaii would have fallen. Japan probably couldn't have invaded mainland US but Alaska and the Aleutians could have fallen. A battle hardened and more powerful Japanese navy could have destroyed the US navy in the Pacific and the US would have to sue for peace, maybe in exchange for having Hawaii and Alaska back but on the condition of it being demilitarized so Japan could concentrate on China again.

@@TheThundertaker I'd agree with the Japanese taking Hawaii, but the weather in Alaska would be the Japan's greatest enemy. The Alaskan winter would cause Japan's defeat, much like how the Russians have historically allowed enemies to penetrate deep into their territory. Then waited for "General Winter" to bring them to their knees.

@@earlwyss520 well taking Hawaii is one thing but holding it is a whole different thing all together after all the only value we have is a strategic position and farmland but other than that we’re worthless. Not to mention the costs of transporting resources here. Taking Hawaii I believe they could, but holding it I’m not really sure.

Ironically though, in this scenario we would avoid the rule of fanatics and stay out of the Holocaust

And Spain and Turkey would likely have joined the Axis in this scenario, which would have been devastating to both the UK (losing Gibraltar and thus access to the Mediterranean Sea) and USSR (Turkey wanting the Azerbaijan region back and creating a pincer on Baku plus a push south to former Ottoman territory, crippling Allied oil supplies and pincer the Suez Canal). A somewhat overlooked effect of the US not sending all those trucks to the USSR is that the Katjusha would be much less numerous and thus much less effective. But more importantly logistics, especially on the production side, would have been crippled, so the wartime production of the soviet union would have definitely been lower as they couldn't get the ressources to the factories as effectively as they did in real life, and the soviet soldiers would be much less well supplied.

Kosovo is not and never will be a country.

I thought it was because Yugoslavia changed from Axis to Allies on 17 March 1941 due to a coup.

@@petersteenkamp It was Yugoslavia as the main reason, Greece was just extra cleanup while the Germans had the time.

hey friend, where is your pfp from?

Should've gone back to being neutral after the cold war

Kind of forgot the size of Nz military was ten times what it is now. We had british cruisers we bought, frigates, gunboats and spent millions of pounds back then I might add on coastal anti ship artillery. We had several squadrons of fighter pilots too, many of whom had defended Britain, were instrumental in luftwaffe defeat there in fact. Our territory overlaps with austraila in places so it's fucking stupid to think that austraila would allow foreign armed navy's to come and go as they pleased. He doesn't mention how many allies were involved in El Alemien. Anzacs instrumental there too. Russia fighting the full force of luftwaffe Backing up the German army, as Nz and Australia would without US help or Britain to protect its region wouldn't be sending forces to defend in Battle of Britain.

All is talk about the Bob Semple Tank,was just a Bulldozer covered in corrugated iron,not a serious tank construction.

AS I have mentioned, my father was Med Tech in So. Pacific during WW2; I can assure you the Japanese weren't afraid of the above, or anything else, as brutal, and vicious as they were.

+1

You don't understand sponsorships at all do you?

@@kalebk9595 😂😂

But still there are massive errors with the Royal Navy figures.

@@kalebk9595 KZfaqrs choose which sponsorship they want to accept from their inbox, pretty simple.

They never needed to violate US territory. What ultimately made Japan attack USA was the uncertainty of an American response to a Japanese invasion of the East Indies. The United States had a presence (colony) in the Philippines, which could in theory be used to stab the invasion force in the back and cutting it off from the Home Islands should the USA be provoked to declare war. Thus the options open to the Japanese were, but not limited to: 1. Status Quo: do nothing, mothball the fleet and use the fuel to supply the war in China. Fingers crossed... 2. Retreat from French Indochina and comply with US demands. 2. Attack the East Indies by bypassing the Philippines. Ignoring the US completely. 3. Attack the East Indies and the Philippines 4. Attack the East Indies and put the US Pacific fleet out of action by attacking Pearl Harbor and gamble that US public opinion do not favour a protracted war... Spoiler alert: it did 5. Attack the Soviet Union to get to the"Northern resource area".

@@mariuskarevik882 it's also possible they would attack the Phillipines anyway, but minimize attacking US forces there, and allowing them to leave. If the Japanese did that, and paid compensation for any US troops killed, US public opinion would've likely stayed for isolationism, since most Americans then probably couldn't even locate the Phillipines on a map, so why get involved? It was the fact that the Japanese killed American troops on American soil that caused the Day of Infamy and pissed off Americans the way it did. Then Hitler doing another bone headed move by declaring war on the US when most Americans wanted to punish Japan.

@@mariuskarevik882 Excellent answer! With this alternate history I guess the Japanese gamble that the US simply will not interfere. That leaves 14th Army free to deploy elsewhere- Australia or toward India I suppose. With the Kido Butai also free from Pearl Harbor, perhaps a bold strike toward Darwin, Calcutta, even Sri Lanka would be possible...

No, it wouldn’t. Japan would have gotten plenty of oil from the Dutch East Indies, like they did historically. What would have been different is that without the American submarines, they wouldn’t have had that supply threatened or cut off. They would have had plenty of oil and other resources.

@@michaelimbesi2314 did you even read the entirety of the comment

Well, the us oil embargo forced pearl harbor, which was its intention all along.

If the United States stayed neutral they would more than likely maintain trade with other countries, including Japan. If not, Japan would still invade the Dutch East Indies and would not have to invade the Philippines if the US is neutral, as Japanese merchant ships would not be endangered. If you know why the US even began the oil embargoes in our own timeline, it was solely to get the US into the war. There is no incentive for cutting off Japan's oil to bait them into Pearl Harbor. Read the McCollum memo for source on this claim. Had the US simply maintained trade with Japan, Japan more than likely would never invade Southeast Asia, since the whole point of that was to secure oil from the Dutch East Indies. Save a whole lot of bloodshed for sure, on all sides.

@@user-pn3im5sm7k Watch the video again, it works under the assumption that the US closes itself completely, of course it's unrealistic, it's just a food for thought scenario. And no, Japan couldn't have just invaded Indonesia in 1939. Japan invaded Indonesia from French Indochina, which in 1939 was still under proper French control. In this situation they'd have to sail all the way from Taiwan and would have lost the element of surprise that allowed them to achieve as much as they did in our timeline, not to mention their supply lines would be overstretched and they'd be busy fighting the French in Indochina in the meanwhile. Invading Indochina first and Indonesia later wouldn't be possible either as aggression against France would bring Britain into the war against them, at a time when the British wouldn't be afraid of committing in the area since Britain itself was in no danger and Italy was not in the war. Recall also that Indonesia's largest oil fields were in Sumatra, in the west of the archipelago, making operations against them even harder. Overall the campaign would go much worse than in our timeline and the allies would have more time to prepare their defences in the area, meaning the great Japanese successes of our timeline's 1941 unlikely.

Yes. His way of pronouncing things is my primary reason for being a subscriber of his. I watch his videos only to hear how he pronounces different words.

The US was leaking all intelligence in North Africa to the Germans throughout 1941-42, though. US Army office Bonner Fellers, who was working as a military attache in Cairo (and also a huge Anglophobe), was using obsolete and compromised codes when he made reports about the British. Rommel was being given everything he needed to know by Fellers. Eventually, the British found out through Ultra (British Enigma team) that Fellers was leaking information. The US removed him from Cairo in June, 1942.

They weren't fighting with the M4 in North Africa at El Alamein, they were fighting with the M2 Stuart and M3 Lee. Still better than the British tanks, but not by too much.

I agree, but for a different reason, with Japan being freed up, promptly utilizing the resources of the pacific islands etc, and with control of the indian ocean, Australia would probably be isolated from the allies, so a good chunk of forces would be MIA, and then the British would be dealing with Japanese bombes and fighters over Africa, forcing them to behave differently, and maybe with the combined weight of Japanese naval forces, German U-boats, and a coordinated effort from Italy, Britain may even have lost access to the Mediterranean entirely.

@@pax6833 That is incorrect, around 300 Shermans were shipped to the British in Egypt by September 1942, enough to equip four armored brigades, and over 250 of them were used in the 2nd Battle of El Alamein. That was the Sherman's combat debut and they were markedly superior to any other tank used by either side in the battle.

@@strongbrew9116 Ahh, excellent, I was about to post this. :D

US not entering the war at all : ``small event`` sure bro

@@lolmao500 yea lol it wasnt small at all, they sent so many supplies to the allies and commintern.

Why is everyone only talking about supplies, I don’t think d-day could happen without them

@@llamazing4326 because that was the only reason the british had the resources to keep a presence in asia

@@lolmao500 Im not reffering to this video specifically, but towards alternate historic outcomes in general.

Interesting concept. And with no proposed DDay landings to prepare for, does that mean Diepppe doesn't happen. Since the Allies, without the US, don't land in France, do they still land in Sicily? Do they even make it to Italy? Would this happen at all: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nNF2ZMKovZO0Yac.html

if Hitler had left its Jewish citizens in peace its Jewish scientists etc would have allowed him to create the first atom bombs. Consider this and the threat he would be able to exert or simply launch same on major cities in USSR & Britain. Leaving that aside, as mentioned above, AH would not have needed many troops in western Europe. Vichy France was the ally of Germany. Netherlands, Belgium; Denmark docile. He would have been able to concetrate in, say, 1944 all his efforts towards USSR. Surely Moscow and Leningrad would fall to the Germans by then and AH might have been satisfied with that conquest as long as he also got the Romanian & Caucaus oil fields plus the Algerian ones. Whether the RN or RAF would have been reduced is power is open to question. If they had you could have expected a Sealion NO 2 invasion of Britain in 1945/6.

Russia might have gotten nuked instead of Japan. I dont think Hitler would have used nukes against G.B unless they refused to lay down there arms, then it might have happened

It came out that the Germans weren't close at all to making a bomb. The Nazis were generally incompetent

Germany was far behind in Real Life to make a atomic bomb. Hitler didnt want a further development after failed test.

Assuming the wacky shit going with the navy and army would make that consistent with an alternative time line

I dissagree. Without USA interference Japan would take out China and India thanks to anti colonial revolts

@UCVbfYzvTvlP9S_PphawLP8A True, they didn't seem to get much support when they attacked Kohima-Imphale in Eastern India.

@@joshuamatiasrecalde5157 I very much doubt that, the reason why the US was attacked by Japan was because Japan was failing in China and I doubt that the rebellions in India would have occurred or even make a huge difference.

Ummm they scrap it in 1941 August 9th, the main factor was the USA oil embargo on the 1st of August 1941.... The border conflict you are talking about was a soviet victory however the Japanese were out number and out gunned in terms of men Equipped and apparently quality of equipment, yet had less casualties both in men and equipment and wasn't supported by the Japanese Military command who refused to send help and order there units to stand down which they didn't.

Ends?

Yes

Weaken and surrounded magniot line will make Sedan second Dunkirk

Someone had that same idea and made this neat map: www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/nzg7cj/blood_on_the_elbe_europe_in_1942_what_if_french/

Germany loses

Germany becomes a galactic superpower within a year as Chuck Norris’ chad like appearance and personality + german science ascends him to godhood

Nah, the Nazis didn't like bearded men

March 1945 more interesting

In reality Luxembourg could have taken on every other nation involved in the war if they had a primarch or sly marbo

Ever watch Iron Sky??

Probably because Japan wouldn't be planning an attack on the US in this timeline thus no need to close doors on an opportunity to take a bite out of a weakened russia

@@lordkfc1297 I don’t see why they wouldn’t plan for such a scenario in this timeline. The Japanese got a very bloody nose after fighting the Soviets in Mongolia and that’s the sole reason they pivoted their strategy to attaining naval superiority and they knew that the only power capable of defeating them in that realm was the US. And even if the US remained neutral after a blatant act of Japanese aggression, the Japanese would still be more than eager to sign a nonaggression pact with the Soviets in order to concentrate their ground forces on taking China.

@@OtherM112594 As I said the reason why they attacked in the first place is due to the US not selling them, key word THEM, the materials and fuel they needed thus creating the feeling of isolation but in this case, it's not just them its everyone the UK included so attacking the USA when the clearly stated they don't want anything to do with anyone, the UK included, they won't fear invading southeast Asia(the place with the actual resources) and drag the might of the US. Yeah they still lack the fuel but so does Britain and they are quite far from Asia

@@lordkfc1297 Japan didn’t attack the US because they refused to sell them raw materials, they attacked them because they were afraid they would get involved in the war.

@@OtherM112594 that was one of the reasons but the origin to that is that without the US they needed to find new raw materials so they attacked first in the hope of knocking the US pacific fleet out of the picture. Either way in this timeline Japan has no reason to attack the US due to them being strictly neutral

Perhaps the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened. Interesting questions.

@@MrCmon113 ......You'd be into that?

@@michaelstodovski2219 It would be an interesting discussion. Yes I'd be into that.

@@michaelstodovski2219 Why not? Diversity hasn't really proved itself to be a strength. I think Honest Abe was right, Africans belong in Africa.

@@waffleyumboyr5342 What

Ah i see, another madlad who believes stupid alternate scenarios that have no connection to real life, Realistically, historically and factually speaking, its impossible for any history youtube comment section to be Unbiased and/or factual, Now, please stop with these so called "what if" scenarios... hahaha just imagine that.. an Unbiased and factual comment section?!

@@Gabriel-sdf yeah because no one has ever made a historical inaccuracy like saying the Germans were only stopped in 1941 by the winter and not the red army hahaha I’ll have what you’re smoking please

Ikr everyone here is a fan of nazi Germany I bet they would piss their pants if they saw the women on the soviet side

@@handhand212 it’s not that people are ‘fans’ of Nazi germany (of course there are the…let’s call them ‘deviants’ to be civil) it’s more the human nature of “they failed, so how could I have done better?” Mentality that we use to try not to repeat other’s mistakes, we don’t *have* to hypothesize how the United Nations could win world war 2, because they did We do have to hypothesize how the Axis powers could win world war 2, because they didn’t

@@looinrims looking at Napoleon army during the winter, i'd say the snow can kill a LOT of people. Blind Ultra-Nationalism doesn't magically erase that consistency, Are the German Uniforms THAT more advance then Napoleon's france? I really don't think so. you could say the Germans have thicker coats then the French, but even less believable. Large numbers don't really account for anything, there is a saying "When in doubt, bomb the heck out of it". Logistics is extremely important more then you realize, Simply saying the Red Army did everything is no different from Americans pretending they did everything. Without Logistics, the Red Army will blindly run into a corridor of gun fire and death. if large force is HIDING in a vast forest, HOW would you know WHICH part of the forest to spam artillery fire at? You'd need someone to scout ahead to SEE where the enemy is at, do you actually think the Red Army is THAT different? Even they are VERY careful with resources and don't shoot blindly.

Not to mention that the British were winning the supply battle against the Germans in the real timeline. Without US help starting to arrive in 1942, however, the British would have had a harder time in the Mediterranean. They might have lost Malta in 1942, and maybe even Gibraltar. And with the Japanese Navy running wild in the Indian Ocean, the British would have a harder time getting supplies to Egypt going the long way around Africa and through Suez. In the real timeline the British held Gibraltar because Franco wouldn't allow German ground forces to move through Spain to attack Gibraltar from land. But with the assurance that the USA would stay out, Franco may have been more inclined to join the Axis outright. In the real timeline Franco remained a fascist dictator until 1975 by staying neutral. Had he joined the Axis, the Anglo-American allies would have probably invaded Spain at some point. But with no USA to worry about, Spain might have felt emboldened to join the Axis. In that case, goodbye Gibraltar and goodbye Mediterranean Sea for the British. Thus the whole setup for the first and second battles of El Alamein in the real timeline might have been thrown off. Also with Germany having no worries about Britain being able to invade France without US help, much of the German resources and divisions that went into defending France from invasion in the real timeline would be available for other fronts, which would mean the USSR and Africa in the no-USA timeline.

Yeah the biggest loser in every scenario where the US stays out is the British

@@googane7755 Remember the brits were well ahead of everyone else in the world on the A bomb development and they eventually turned over that knowledge to the US to develop because it took up huge resources that the US could bare more easily but I think if the US had stayed neutral then Britain could have developed the A bomb possibly in 1944.

@@danielmocsny5066 There is no way Franco would have joined the war, not after his country getting destroyed so soon after the civil war.

@@danielmocsny5066 Franco knew better than anyone how hopelessly outmatched Spain would have been against the British. Almost immediately, Spain would have lost the Canaries and other outlying areas. The Allies would then have invaded Spain, and the civil war could have flared up again.

Definitely, it would have just caused Britain and the Soviets more money and men to win basically.

@@REB4444 Incorrect, Germany would stall in USSR as usual, Britain them mobilises over 2 million regular soldiers not including the entire empire😂, britain wins Battle of Britain as usual, Britain wins at sea with better anti sub tech. Britain rules the waves and skies over home and grows in power. After winning in Africa the empire can focus everything driving Japan back very similar to the americans as the british had many carriers and were pioneers. The may not have pushed Japan back just yet but they could effectively hold them after africa is seized. USSR wins Incorrect stalingrad and begins driving the germans back relentlessly all the way to France possibly to add to thier sphere post war, im not sure Stalin would even care about British involvment in a second offensive into mainland europe. Although Britain probably would have taken italy, and possibly landed in france due to Churchills stance on The soviets? But you very Incorrect, German bias as usual😂😂

@@REB4444 i looked over the supply given and the majority was supplied post stalingrad so it didnt really matter about the lend lease. Japan never invaded Russia thats a complete Fiction of would war 2 i think you missed that part😂😂😂

@@TheDeepState2001 *Using US-made ASW Tactics, Sonar, and Weaponry defies this whole scenario*

@@MrHel-hf3nk I dont know what you are talking about😂

Almost all supply was routed around Africa anyway, and Rommel's principal supply bottleneck was Libyan port capacity

I think without the US tanks and supplies the axis might make it as far as Alexandria, but I don't think they would get past it so long as the UK focuses on holding the Suez canal

Without lend lease, I still think North Africa ends up with a British victory. The US was leaking all intelligence in North Africa to the Germans throughout 1941-42. US Army office Bonner Fellers, who was working as a military attache in Cairo (and also a huge Anglophobe), was using obsolete and compromised codes when he made reports about the British. Rommel was being given everything he needed to know by Fellers. Eventually, the British found out through Ultra (British Enigma team) that Fellers was leaking information. The US removed him from Cairo in June, 1942.

@@strongbrew9116 i agree. But it would probably have taken longer and required more British troops especially if Malta fell. But one also needs to consider the India/Burma Theater (which this video seems to overlook to the point where it does not even show the IRL advance of the Japanese in Burma) Since without US involvement and lend lease the Japanese would have had much greater forces to bring to bare in that theatre. So the British would be in a far worse situation in both theatres and would likely have to pick where to send reinforcements. And this at the same time as Australia and New Zeeland would be under far greater Threat. So the British would be spread very thin.

@@bogdanm436 True. But the Axis still lost 2300+ Merchant ships in the Mediterranean in the 1940-1942 period. Securing Malta would make it that much easier for the Axis to create a safe corridor from Sicily to North Africa patrolled by aircraft and ships so they would take far fewer merchant ship/transport aircraft losses and as a result they would get more troops and supplies to North Africa. And for the British the roundabout route would likely be far more dangerous and difficult with a much stronger Japanese presence in the Indian Ocean. And if the Japanese took Madagascar (Either prior to the British Invasion in May 1942 or after) it's possible that they might have been able to largely stop the Naval route around Africa.

Even if they didn’t pull troops away from Africa they’d still lose because they wouldn’t be backed by commonwealth coalitions. Tobruk was defended by thousands of aussies and Japan would definitely defeat Australia in the pacific, the Royal Navy is the largest but it can’t cover the globe and I just can’t imagine them being able to defeat Japan’s carrier strike groups which were more modern. The USN was a hard counter for having the most AA batteries on their ships. Australia would have to fight defensive or get cut off by the IJN.

She did (in 1940). Remember, Italy was considered an allied nation (or, at worst, a neutral one) until she swept into France on Hitler's heels. Abyssinia was all but forgotten by then.

RIP Italy

Most likely, Germany world have invaded her immediately without much problem.

@@KingcupXI the soviets would just push deep into germany then

@@Bhoope in 1941, Soviets barely manage to defend Moscow and leningrad. I doubt that ussr could push into Germany.

USA wouldn't be a super power in that timeline. They got all of their advanced technology from the Brits. So they would be technologically inferior to all the other major powers.

Well do i have the video game for you

With a successful and thriving Nazi Germany and Japanese Empire, the world as a whole would become quite an intolerable place. The US would suffer and never have built up its vast military might and resources, let alone any nuclear weapons(at least not for a good while after Germany and Japan do). The whole world balance would mean US never quite becomes the superpower it did, and any Cold War situation would be more likely between Germany and Japan than anything. US could largely be kept at a safe distance from being a threat to either, militarily and economically.

Please, no Japanese-American War. Notice that it's not in this scenario.

The Japanese Empire would certainly have lost in the end and been forced to retreat to their 19th century borders. It would have taken years and been a very nasty business for the US, but they had the power to steamroll Japan with or without nukes.

Early cruise missiles were not accurate enough to be strategic weapons, only terror ones.

@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 Yes and no

also the Germany was working on nuclear weapons as well. add that on v2 rocket and that would have been a major game changer

The US space program depended a lot on captured German rocket scientists. Without them, the USA may not have been the first on the moon.

@@wraith5085 as far as i remember, they weren't. During the 1930's the Nazis believed that the nuclear technology was a jewish thing, and therefore all of the scientistis working on the project were fired(and probably sent to a concentration camp afterwards). And later on during the late stages of the war, the main researcher of the Nuclear technology was a pacifist, and believed that they should use that knowlegde to create nuclear reactors and not weapons, but his research was also canceled because Hitler had ordered to all of his scientists to start working on projects that would help Germany on the short run rather than on the long run, like Jet engines and submarine capable of going 72 hours underwater, for example.

4: stays neutral but trades with everyone, maybe more lenient to the allies (probably what would happen realistically)

US sent steel plates which became armor in T-34s.

Both China and India have a large population, so in a long-term, they might be able to halt Japanese advance and probably regained some of the captured territories. China was divided over its internal politics, but eventually we might see the Nationalist and the Communist collaborate at a much larger scale. Sorting that out might not be quick or easy, but eventually they have to.

Japan would have secured Oil in the Dutch East Indies.

Early 1942/43 you are right, if you count tanks/aircraft. As for the rest: Doubt allies win in Europe. 50% of every bullet fired by the Russians/UK in WWII came from the USA in the form of gun powder and brass and it is even higher for their artillery which the host of this video failed to mention as the number he quoted is for the systems as a whole(guns, artillery, tanks) which the USSR made themselves with their fairly large steel production. 95% of fighter aviation fuel(high octane) came from the USA refineries for both Russia and the UK and therefore the fighter speed advantage the allies had throughout the war would be a deficit. This was true BEFORE lend lease as well, it is just that they PAID for these products instead of getting them for free. 3/4 of the aluminum used by the UK came from Canada, and without ships provided to carry said aluminum etc along with the aircraft used by the UK/Canada to patrol the Atlantic... hrmmmm. If UK turned all of its bombers into the Atlantic I suppose they could patrol for the Uboats, but still the UK by late 1942 ran out of ships hulls to carry the trade they needed as they were being sunk faster than they could build them by a wide margin. This essentially leave Germany alone to consolidate or pour resources into Egypt to access the oil in Egypt and cut off the suez. Not to mention is was US tankers, cargo ships which were ~20% of the convoys to Malta and going around Africa to Egypt the long way which disappears. Hrmmm

@@w8stral Hmm the British would be on the ropes but don't forget their radar and code breaking made German submarines obsolete. The allies would still have the intelligence advantage. So long as the Soviets stay in the war it's still winnable. But it's tough, really tough. Nazi Europe (Axis powers generally) would also lack oil don't forget, and the Royal Navy still far eclipsed the European Axis powers despite Merchant Navy losses. I would think Canadian supplies to Britain would still reach in sufficient quantity considering the size of the Royal Canadian Navy also - at least enough to not imperil the war effort. And I don't imagine a shortage of ammunition would be a problem in this alternate timeline. It's hard for me to come to a conclusive opinion on how it would all truly pan out because so many other factors could have ripple effects. The war was made so much more winnable with US support and I don't blame anyone who claims that Allied supremacy was not achievable without it. Unlike WW1 America really played a huge role, especially in the Pacific (that's not downplaying US involvement elsewhere but simply highlighting the enormous contribution to victory in Asia).

@@mickeyg7219 operation ichi go would still happen so I think Japan would win in China

Thats exactly what i was gonna say 😂

if only it actually happened that way

Umm no it dosent (it misses multiple facts, you cant use this video in arguments/debates)

@@handhand212 no he’s not an actual general. We’re saying all his other ones are normally beyond wrong and just causes arguments in the comment sections. This one was a bit more realistic. I was worried he was just gonna show the nazis win and take over the world which would have been dumb.

@@oj3458 you clearly dont know anything Let me help you Stop playing hoi4 And I'll leave off with thing, this video is nothing close to realism it's more like a fairy tale, more fiction then TNO timeline I recommend potential histories video and some common sense

Yes, I think that one could use some checking in to.

@@chrisakky maybe he is referring to warships built in the US but manned by the RN.

Didn't the number he posted indicate 1/3? Oop, never mind that, I went back and checked. It says "destroyed by the RN". And as "silarpac" mentions, you need to also take into consideration the U-boats sunk with American equipment, escort carriers, Catalinas, Liberators, Venturas, Hudsons, Avengers, US build corvettes and destroyer escorts....Heck, even the Bismark was only finally cornered when she was spotted by a US supplied Catalina being piloted by a US Navy "training" crew. If it wasn't for that, she surely would have made it to cover under the Luftwaffe's air umbrella.

@@Mishn0 He said 2/3. The large role of US equipment cannot be denied but that is a separate if related issue. Either way, the U-boats are more effective and the UK would be at its wits end to deal with them.

Its because its incorrect

You failed to account for the ones destroyed by the RAF Costal Command

That make more sense

@@andreslinares6429 I think, he may have subtracted all the German Uboats sunk by UK forces using US aircraft, baby carriers, etc which was roughly ~half of UK forces in the Atlantic. I have never gone through the numbers myself, but about 2 decades ago I was reading about Coastal Command etc and pretty much a VERY large portion of the aircraft used were made by the USA. Now, could the UK switch its bombers to Coastal Command? Yes, and they certainly would have. Also means essentially no bombing of Germany would be happening. Also... where is the UK getting oil in WWII if not from the USA??? USA was 67% of all oil production in the world at this time. Venezuela was another ~15%, Russia, another ~10% and then 5% Romania, Malaysia, Iran ... and pretty much no one else. Also, 95%->100% of the aviation fuel for fighters came from the USA for both the UK and Russia... so this means all Russian/UK fighters just lost ~20-->30mph.

@w8stral - I definitely think he underestimated what a huge loss the United States oil would have been to the USSR and UK.

Surprisingly if you look into this there is not a definitive answer easily found. If you try to search this topic the only source you will find easily with a number is the Wikipedia source which I assume is where you go those numbers from. As is so common with Wikipedia that number is wrong and easy to see that. If you click on the source listed to get that number the source doesn't even say that number of 519 is correct. The source says the British sunk 275 German submarines during WW2. Further more I don't know how reliable that source is as it is not a primary or secondary source and doesn't state where it got it's information from. The issue with sinking submarines is the same as with air-force pilots claiming kills. You never know if you actually did kill the submarine if it is under water and if a submarine actually was sunk you are not really sure who killed it (if it is underwater). Unless the submarine was sitting still recharging it's batteries and hit by a plane (which was something that happened to more and more German submarines later in the war) then claiming a kill on a submarine is really just "I think I killed a submarine". Further, the reason it is hard to claim a kill on a submarine for navy ships in WW2 is because very often in the Atlantic convoys were being protected by joint allied forces. So all those destroyers are dropping depth charges and you really don't know who would kill a sub when doing that. Such actions would often be at night and the destroyers would not even be aware if they thought they killed the sub as it would just stop showing up. So they wouldn't be sure if they actually killed it or it ran away which is what normally happened when destroyers tried to depth charge a submarine. And the same thing was the case in the submarine hunter task forces which became the primary way submarines started to be sunk. A very huge part of that process was the insane amount of carriers (mainly escort carriers) the US flooded into the Atlantic. They would spot the submarines recharging their batteries and would then be hunted down by anything the allies could throw at the sub. So as I'm sure you are already aware. Always be careful what information you get off of Wikipedia. But if you did hear this information somewhere else actually please provide a link to that source because I would be interested in reading it. Also, the US kept a equal to more ships in the Atlantic at the start of WW2 as Germany was the top priority for the allies to beat. As new ships were produced they were normally sent to the Pacific though and as the war went some US ships were transferred from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

how is he supposed to measure the exact technical details of that starship?

@@missk1697 There’s enough lore between the movie and books. Even the sequel gives more detail on them as well It even has a wikia

Under any realistic analyst, the invader city destroyer forces would win and F/A-18C just can't outmaneuver Wing Commander dralthi like alien fighters. Earth fighter jets would be destroyed in BVR & visual range as in reality, those phasers would be accurate and very long range that they could take out present earth fighters, aircraft, ships, base defences from space

​@@Yoshi14832 Alien plane in Independence Day has force field that even tank a nuke dirrectly.

It was a time of genocides and mass deportations, so the japanese would have little problem with New Zealand. Probably they would create an independent maori state as they did in South East Asia.

Your comment on the Nazis failing to recruit from marginalized peoples strikes me as missing the major recruitment the SS and Wehrmacht undertook in the occupied East with Hiwis, Ostlegionen, Vlasov's ROA, Georgian, Armenian and Azeribaijani legions, and even a Kalymyk legion etc. The SS had the 1st Galician as well, plus the Handschar division etc. Of course most of these formation came out of desperation, and later on in the war, but they certainly did count on the ethnic animus of minorities within the Soviet Empire among Ukranians and so on.

That isn't accurate. Japan loved using native forces and mobolized hundreds of thousands of troops in Vietnam, Indonesia and Northern China. The Vietnamese post ww2 victories are in large part due to Japanese training and organization

As Vietnamese, is not true.

Good point, Churchill wanted Australian troops to be sent to Burma in 1942 but Curtin decided against it. Japan could have attacked and occupy Darwin to secure the Arafuru sea. Or, Japan could have continued to attack and occupy cities along Australia's eastern coast. Japan would just have to knock Australia out of the war, it did not need to occupy the whole of Australia. Then Japan could focus its navy on operations in the Indian Ocean. Britain would have to fight contend with the Italian navy on the Mediterranean, the German navy in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, the Japanese navy in the Indian Ocean. Britain would of divergent troops and ships to India and therefore weaken its position in North Africa. Spain might decided to join the war if the US decided to stay neutral. Then Gibraltar would have been lost. Finland might have decided to occupy more Soviet territory. Even if Spain and Finland didn't do that, Britain would still be more interested in protecting its own colonial empire then helping the Soviet Union.