If you would like to see more HistoryLegends videos, consider supporting me on Patreon: ► www.patreon.com/thehistorylegends

There were 37 republics in the USSR. Some think that only Russians are involved. Basically, the whole population of the USSR took part. My grandfather was also present. I am from Kazakhstan.

Man! your knowledge of history is nuts!! I am French and I can confirm that you are spot on regarding the situation in France pre-war. a good third of the french at the time considered the Soviets the real ennemy and saw in Germany the occasion to counter the Ennemy in the east.

Germany declared war on the US because in their point of view, they already were at war, they just formalized it. They were already fighting in the atlantic, american vessels were escorting allied convoys and were sinking german submarines, americans were already massively supporting the british, so, to germany, they were essentially already at war

Recomend part 2 Bwt spain would have been a liability. Spain was still recovering and would need to be fully supplied and would have to garrison a bunch of territories as well as dealing with Gibraltar and a potential allied invasion trough portugal

I think the food and oil shortages alone make it impossible for the axis to have ever won the war. I hear a lot of tactical and strategic victories they missed and you’re probably right. But they just wouldn’t have won the war. Just look at the production numbers of the USA. I think the question shouldn’t be if they could have won, but for how long they could have prolonged it. But that is just my opinion 😊

Also, don't forget that it wasn't just Germany fighting the war, it was essentially the entire Europe invading Soviet Union. Occupied and allied European countries had their economies working to support German war efforts. Most of the countries also sent soldiers to the front lines, just like you said in this video on Stalingrad part - there were Italian and Romanian armies, as well as smaller national units fighting on the German side.

Here's my problem with your argument at about 12:00 - What you're essentially saying, is that if the Nazis weren't Nazis, which is precisely an argument Potential History addressed in part two, the germans could have won the war. But that is a very fallacious argument, beacuse at that point you dwelve in to alternate history. At that point the war may very well not have happend at all, or at the very least you change a massive part of what the war was about.

If the Germans did take Moscow, the Soviets would've probably destroyed it before the Germans could capture it. And also, the railways that centred Moscow have different sizes compared to German railway cars, meaning if the Germans want to use them. They gotta either build railways cars fast before the Soviets launch a counter offensive to recapture Moscow, or take the Soviet railway cars before they could destroy them or take it with them.

Finland didn't attack Leningrad simply because it wasnt their goal and If Finland would have attacked Leningrad they would have Lost too Many men and resources something that Finland didn't have as much as germany did

Germany could not win world war 2 unless you were to change the very character of the Nazi high command. The reason the Soviet people and the government didn't surrender is that they knew that if they did it would have meant the utter annihilation of their people. The Slavic people of eastern Europe or the Soviet government at the very least knew that surrender meant death. So for the Soviets, it was either die from surrender or die fighting. And it wasn't like the Soviets lost all military offensive capabilities after Kyiv and Bryansk. Operation Barbarossa was going to fail from the beginning because it was built off of the flawed idea of kicking in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse. And by the time they reach Smolensk, the cracks already beginning to show. Despite the Nazi predictions, the Soviets are still mounting a resistance even though by their account the red army should have been destroyed three times over. And even if Moscow was taken, it is less about whether Stalin gives up and is more in the hands of whether the Red Army will. If the USSR surrendered it would have meant the slaughter of every man, woman and child. And the Soviets fought with that mentality. So no, Germany couldn't win.

I absolutely love the respectful debate and respect for each other in this comment section! Y'all are all awesome. I could read comments like this all day!

I remain unconvinced, German economy alone wouldn’t have lasted the pressures of a long war, because of the racked up national debt due to years of reckless spending, and because Germany’s long term industrial capacity and resources, even if we include occupied territories was DWARFED by the soviets and the allies. Even if they would have somehow realistically taken Moscow and cut temporarily the western aid to the USSR, it would have been replaced soon with other port, like Vladivostok. Sure, the aid wouldn’t come as fast as it used to, but it would still come. And Soviet industrial capacity and population would have replaced many of the losses they would have suffered in initial invasion, as they did in our timeline. Germans simply couldn’t replace many of their losses as fast as the Soviets could, resulting eventually in recapture of Moscow. I find it highly unlikely that Soviets would have surrendered after the loss of Moscow, because any peace deal Germany would have given it would have lead to the massive destruction of ethnic russians, as demonstrated by the amount of German war crimes committed in the Soviet Union. For them, this was a fight for survival, and only one would come out on top. It was total war.

Really liked the analysis ❤️❤️🔥🔥

27:12 It was because of the Atlantic convoys. American destroyers frequently attacked German u-boots even before the war was declared to the USA, but German commanders had strict orders not to attack American ships, so once Japan declared war, Germans were like "fck it , we are going full in".

I'm afraid to say that your point on Germany providing their allies with weapons and vehicles is a woefully misplaced point. German tank crews were often given tanks that were of Czech (or similar) origin, Germany couldn't fully equip themselves with their own equipment - how could they equip their allies? Again, on their alliances, the Italians were inherently embarrassing and really were of no use to the Axis militarily - poorly trained and even worse equipped. Other Balkan nations aided too, but they were far too small in number to be of any major aid against the USSR. Now, about Franco and Spain, well Hitler didn't miss a thing with him, Spain was never joining the war - they didn't want to risk war with the United States and there were actually many members of the Spanish government and military being bribed by Britain to NOT join Hitler.

Russian here Welders won World War II Electric welding under flux replenished the ranks of machinery x10 times faster than rivets and screws ever could. Then throughout 1940s it got into every factory of the USSR In the West electric welding under flux became mainstream in the industry in 1960s and later Technical excellency wins wars, the same is true for WW2

Hindsight is always 20/20. The facts are, Germany had very few advantages, compared to its opposition, and was very much the land equivalent to Japan: They would either win in the first c.6 months of their respective campaigns, or they would lose. That was true in Western Europe: the war in the West was over in 9 months; it ended at Dunkirk and Paris. The only reason there was still technically a "war" in September of 1940, was because a) Germany could not - and didn't see any real need to - invade Britain, and b) Churchill's dogged refusal to surrender, even though he couldn't really get at Germany. Poland had fallen even faster. Japan's war plan vs the US acknowledged the fact they absolutely could not win a protracted war with the US, so they aimed to smash the US Navy and capture the Philippines in 6 months, then negotiate...which they did. The problem was that the US was not interested in negotiating after Pearl Harbor, and wanted to annihilate Japan -- which they proceeded to do, because the US's only negotiating point was Japan's total and unconditional surrender. Certain people tend to gloss over the fact that the Soviet Union was, if anything, a "left-handed" German ally until June of 1941. Both Hitler and Stalin detested each other, and war on the Eastern Front was inevitable; the only questions were, who would strike first and when. But that cut both ways: that was why the Finns remained skeptical of siding fully with Germany against Russia. And, while the German war industry managed to keep producing until Allied troops literally overran the factories, in many cases, they could never produce enough weapons and equipment to re-outfit their allies to a German standard (as was proved by the Spanish _Blue Division,_ which was handed German uniforms and weapons...and then had exactly the same logistical problems as the German units next to them), not that it would have helped, because their allies had all the same fuel problems as Germany, just on a smaller scale -- and no, Romanian oil production was maxed out, already. As well, while people knew that there was oil in certain places in the Middle East, there were few verified fields (no one seriously suspected that Libya was awash in oil, for example), there were very few refineries there, and there was no realistic way to transport it back to Germany in the middle of combat operations. The only way that Germany - or Japan - could win in WW2, was if their respective opponents surrendered or collapsed in the first six months of operations. Period.

Love your videos :)

Very Good analyses! 👍 Thank You for the informative video.

Great Video ceep on making theese Videos they are really good and historically accurate!

I really like your video that you brought up an entirely different point of view against potential history's (I like his video too), but here are some of my opinions to develop upon yours after studying eastern front for a long time. You mentioned german's negligence to equip axis allied nations with tanks and anti-tank guns, and that's not possible at the time of 1942 where the entire German war industry was a corrupted mess led by Fritz Todt, that could not even supply enough equipment to German units, considering the panzer divisions were not at full strength. German manpower management was big mess too that valuable manpower were kept by Fromm's reserve army (~2M) and Goring's Luftwaffe (~1M) and could not be sent to the front. The main goal of the 2nd Hungarian, 8th Italian and 3nd and 4th Romanian army were to dig in along river don in a defensive stance and therefore no heavy fighting were expected, so it seems reasonable not to equip them with German equipments and kept the best for 6th army and 4th panzer army in Stalingrad as well as 17th army and 1st panzer army in Caucasus.

It would be interesting to hear your opinion about the effects of Munich Conference (which is regarded as massive betrayal in affected countries, forcing Czechia to become german protectorat and Slovakia to ally with them), and how would ww2 go if Czecho-Slovakia was allowed to keep its border defenses and fight back against germans.

Man I love your Content everytime I learn so much new thank you so much

amazing I am fan of History since childhood read a lot in various languages and you could still surprise me with some unknown facts GREAT and very good capacity of analysis really great

Kinda weird talking about the napoleonic campaign and then seriously believing the germans taking moskau wouldve changed much of anything, the russians would’ve probably burned it down again if not try to turn it into a proto stalingrad

Amazing job 💪🏻💪🏻

Loving your content 👍

some of us alder people knew this but a brilliant rendition from you once again well done -history is history

The US would probably have declared war on germany anyway sooner or later. Because of an inevitable alliance with the Allies due to japanese attacks on Burma, Malaysia and Indonesia. And more and more accidents due to submarine warfare! Spain would have probably joined germany if it wasn't for Wilhelm Canaris, it had nothing to do with diplomacy. before franco and hitler even met in 1940, franco was already against joining the axis and made impossible demands due to Canaris work against Hitler in Spain. The finnish goal was never to destroy the sovjet, only to recapture lost lands. Even thought finnland was a rather athoritarian democracy, mannerheim despised hitler and the nazis and only used them. You are partially right about diplomacy. Ribbontrop was incompetent and the axis could have had more allies in europe and maybe in the middle east. But due to the geographical position there were not many options left for possible allies. And many of the possible options would have been more of a drag than of any help. Also like you said the german supremacy complex of the nazis, robbed them of many allies. Many people of the sovjet union hailed them as liberators but turned on them after a while because the nazis were not better and even worse than Stalin. The sovjet campaign was a very complecate one. I personally think that a fast victory against the ussr would have been impossible and would at least dragged on for a couple of years. And the german industry was not made for a long war. With an allied naval blockade and no more raw materials and resources from the ussr, nazi occupied europe would not have the ressourcen for a rather "modern" war(oil, tungsten, iron, food...)! But there are so many other factors that played into this theatre of WW2. Also capturing Murmansk would have changed very little, because many supplies came also through Iran/Persia. And with the western allies, especially UK still in the war, Germany had to focus a lot of ressourcen, men and material on other fronts, occupations and possible invasion points. Not to mention the air and bombing war in western europe... The italian army wasn't that bad as history portrait it. It had one of the best commandos in the war(frog men). Their tanks and weapons were made for alpine warfare and not for desert combat or the ukraine plains. Low moral and poor leadership like the french in 1940 was the biggest factor for italian failures. I would love to discuss this further. Please tell me if i am wrong somewhere or somehow. I am only human like you, all my informations come reading and learning from other people, maybe i learned or read something wrong. Shit happens XD I really like your enthusiasm about history, but like i mentioned a few videos back. You are still very young, have still lot to learn and not much experience. I get that, you might think you know very much, especially in that age. Don't lose your passion and you will be a great historian someday.

Your Opinion at the end was very interesting - especially as a german. I learned a lot of new things (for example the mindset from a part of french or why Franco stayed neutral). I really would like to see awhole video about this. What is also very interessting is how Hitler and the NSDAP were getting so powerful in the 20ths. Hitler were alreay meeting in the early 20ths (as he was a nobody) the american millitary attachee. A lot of things give strong incidence that Hitler and NSDAP were strongly supported bye British and American powers (Intelligence or/and financial industrial groups) as they had strong foreign currencies during the economic crash at the endd of 20thies. Probably these powers wanted to install Hitler in order to have someone who will fight against Russia. For example:Alan Dulles, the founder of CIA was callobarting wis Nazis as americ already entered the war. Hitler also wrote in his book (Mn Kmpf) that he wants to conquer area in the east and that he sees England as "natural" ally....

I'm a little bit late to the show but thank you sir! I've just watched another completely different perspective on WWII

VERY GOOD STRATEGIC ANALYSIS. The best I have listened to in America so far. Congrats!!!

I beleive you are mostly right in your final analysis, except regarding Italian airplanes. They actually had some very good designs although they needed more manhours to produce versus for instance the Bf109. Possibly German engine supply would have enhanced their capabilities just like in the case of the P51 + Merlin. However we can analyze and comment how the WWII could have ended differently forever. I beleive the numbers speak for themselves the size of the axis versus the size of the allies and resourses. If the turning points would not have come at the battles they did, they would have come at other battles maybe later. All military organisations make right and wrong decisions, and it is easy to sit here now and suggest what they should have done differently versus being on the frontline having to make the immediate decision, and I beleive the way the war ended was inevitable.

Germany simply did not have the resources to win WW2 the way it started. I think the only way Germany had any chance was if WW2 started differently. Perhaps if they could trick Stalin to invade Poland first, and let the Allies fight the USSR at the start. Or started by joining Finland in the Winter war, the Allies might be persuaded to support Germany.

Nice video

Excellent analysis

The issue with these scenarios is that it would require the Nazis to be well not Nazis.

For anyone wondering, the little jingle in the video is "Erika!" kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qMmGlZmdmbrUeKs.html My understanding for why Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor is that we had been blockading oil from reaching Germany, which is essentially a declaration of war during wartime.

So this will be a thread about each point your boy makes. 1.) Moscow- For someone who was talking about Napoleon's campaigns you seem to forget that he took Moscow after the Battle of Borodino but the Russians did not surrender after that. This also implies that the Germans would be able to take Moscow, to begin with, but according to Glantz and House in their book "When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Defeated Hitler" they point out that the German army at the Gates of Moscow was running on fumes and with units severely depleted. This is an army that could barely take the smaller cities of Kyiv and Sevastopol, and couldn't take a smaller city like Stalingrad.

Franco had already signed the Iberian Treaty with Salazar. Franco and Salazar knew pretty well that Spain and Portugal had nothing to win by joining the allies (Portugal) or the axis (spain).

About the Finns. They were still considering themselves neutral between the Germans and the western Allies. By only retaking their rightful territories, they sought not to anger the western Allies, and to avoid drawing the attention of the Red Army - which worked. By the way, they were the only ones, along with the Japanese, to know what the Red Army was all about. Obviously they weren't taking a German victory for granted and preferred to wait before fully committing to their side.

The amount of soviet and allied equipment they captured in the begging of the war could have easily been given to their allies, but then the argument arises if they didn’t smelt all that equipment then would they be able to make as much equipment as they did.

war speculation is fun and thats what is getting me into war gaming board games.

An excellent video

You should watch part 2, he answers why Germany declared war on the US.

As a historian myself I have to. Disagree in only one thing, most of the German tanks had the same interior parts (engine etc) from the same companies (opel Mercedes etc) so they could be replaceable even if it wasn't the same model damaged

Your reasons why Germany could have won the war all seem to revolve around the idea of the Nazis NOT being Nazis. If only they were more diplomatic...if only they treated their allies better...but that is the point of the original video. In order to craft a scenario where Germany could win, you have to change too many events and make people act too differently than they normally acted. If the Nazis were no so much like Nazis, then there probably would not have been a war to begin with. 🖖 But I have to correct you on one important point...If Hitler had not declared war on the US on December 10, 1941, he might have bought himself 2 or 3 months delay in US entry against Germany at most. The fact is that when America agreed to the Atlantic Charter committing them to the destruction of Nazi Germany in August of 1941, war between the US and Germany was inevitable...and soon. FDR was doing a damned good job provoking Hitler and pushing the Germans. Lend Lease in March of 41, then the US "invaded" Iceland and extended US waters to cover it, and began escorting British convoys...I believe it was July of 41 when FDR declared unrestricted warfare on all German vessels anywhere in US waters. The 2 main reasons with Hitler declared war on the US are because his Admirals were telling him the u-boat war would be lost if they could not attack US ships, and also because he believed that they had effectively already declared war on him.🖖💯✌

Okay, so I finished watching your video. Some things I think you were right on, and some things I think you were wrong on. Interestingly enough, I had a series of discussions with the person who created the video you watched. First, the loss of Russian men were bolstered by the divisions that came from the russo/Japanese lines. Which in turn gave more time for the Russians to train more men. Plus the addition of getting general zhukov. Second, another failure of the Germans, and the most critical. Was the failure to recognize that the "roads" on the German maps of the soviet union were not really roads at all, and was a huge factor in slowing down the German advance. Even today a good portion of Russian roads are crappy to almost non existent. Third, the nazi movement was hugely popular in the democratic countries of Britain, France, and the United States. As such, they actually had great intelligence from these sources at the start. Fourth, the schlieffen plan was going to be used. But a German scout plane crashed in belgian territory that had these plans for the battle. Knowing that the allies had these plans, Hitler made the decision to go with Gen. Mansteins plans developed by Guderian to attack through the Ardennes. If not for that plane crash, who knows what might actually have played out. Fifth, Finland actually stopped their advance in fear of Russian reprisal if they actually took the Kola peninsula. Their only real goal was to take back what was lost to Russia in the winter war. Should the Germans have pressed the issue? Probably not, as they never even linked up with the Finns. Had they pressed them, they more than likely would have sued for peace with the Russians even faster. As for Spain, the made it very clear that they could not field an army for war and knew that they couldn't stop a push from Britain at Gibralter. Which was actually very apt on Franco's part as he was still trying to solidify his power within the country. But if you would like you can message me here for my e-mail and we could discuss it further as that would interest me very much. Have a good one. Dennis

32:04 Finns were first and foremost very short on manpower. They had hardly enough men for defensive operations, let alone offensive. They regained the land they lost during the winter war mostly because Soviets pulled back and centered on the German front. But if Finns attacked Leningrad, they would face the real Soviet army as Germans did. Also, Murmansk is waaaayyyyy too far out of German reach. Maybe Finns would be able to block the railway going from Murmansk if they conjured a panzerdivision out of thin air, but they would not be able to hold it, as they would have no supply there, while Soviets would have supply fresh and ready from US and Britain.

love potential history nice to see him here

I heard Manstein actually was vehemently against entering Stalingrad, but he was relieved from the command of Army Group South after the Crimean campaign. If he would have stayed in command, probably he would not have done the blunders you describe concerning Stalingrad.

Regarding the potential British and French expeditionary force into Finland: There's a big issue with your statement. The Winter War started November 30, 1939. Britain and France declared war on Germany September 3, 1939. So, no, during the time of the Winter War, Britain and France weren't focused on the USSR. They never intended to help Finland. The plan was to use the Soviet invasion as cover for an attack on Norway and Sweden to capture Sweden's iron mines and the Norwegian city of Narvik, where most of the Swedish ore was sent to Germany.

when it came to Finland they knew the nazis are not there friends and that if they push too much the soviets all the allys and soviets would have intervened so in steed they played the long game and only held border positions and blocked a bit of leningrad to the north but never fired or try to invade after the war soviets and stalin saw how great the finish were for doing so little that thay gave them some of the old territories back.

19:40, not just Orel, also in Izium and Mius River, as well as Allied landing in Sicily.

Do part 2

30:00 well the Italians weren’t “dragged in”, they didn’t join until 9 months in where they tried to make easy gains lol

32:57 actually Spain would have run out of supply in 2 months due to its damaged infrastructure and economy from The civil war. They would have been a burden

Just saying that Moskow is railway hub just says that its would be near impossible to capture because any amount of supplies can be brought over there from anywhere.

1) the build more stuff sounds easy, but with how thinly stretched the resources were already i think it would have hastened Germany's fall. Stug 3 was basically outdated by 1943/44 with the introduction of Russian T34/85. Besides that the casemate chassis is still a bit more defensive than offensive, although its lower silhouette could have helped it in offensive situations. But the point is that flanking a Stug is easier and is more likely to ramp up German losses. Higher elevation to ground could add a bit of an extra range. Was it a good idea to invest into Tigers instead of P4s? Not necessarily. While it is true that the the Tiger was less cost efficient than a P4, cost effectiveness isnt always that easy to produce. How many vehicles did each destroy by vehicle type (trucks, jeeps, ACs, light, medium, heavy tanks). How many of the German tanks were lost for each category per panzer 4/5/6? What is the crew survival rate per destroyed tank? In a limited manpower country such as Germany the latter one is especially crucial, even more so when you put your veteran soldiers into these tools. Arguably, the panzer 5 (panther) should have made all other german tanks obsolete. 2) just take Moscow: I personally think this would only matter if by capturing Moscow Stalin and the high leadership of the USSR was also captured thus creating a power struggle by beheading the snake. Generally speaking the USSR suffered a lot because of the earlier purges, showcasing a weakness in lower level initiative. 3) failing at diplomacy: yes. You have a point, but in the wrong location. I dont think Germany could have provided for its Allies when facing against the industrial might of both the US and the Sovietunion. The only way it could have destroyed the Sovietunion, is the complete abandonment of Nazi ideology, and offering up possible alternatives to the people of East Europe. For a Ukrainian being a slave for the Nazis wasnt that much different to being a slave to the Soviets, and either of which could at any time execute your Ukrainian. Replace Ukrainian with any other east european nation. 4) a side note why produce Tigers and other small wunderwaffe: because in a war there is an armament race as well. Eventually all sides would come up with a solution to panzer 4s and panzer 3s, cause at the end of the day even the USSR was averse of losses albeit not necessarily losses in manpower, but rather equipment and vehicle losses. True that while having losses to panzer 4s would result in a more equal KD ratio on all 3 fronts, having superior equipment have several advantages such as effect on morale on both of the opposing sides, as well as improving tactical flexibility of certain units. M4s took a long time to arrive to Europe and also through the Atlantic. The invasion of Normandy would have been different if Germany didnt invest into the Wolfpack as it was. A year before Operation Torch's success entirely relied on how well the Allies could fend off u-boat attacks or disguise the ships transporting troops and equipment. (This also gives an insight as to why abandoning the Kriegsmarine entirely would have resulted in a shorter time needed to defeat Germany). Back to my point transporting T34s to the front would just be as cumbersome as they were transported from the Urals since most of the Soviet Industry was moved to the Urals to protect it from German invasion. Logistics need staff and personnel too, that manpower is better spent on the front line alongside the resources needed to maintain logistics and supply lines. Having better, more survivable, more lethal equipment,on the allies side would have hastened Germany's defeat. Part of the reason behind the massive losses on the Eastern Front is due to how backwards the Sovietunion was in equipment, most of the equipment the soviets used wouldnt have allowed for anything more complex than they did. This is also why some say that the Wehrmacht equipment wasnt to accomodate Blitzkrieg but quite the opposite, the equipment that the Germans used allowed for tactics such as the Blitzkrieg. The tactics you use are the direct result of your equipment adjusted for the terrain you fight on.

I highly doubt germany would've won ww2. Because at this stage Germany was racking up enemies. Like they're flies. Germany had more enemies than allies and the US at this time was already inching or has been inching towards the allies. And the fact that politically and logistics wise it would've been a miracle for Germany to conquer USSR while dealing with the Western powers and Asian powers against its "ally" Japan. As a Japanese my great uncle who served as an officer (I think) in the Manchuria campaign. He talked about how the Germans weren't really a big thing or ally to Japan because there was "very little communication" Is what he said. It would've been a miracle on a miracle like divine intervention type of stuff for Germany to win ww2

Man would I love to talk with you about WWII, as a master student I could go on for hours in discussions with you. I also believe Germany could have won. But I am just starting to watch this video, so it will be interesting to see if we come to the same conclusions on this topic. My next post will be after I watch the video.

Very good channel. I can say that Germany didn't want to give the license of Panzer 4 and 70mm canon licenses, which could be mass-produced in the factories.

Ok here's the big problem with History Legends "how Germany could win" theory, Germany could not supply weapons to its allies. It was not like the Germans sat on vast stores of weapons while the Italians, Hungarian or Romanian troops sat there with pointed sticks. The Germans were chronically short on tanks, half tracks, heavy AT guns, & numerous other weapons. Remember that the German army by the time it reached Stalingrad had not fully upgraded from using the 37mm pak 36, This is not like the Allied powers who had the great benefit of the USA who manufactured more goods than almost the rest of the world combined. Now maybe there could have been sharing of designs & technology to allow other Axis powers to manufacture better weapons but again there just is not a huge industrial base to work with. Also it doesn't solve the issues of fuel.

Why Germany wouldn't win the war 1)Franco did offer to join war if the Germans supplied them with oil and other resources , and had troops landed and fighting in Britain . Which Germans failed acheive .Even the Spain joined the war ,its only will give more strain to Germany . 2) Recruiting Soviet Unions population for Germans is impossible. Yes the soviet population had some difference but if an foreign army is marching in their land and trying to genocide them , of course the population will be united to face the invaders. Yeah a few russian did join the Germans but they joined to ensure their family did not get killed or starved by the Nazis . Few people joining the Nazis doesn't mean the Nazis were welcomed at the soviet union. 3) dude Germany's oil problem is so bad . Even if they did build some good tanks , those tank wouldn't be good without oil n men to run them . 4)Germany also had big food problem .(tik made a good video about this problem tho )

What I like about watching this guy is he has some funny reaction video and he take it slow with explaining. Other historians be talking faster that fortnite sweats crank 90s

oh man i want to talk to history Legends on the phone about history.

On the Moscow Argument. While yes Moscow was the center where the Railroads in Russia connected. The Soviets could reroute the railways away from Moscow. (After all they relocated their factories in less that 3-5 months) So while it would be hard, the Railway reroute would be doable. Also don't that Fyodor Vasilyevich Rostopchin under orders by Mihail Kutuzov, ordered Moscow to be burned to the ground, a fire of which burned down two thirds of the city.

Regarding your opinion on Operation Citadel: It is mostly wrong and not supported by much historical evidence, as: 1. You presume that the Germans could have just attacked 2 months prior but just didn't feel like it, but this is wholly inaccurate. The Kursk salient was formed as a result of the Kharkov Counter-Offensive, in which the combined german armored forces of army group south managed to destroy part of the soviet spearhead moving west, disorganizing the rest and reclaiming some territory. They did attempt the destruction of the salient almost immediately after this, but the offensive was stopped on day one. German forces in the northern edge were too weak to make any progress whatsoever, while those in the south were utterly exhausted and beaten down, not to mention the fact they had to contend with forces arriving from Stalingrad (after the 6th Army got destroyed). Contrary to your supposition in the video, the offensive was going incredibly bad. They were lagging behind their objectives by day one, their losses, particularly from attrition among the tank forces were taking a severe toll on them. 2. The Soviets had massive reserve forces available, enough so that after Citadel bogged down (even with all the losses they had sustained during it) they went on an immediate counterattack on the whole front, quickly dislodging the Germans from anywhere near the previous salient. Given the information, we have regarding the numbers and movements of the Red Army a scenario in which they could have been beaten by the weakened Army Group South, one that had lost an entire army in Stalingrad, and an army's worth of troops leading up and immediately following Stalingrad is near nonexistent. The only reason they did not launch their own offensive earlier is (unlike the Germans) they have learned from their defeats and decided to receive the next german offensive on prepared defenses in order to eliminate the risks of a strong armored counterattack. 3. Your assumption with regard to Hitler just wanting to play with the new tanks is practically already countered by the video you are reacting to which correctly states that he was opposed to the operation. The reason the germans waited for these new tanks is simply that they could not match the Soviets prior to this armored buildup. One in which I would like to point out, they had basically commandeered most tanks from Army Groups Center and North, just to improve their chances. It was simply a case of needing new tanks to replace lost ones. 4. Even if we warp historical decisions in such a way as to make Citadel a success (Red army doesn't get the intel, they deploy their forces to other sectors, germans are even better prepared etc.) the destruction of soviet forces in the salient would (in this best-case scenario), at best prolong the war, it would not change the outcome. The german material situation, even after Speer took over was abysmal and unmaintainable.

do red dawn!!! please

31:36 Finland actually helped a lot during the siege of Leningrad, Without finish support, the Soviet Supply lines would not have been cut into Karelia and Onega which allowed the Germans to form a near encirclement on the city, there is also the fact that much like Stalingrad, the Germans asked the Finns to keep the northern part encircled and leave the urban warfare and subsequent capture of the city to them, which failed. (Germany proved in multiple Urban battles like Stalingrad and Leningrad that they were basically incapable of supporting protracted urban warfare, which also proves that if the Germans had made it to Moscow, it would have been a bloody attrition fight, which the Soviets were better suited for)

I had an old neighbor, WWII vet. He fought in the battle of Hurtgen Forest. Artillery. But I've read a couple of good books on it. The economy depended on a hydroelectric dam, and was defended by WWI veterans, and Hitler Young too young fo9r the Army. Eventually Model (I believe) decided to spice things up with a company of officer candidates with new bars on their shoulders, and former combat experience demonstrating bravery under fire. They honored the nickname of the !st Infantry division : "The big Red One" by cutting down whole platoons using mortar rounds fired into trees. With full physical contact fuses, the mortar round explodes out like a shotgun. The effect is to sweep the ground with shrapnel - keeping in mind that the attack is moving up hill. Unnecessary Carnage because generals couldn't admit a mistake. It started a probe, then a reconnaissance en force. No clear objective. The dam became an excuse. The French have a saying: An Error is not a Mistake unless you Fail to Correct it.

one of your greatest analysis

You're absolutely right about the fear of the Soviets over the Nazis. People never take the Spanish Civil War and the Soviet-Polish War as well as the various Communist uprisings and states during Weimar into context. Communism was a very serious threat during the 1920s and 1930s.

I personally think if the Germans at the time focussed less on Mega Projects like the Bizmark, the Giant railway guns etc, they could have put their resources towards much more practical things, like boring things like bullets, ball bearings or maybe rifles, it could have drastically changed things IMO.

No country could have beaten Germany 1 vs 1

The allies they had where not really allies as there was pretty much noone they could count on. American was already fighting Germany they where supporting the allies already in full force so they already pretty much took a side

React to Alternatehistoryhub's The Invasion That Changed Everything: Soviets In Afghanistan

28:54 you mentioned the treatment of Soviet minorities and their harsh treatment. Yea Germany could have made them allies, but aside from their stated goal for lebensraum, they also took the food and resources off all their vanquished foes: they starved the Ukrainians to feed their own troops. Without the ability to import food and supplies from neutral countries the Germans were never going to be able to feed their army without theft - remember that every vanquished country couldn’t import food either.

Why do so many people wonder why Hitler declared war on the US? Article 3 of the Tripartite Pact between Germany, Italy and Japan clearly states that an attack one of its signatories is an attack on all. This pact was pointed specifically at the US. The moment Japan was at war with the US, so was Germany. The declaration was merely a formality.

Having Nazi Germany lost because of their Diplomacy, made more sense than any reason I watch in some history based videos. Well made :)

If the British were defeated on Dunkirk and all those soldiers were captured Britain would surrender and Churchill would be voted out. Then Germany could wage all its resources in Russia and not have to help Italy. Germanys factories would be intact and Russia would have no lend lease program. Germany would probably take all the major Russian cities and push the Red army so far back it wouldn’t be a threat and a new revolution may take place.

It seems to me that most people complaining merely rejects the video as a big "what if", and though true to some degree they fail to understand that it is a study. It's about understanding why and how things go wrong and propose solutions to those things. It's not meant to rewrite history, what's done is done.

The Germans never developed a four-engined strategic bomber. Their bombers were two-engined and designed for tactical use in support of the German Army; thus, they were not suited for a bombing campaign against Britain. In the end the large British and American strategic bombers crippled German industrial output and flattened German cities.

What do you think about the mainstream view that the USSR could have won the entirety of the war on its own?

33:00 for the record: the problem with Spain was a civil war that lasted from 1936 to 1939. After the war, Spain’s economic, infrastructural and political overall situation was desperate and hopeless. So after the war, Franco was trying, not to join the Axis forces in the war. And he managed that by putting some “unacceptable conditions” (for the Germans) to join the war. In fact even during the civil war, the diplomatic situation between Franco and Hitler was not at its best. So anyways, in the end, both sides came to the conclusion that Spain would send a volunteer force, the Blue division.

Could you talk about the battle of krasni bor??

"it's the last great war" meanwhile the DRC civil wars😏 "hi how are you"

I am sorry, I have to differ with most of your assessments. Russian way to wage war differs from the usual western land-bound way. Russia, since Ivan the Great, is ready to trade lands and men for ultimate victory, something few western armies understand/understood.

Finland was NOT an AXIS allied and had its own reasons to oppose the USSR. To them, the enemy of my enemy did NOT make it a friend and the Finnish were very suspicious of German intentions.

I'm glad that you mentioned that the Germans had no way to transport oil if they were able to capture oil fields in the middle east. Most people forget about this.

I am French and i love your analysis ! You are 100% right about the Battle of France.

Thank you for speaking of the holodomor, its something not talked about enough when people talk about WWII and the events leading up to WWII

This is one of your your best video! More like this!🔥🔥👊🏻

Germany could of won _only_ if the USSR had not gotten Allied support. Krushchev's memoirs claimed Stalin admitted this. So basically it was impossible to win unless the Allies behaved like the Axis and didn't support their allies well.

Love your videos and been a follower on Instagram forever. Keep it up!

Speaking of the German allies. Potential history also made a video of their tanks.

13:20 Yes, but then the Germans wouldn't be able to use the railways to resupply their troops and vehicles.

very vague reaction "lots of german generals didn't agree with hitler" lmao

31:15 The disposition of the forces around Stalingrad was the following: the Romanian 4th (Constantinescu, south flank) and 3th (Dumitrescu, north flank) armies were on the flanks. The Italian 8th army was to the north of the 3rd Romanian Army by necessity: the Germans HAD to put an Italian Army between the Romanians and Hungarians so they would not start shooting at each other. So the Italian 8th Army, Gariboldi was to the north of the action of the envelopment of the Stalingrad pocket (operation Uranus) and the Hungarian 2nd Army (Jány) was even more to the North, at Voronezh. Thus the Italians and Hungarians were not directly involved in the breakthrough, they wanted to retreat but nobody wanted to be blamed for the battle so in the end they did not retreat and in 1943 February the Soviets finished the Stalingrad pocket enough so they could now attack more north and that is when they annihilated the 2nd Hungarian Army.