1945 Soviets vs Allied: Who Would Have Won?

[@willfarkas2445]

I laughed when Romania changed sides for the third time.

[@toddpartusu8914]

Tbh it's quite a realistic scenario.

[@yohatan234]

That was indeed funny, i'm a romanian myself xD

[@willfarkas2445]

I like to see a good Romanian like you every once in a while. I wish that us Hungarians and you Romanians can get along some more.

[@imsfd6308]

I'm not so sure, they believe that we stole Transylvania but it was a rightful claim for us(we had it since before the Roman Empire), so the problem is with them, not us.

[@yohatan234]

Bla Bla Bla, as long as people get along in that area there is no need for such claims :P

[@lukeeatsoats3475]

That feeling when you defeat Germany in WWII but the boss music gets louder

[@a.t.l.r.8969]

it's time for some liberation commie boy

[@thesilverhound3178]

crisis

[@acl6615]

G O D M O D E U N L O C K E D

[@tylersoto7465]

Lmao, I wanted to see allies and Soviet union fight all the way till someone wins

[@patchesby.]

Switzerland is still peaceful in the middle of war

[@danielaramburo7648]

They are smart. Why fight? Let both sides kill each other, we will sell guns to both sides.

[@turkepic3637]

@@danielaramburo7648 and steal the gold of the losers

[@francescofulminis]

@@danielaramburo7648 We all know that if Axis would won, Switzerland would be invaded by Germany

[@danielaramburo7648]

Francesco Fulminis Germany could have, but the cost would have been huge to the Germans. It would have been a German victory, but at a very high blood cost, perhaps so costly Hitler would have respected their neutrality.

[@francescofulminis]

@@danielaramburo7648 LMAO Hitler lost million of soldier to invade Russia, so at this point why not invade Switzerland? And Hitler is not famous to respect the neutrality of other states. We all know what he did in Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg

[@connerbearden6153]

German: "Finally! Za war is over!" USSR and USA: *start ww3 right after ww2* German: "Aw shit, here we go again."

[@connerbearden6153]

@Ironuniverse 1230 what

[@aB-dw9td]

@Ironuniverse 1230 germans never started a war

[@connerbearden6153]

@Ironuniverse 1230 do you get the joke?

[@aB-dw9td]

@Ironuniverse 1230 ....but if we didnt take half their country to make Poland they wouldent have had a reason to attack them to get there country/citizens back

[@FrannyWard]

@Xan Ax Yes, all for the Balfour Proclamation for the Zionist. got them their "State of Israel". What a cost of lives.

[@tornagh9200]

12:53 "Romania Changes sides" XD In my country there is a saying: "Romania never ends a war on the same side it started as, unless they have time to switch sides twice"

[@jesseramseyz]

True lmao

[@mirceadonciu4983]

And you're country is probably Hungary if that's the case. You know you shouldn't hold a grudge just because we occupied Budapest twice and because we have Transilvania which by the it is rightfully ours. But anyway you should know that the only time we changed sides was in WWII. We didn't do it in WWI, when we won.

[@KillingSpreePs]

I see your Romanian, i never got to talk to someone from Romania, and i always wanted to ask you this, why on earth do people call jipsy people "Romanian" Aren't Romanians white? (SERIOUS QUESTION)

[@mirceadonciu4983]

Well to be honest i don't know why the politically correct term for romanians and gypsies is similar in both romanian and english (roma/romi vs romanians/romani). And yes we are white.

[@blitzkrieg2928]

Probably they are but they were in Western Europe when they made the census

[@ypolar84]

Idk why people hate him so much He's just trying to guess how would be It's pretty obvious that won't be realistic He always will forgot some fact And also he don't make this for money so he doesn't gain nothing by that just hate I wanna see people that do a content better than him without forgetting a fact. I really don't know how to explain that but he has a very good content

[@SportDawgs]

yPolar thing is it’s alternate history we will never know what would have happened its hard to predict

[@CreepsNet]

@@SportDawgs still doesn't deserve the hate

[@SportDawgs]

MagmaRoblox agreed

[@bighead8417]

Maybe because you're a American

[@ypolar84]

@@bighead8417 no, I'm brazilian

[@chandlerjackson3412]

“Allied take Munchen” “Patton Dye, his truck collide”

[@manjelos]

Maybe he dye his uniform or something like that?

[@cannonfodder8907]

where are you when patton dye? is was eating bekfanst fren comes up to me '''patton is truck collide, its dye" 'no'

[@bewaretrivela5687]

Bro english ain’t his first language so what

[@octavian8604]

Cut him some slack will ya? This shit is literally too funny 😆

[@quasar7951]

Munchen is how Germans spell it so he was using the proper name

[@josephaounallah8955]

“And winter will come back again”

[@michaelalvarez3002]

"it take 10 bomb for blow up moscow" *shows 1945 Nagasaki bomb* *shows map of modern day Moscow*

[@kaiserwilhelmiiofthegerman9481]

Lol So True xD

[@jackharter660]

The only thing of value in Moscow is the rail system. We could drop a Nagasaki type bomb on The rail yards. why would anyone want to destroy every outhouse in Moscow with 10 atomic bombs. Conventional bombing and dropping atomic bombs on the supply center Russia has would create a huge snarl of backed up supplies. This would force Russia's withdrawal. German soldiers would also be used to fight on the Russian front. German Veterans of the Russian front, experienced soldiers with a deep deep hatred and fear of Russian troops would only need supplies. THEIR hatred and fear and desire to protect the women and children of Germany would make them the best anti Russian troops we would have.

[@petersvancarek]

@@jackharter660 Moskva had Stalin. If Stalin died...

[@jackharter660]

@@petersvancarek if Stalin died somebody else would have taken over. Using the atomic bombs to totally destroy Russia's ability to ship food and munitions to its soldiers would have been worth 50 Stalin's.

[@nvg1526]

Maybe true but the fear alone of the bombs and the after effects plus the morale of the soldiers and civilians

[@CollinInGame]

3 out of every men born in 1923 is died...

[@Catishcat]

Only 3 guys died? Oh...

[@TheUlquiorraCifer]

I think he meant to say 3 out some number but he has bad grammar so I'm guessing it was a mistake.

[@cassandra3895]

+Collin Kappa your profile picture is how i feel after reading your comment.

[@edwardcollier7218]

Your profile pic greatly represents this comment.

[@cassandra3895]

Your Friendly Neighborhood Templar Knight thanks for copying my comment

[@pickleism253]

14:54 everybody gangsta till an Austrian is elected the chancellor of germany

[@ezraadrian4666]

Japan May - August 1945 : ". . . where's the enemies?.."

[@shinetursukhbaatar4870]

Khalah gol 2, Manchura war 2, Invasion to sebria

[@dansm1422]

English is not this guy's native language, apparently.

[@michahunicz1741]

He is Italian.

[@RobertEWaters]

In any case, his hatred for the USA makes him an unfit and less than objective historian.

[@michahunicz1741]

***** Robert E. Waters What the bullshit you are saying.

[@malnutritionboy]

Robert E. Waters i think that you are just salty

[@michahunicz1741]

Swazi Hitler 27 Probably Robert is fucking American who still thinks in Poland there were "Polish Death Camps".

[@benthayer1010]

Patton launches 30 divisions towards Poland. No consulting with the President, just sends them. Very entertaining.

[@Achill101]

Exactly. Or frightening that someone could think that was plausible.

[@thejester-foolofhearts5852]

"Yeah... so uh, Truman said it was ok, guys. I swear. Now, let's charge the Soviet lines!"

[@slukky]

I have to agree. Truman would have had to have been knocked off first. If only....

[@ilmarvaim317]

Churchill actually ran this idea past the Americans, and I believe, also some of the top captured German generals. So it wasn't down to just Patton, there were a number of like-minded people in high places in the Allied command structure that also thought that a war against the Reds was viable.

[@anthonyslaughter9969]

Generals, especially in WW2 days, are very powerful people. I don't know about 30 divisions, but Patton certainly wanted to attack the USSR. It's likely it wouldn't have taken this much ground effort to create American desire to turn on the Soviets. We're really big on plots involving the sinking of ships to justify war {examples..USS Maine, Lusitania, etc...}. Also....Truman was a dick. Short man's complex.

[@luisarruda3061]

The Soviet supply lines were already overextended, their troops exhausted after Berlin, their resources spent up... it was logistically impossible for them to cross the Rhine and go as far as Central France. Plus, Allied air power is being grossly underestimated here, the Allies had access to jet fighters(Gloster meteor and captured German jets) and long-range high-altitude bombers(B-29). The Allied armies in Germany were relatively close to their supply lines(Dutch and Belgian port cities) while supplies for the Red Army had to be brought all the way from the Urals. An massive Allied bombing campaign against the Soviet industry in the Urals and the oilfields of the Caucasus would completely paralyse the Soviet war machine.

[@bxndaries]

jet fighters were moer capable at higher altitudes, and as you know, those early jet fighters were basically not overwhelmingly good since American lightnings could very well shoot down and me262. the soviet army's logistic were bad, but adequate enough to go that far, as a result of overproduction of things like trucks, and their supply lines weren't overextended. the troops exhausted after berlin comprised of only 2 armies, and the troops that would roll over the plains would be guards tank divisions, which were fighting in northernmost germany at that time. dutch and belgian port cities meanwhile, were severely damaged already, with only the largest few available (antwerp, Amsterdam, and Rotterdam. Meanwhile, the allied bombers did not have the sufficient range to reach the Caucasus IF the soviets did indeed successfully roll over Austria, and Germany. the urals meanwhile, simply could not be hit, even by the longest range allied bombers. even if they could, in comparison, the soviet industry in the urals alone was around 5-10x germany's factories, let alone other factories elsewhere. and it took 2-3 years of extreme bombing from USA UK and USSR to ultimately cripple their industry, they didn't even destroy it. this means that the Russian industry, in essence, at the same rate of relentless bombing, may take ~20 years to destroy, not even accounting for oilfields, and hidden factories in well, siberia

[@twurtle12hd39]

@@bxndaries imma dumb down why the allies would win in like 3 points. 1 the us and Britain are both across a big thing a water and the soviets couldn’t contest either on its own much less both at once. 2 same thing as naval power but with air. The soviets might’ve been able to fight part of the allies in the air but not all of them combined. And then just fuckin reliability and shit. US tanks were. Overall. All factors considered. The best of the war. The British were at least decent. The t-34 was fucking assssssssss it was horrendous. Tanks navy and air the allies win in every time no chance the soviets could win

[@twurtle12hd39]

@@bxndaries also the allies could’ve reached the caucuses. They’d fly out of territory in the Middle East which conveniently enough. Is situated roughly south of the caucuses

[@bxndaries]

@@twurtle12hd39 yo, your issue is assuming that to conquer mainland euurope, you need naval power. You are quite frankly wrong, as ships don't move on land. T-34s simply wouldn't work, but would be sufficient to counter the majority of American and British tanks which consisted of shermans and Churchills. then you look at the soviet tanks such as the IS-1, KV-2s, and later on the IS-2, which was better than the US counterparts

[@bxndaries]

@@twurtle12hd39 which is wrong, because a.india would become independent in 2 years, meaning that the only real territory they could launch a land invasion from there being the occupied part of Iran. Iran's terrain is tretcheros and the soviets could throw 5x more men than the British had there

[@yellowshep6302]

Just goes to show how utterly wrong “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is, lol. Literally days after the Allies finished off Germany, they were already at each other’s necks

[@jayhelberg4081]

Are You Purple Shep’s Cousin

[@Juan-wx5xz]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend until our common enemy is destroyed, thats it.

[@ishadowxhunter-0135]

So the allies didn't finish off Germany. The soviets were already by Berlin during d-day. We have to ignore modern American movie propaganda and look at the facts. Germany surrendered to the USSR.

[@ishadowxhunter-0135]

@@maxbateman3115 Yeah they did, go pick up a history book or look up a few yt videos. Berlin was captured by the soviets on may the 8th and surrendered.

[@ishadowxhunter-0135]

@@maxbateman3115 kzbin.info/www/bejne/aGakdKmVabidbbM

[@Nonamearisto]

Also, the map above is inaccurate. Finland was not conquered by the USSR.

[@dimitrisxat5800]

Nonamearisto lol idiot it is a scenario this is not real

[@UGLEIV]

The map is supposed to show europe at the end of ww2, so its strange that while half of germany is red, the nothern most part of norway is blue. The same goes for Finland.

[@TheVindein]

You are so write they concurred by mongols, nice language too XD

[@klaussiren]

Finland was never conquered in WW 2. The Finns stopped the Soviet advance, and won the war in a way.

[@projectmayhem6898]

[11:39] I think the Soviets might use mustard gas at the Battle of Dijon.

[@johnlasher9672]

More likely they'd use Dijon at the battle of mustard, Taco boy.

[@1999glock]

Or perhaps even some Grey Poupon...

[@paulh7026]

Pardon me sir..

[@stevengibilaro2578]

You Savage

[@anomaly2990]

They also might use it at grey poupon.

[@sch0146]

12:53 "Romania changes sides" Nobody expected.

[@BuiltSimilarG]

Sachsen Mapping i expected Italy to

[@mihaisebastianflorescu947]

.....Other Stupid child that want conflict..Kid,go to your work,i know you want transylvania.But you can't have it=))

[@tomasdetorquemada6499]

absolutely. How anybody could expect this🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@wilhelm4646]

Hizo la Italiana

[@superpower21]

What's wrong with changing sides lol

[@faktorraptor91]

"Romania change side" Like every other moments in history

[@francescox6884]

Shut up bitch

[@UnchiuBaros]

You mean Italy ignorant shit

[@mihaisebastianflorescu947]

Stupid child..

[@superpower21]

What's wrong with changing sides lol they dont need to be loyal to anyone

[@tomaszkietyka2325]

"3 out of every men born in 1923 is died" so only 3 men died? well that's not bad. . .

[@blitzkrieg2928]

shitty grammar from the owner of the video

[@Lightspit]

in mother Russia, a man have to die 3 times until the political commissar will declare him dead!! :P

[@johnlasher9672]

99 out of 100 morons in here wouldn't pass a second grade English test.

[@ValWasTakenWasTaken]

Why is Finland under soviet occupation in 1945? It never got occupied!

[@asiseeit2041]

Right. The Finns kicked the hell out of the ussr.

[@elvira5135]

As I See It in 1944 the soviets raped them

[@TheChimalhuacan]

I love finnish people and I say that i wouldn't even support the soviet union in this case the finnish were nobble people and are great urra from the vitory from soviet abusse and hail simmo hayha

[@kurtandre.sitchonprotocol3673]

@@elvira5135 No, the Soviet forced them surrender also burst out the German forces in Scandinavia.If the finns wouldn't accept the negotiations they would be the next victim of the Soviet until that time German became the Finnish Hostility.

[@HeilAmarth]

@@kurtandre.sitchonprotocol3673 Finland never surrendered. We signed an armistice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Armistice

[@Kuiper_Commentary]

This is probably one of the best zvallid video in the history of his channel

[@zvallid]

thank you

[@jorgeromano5563]

14:52 says restored 1939 borders. This is not correct. You mean 1937 borders.

[@BuiltSimilarG]

Jorge Romano oh i see it but no Hungary has weird borders

[@seylaw]

Or if he meant the borders of 1939, he should have altered the map accordingly. I think the 1939 borders are more likely, maybe without the Czech Republic (but keeping the Sudetenland) as in this scenario Germany would likely get "rewarded" for their sacrifices in fighting the Soviets alongside the Allies.

[@KyleF841]

100 likes!

[@theebs1]

@@seylaw bruh Poland got nothing. They should've gotten some land

[@jacobnrskov716]

derfreak albania were controllef by italy there though too

[@fishfashfosh]

Switzerland and their fucking neutrality

[@wood4058]

Kemester their pussies that's why

[@drthomasfister5997]

Troller S Nx7 xb1 no,they're smart that's why.

[@frogchip6484]

Kemester they just shot down planes in their airspace on both sides because they were neutral bruh

[@wood4058]

Dejan Vojnović even if they are neutral it won't stop the russians from trying to spread communism. So eventually switzerland is going to get invaded later on

[@ramsesiiinbox]

Tell it to comrade Stalin 'bout "spreading communism". Back to school. Stalin prevented french communistic revolution. He wasn't Lenin nor Trotsky, who wanted to "throw Russia as gunpowder (or smth like this) into a fire of World Communistic Revolution". Stalin always wanted a peace in the World. WWII was started by GB and they are one and only clear winner in this War (with their dominions a.k.a. Australia, Canada, North-american United Countries - so named "civil world" - world of enslavers with their "pocket" democracy - weapon of enslaving for the rest of the World.

[@TheSmarq17]

So the US would not have attacked from the east? With all the Navy, Marine and Army units already there in the Pacific it would have been the sensible strategy. You never even considered this did you? I think, if anything, the USSR would have lost the only advantage they had with their "hidden" factories when that region was entered from the backdoor, so to speak. B-29's can also fly westward too. Just saying...the USSR would have had the same issues the Nazis had - a 2 front war.

[@zvallid]

So do you believe possible to arrive Moskow fighting all along Siberia?

[@TheSmarq17]

Don't need to reach Moscow from the east. Just need to reach the Urals by B-29 from the east. Moscow can be taken from the west, then where does Stalin go? Same place as Hitler.

[@purpleanex]

" B-29's can also fly westward too"! Love it!!!!! :D

[@fourdeck33]

So true.

[@fourdeck33]

Range of B-29 is 9,000k and distance from Pakistan (India at the time) to Urals is 3,408 km. In short order, Soviet wartime production would have been ground to a halt.

[@darko714]

Well done. While I agree with the general course of the narrative, I have some small disagreements: First, I don't think the Soviets would have made it past the Rhine, owing to logistical problems caused by the end of Lend Lease. They simply wouldn't have enough supply trucks or fuel to maintain a substantial mechanized force that far from their supply centers. Also Allied bombing would take a toll on Soviet supply columns once they won air superiority. (Which would NOT have been that easy!) Also, I can't imagine that Truman would have used the two atomic bombs available in 1945 against Russia. Japan would have stayed in the game longer without the historical Soviet help in knocking them out. The sooner the US could finish Japan and consolidate its resources against the Soviets, the better. Truman might have threatened Stalin with this, but he didn't have any more nuclear weapons assembled until at least 1946. Once Japan surrendered, Truman would have turned MacArthur and his considerable forces westward to Vladivostok and then perhaps through China towards central Russia. That would have become a big headache for Stalin. Of course, neither Marshall Koniev nor General Patton would have acted without orders to launch a big attack and touch off a war, but for the scenario to play out, it has to get started somehow.

[@JMinuteman]

Sometimes the images he shows look like they are taken from an alternate universe.

[@miembrodevagos3565]

Echt so

[@emilkurtcarson1907]

According to the 3rd Army Historical website, at times, the 3rd Army was comprised of up to 6 army corps, totaling 46 divisions. So Patton could have launched 30 divisions, except he would not have done so without orders. General Patton was an American soldier, a graduate of West Point, and once he was given an order, he did his best to carry it out.

[@danmorris8594]

Exactly. They act like he was in command of all of Europe when he wasn't even in charge of an army group who still would not have had the authority.

[@stipekatavic9900]

With 30 dividions je could march im Moscow

[@johnschuh8616]

Any clash would have been limited because we still had a war to win in Asia. IAC how would the Russians acquire such mobility?

[@samretzloff4421]

Let’s not forget that Patton was already near to losing his temper with Russia when Germany went down.

[@emilkurtcarson1907]

@@samretzloff4421 Patton was of the same opinion as Churchill about the Russians, that we were better dealing with it now but America was tired of war, we were re-fighting WW1 after a 20 yr truce and this time it was a settled issue. Or so folks wanted to believe at the time. Patton was correct about the Russians would be our next problem but was not able to carry his view into a workable policy before the accident that took his life

[@misterjag]

Soviets didn't have an atomic bomb until August 29, 1949. Game, Set, Match.

[@orokushi5953]

But allies didnt have the nuclear material to mass produce the bombs.

[@CrniWuk]

The US military made a survey right after WW2 for exactly such a case, on how usefull nuclear weapons would be against the Soviet Union in case of war. They based their studies on the extensive damage the Sovietunion suffered in WW2 and how it managed to still maintain it's industry trough the whole war and concluded that their nuclear weapons would do only very little to actually halt or even defeat the Soviet forces on the European continent. THey had not enough weapons to destroy the entire Soviet Military, and using it on civilian targets or industrial targets would mean very little, as the Soviets could easily replace those. The US simply had at that point to few nuclear weapons, and their yield wasn't large enough. The Soviet Union wasn't Japan after all, it was of a much larger size, it had much more forces to deploy with milions of troops, most of their industry was pushed deep inside the Soviet Union due to the Axis attack, which made it difficult to reach with bombers, if the allies wouldn't have complete air supperiority. Remember ICBMS didn't became a thing before the late 1950s. The actuall effectivity of the nuclear weapons developed in the 1940s is vastily exagerated by most people today, despite of the huge effect it had on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US military had a much more realistic view on it. Keep in mind, when the US decided to use nuclear weapons on Japan, the Japanese Empire was on it's last leg, where as Russia was on it's military peak in 1945, with an industry at full capacity manufacturing tanks, weapons and amunition for an well trained and equiped army. The Soviets suffered large casualties in WW2, but they learned their lessons and they had many veteran soldiers, officers and commanders in their ranks, not to mention generals. The Soviet Union of 1945, was not comparable with the one in 1941 that was attacked by Germany.

[@robertquint67]

Read my statement above. Believe you me, had the war continued The US would have built more that 9 A-bombs by 1946. They would have been used on the Soviets oil production as well. Game over.

[@skunkjobb]

Remember that the Soviets and the US were allies at the time when the term was used so it's not the proper term. USA could at the time directly after the bombing of Nagasaki produce about one atomic bomb per week. I think that would have been enough.

[@AndrewGunner]

Americans didn't have many nukes either.

[@TheLambdaTeam]

Allies vs. Soviets - who would win? Command & Conquer - Red Alert answers your question perfectly.

[@ravezoth1186]

Even more, C&C looks more realistic in comparison with this video

[@ZeyaRudaRozena97]

Looks like the Soviets won then,

[@EnzoLay_TheUmbraPonyGuardian]

in my eyes, the soviets need to die first, and then eradicate hitler lol

[@abnakimaanlicht2109]

Yes it do i play it lol

[@EnzoLay_TheUmbraPonyGuardian]

also i got all C&C games thanks to a downloadcode from a store at our town, i mostly play c&c3 because i grew up with tiberium wars and later found out that kanes wrath existed so i got it and played it xd all others dont work on windows 10 lol xd

[@josephfiorentino1138]

This guys videos are awesome. I have been binge watching them for hours now. PLEASE MAKE MORE VIDEOS!!!

[@ewanhassall7350]

I love how half these comments are saying that this video is stupid because Russia would have won easy then the other half are how the video is stupid because the allies should have won instantly.

[@Weisior]

In USSR throught war time there wasnt something like "budget" - a huge capitalist problem. Youre right, sir

[@GastonBoucher]

Lol, wtf you on about? The US navy was far superior to the japanese navy by 1945, the air force was too, Japan was weak af. And how would USSR "easily" invade Alaska when they don't have any good ports on the eastern coast, I mean they barely even had any transport ships.

[@TheGoodluckjonny]

The USSR and Japanese navy combined couldn't face the US navy at all at that time. And yes, wars are won by infantry but if every little piece of infrastructure in europe is destroyed (which would be the case) the soviet armies would have had no chance of victory in the long term

[@Weisior]

Southern France wasnt affected at all by II world war, same as southern Germany, so by the soviets invasion infrastructure is still there. I think that soviet march throught eastern europe in '45 would be easy task. But... from the other side, USSR fighting with basically rest of the world + anti communist moves in Poland, Germany etc. would affect soviets hardly, so long term war, I think if wouldnt be continued with atomic armanent, would end by peace condtributing allies, since it isnt possible to take whole Russia at any forces. Anyway slight victory of the allies wouldnt wish well for everyone. A single superpower like USA could be even stronger that it became during cold war, which would made them a thread for the rest of the world, like atomic terrorism directed on other countries by USA or some other scenario...

[@Weisior]

Hopefully, people exhausted by war, wasnt even able to admit another upcoming war, mayby knowledge of that fact was reason for Churchill to name (basically UK wwIII) plan "operation unthinkable". @EDIT: And I dont really think that even hardest propaganda would stand a chance to change peoples mentality that time... in any other country than USSR (where communist regime literally had whole society infiltrated). Mayby even the first day of 'hype' in allied nations caused by achieving nuclear weapon by US, governements covered effects of it use on Japan, and attemps to make society sure about victory in this war, there still would be a fear of many, damned many more deaths than in last 6 years, and it could be the main factor of no support from civilians of participating in this whole theatre

[@ignisilluminati]

I cannot even imagine how many soldiers and civilians have to die in this hypothetical WW3 scenario, just "to regain 1939 borders" as mentioned in the video. And I greatly appreciate leaders of both the allies and the soviets for their endurance that thankfully prevented the possibilities of this stupid war.

[@michahunicz1741]

Simon It would be terrible if after 7 years of carnage borders will be restored.

[@CzechMirco]

+Simon Ye, and we, who had to live under the soviet yoke for the next 40 years also appreciate it greatly.

[@michahunicz1741]

Андрей Назариков Nazis and commies were both bad, US also

[@ashocck8065]

So let me get this straight. You are equating the Nazis and the Communists to the US? You are a fool.

[@louisboliou7432]

If it hadn't been for the U.S. Land Lease program, that war might have turned out quite differently. As a minimum, it would have lasted, perhaps, for another 2 or 3 years.

[@acanadiancapitalist2107]

I love these theories. These Videos are amazing

[@roccosantanelli2802]

No way they would have run over American - French - British forces that quick

[@zvallid]

in the ardennes 2 depleted german divisions almost destroyed the entire deployment of allied forces in europe

[@roccosantanelli2802]

@@zvallid funny the German forces beat Russian forces all the was to Stalingrad!

[@klynhall6315]

This was very interesting, but I could tell English was a second language for whomever wrote it.

[@SvobodaIliSmert]

this guy isn't just italian but he's also a fascist

[@klynhall6315]

@@SvobodaIliSmert I have reservations about the outcome as described. The Soviets prevailed over Germany by using every resource at their disposal. They pulled back as the Germans advanced, stretching out their supply lines. The further the Germans went the harder it was to provide necessary materials for men, equipment and vehicles. The Russian winter was also used to slow down and halt the German advance. Corporal Hitler was advised time and again by his generals that his pursuit cost more than its value, but his ego ignored their advice. The Soviets were willing to sacrifice people and materials for final victory. The allies would have suffered the same logistical nightmares that defeated the Germans, and frankly, the soldiers were not up to the task. They wanted to go home and get on with the life they left behind four years earlier.

[@jackharter660]

@@klynhall6315 there is one big difference between Germany and United States. Germany use trains and then horse-drawn wagons United States had tens of thousands of trucks. They would have had a lot less trouble supplying their army, they also would have dropped nuclear bombs on the main Russian supply and rail centers.

[@klynhall6315]

@@jackharter660 The U.S. could have all the trucks in the world, but the fight within the men who you expect to drive them was gone. They simply wanted to get back to the life they left four years ago. There was palpable resentment when some of these men who were dragged out of their civilian life to fight in the Korean Conflict in 1950, and you can imagine the refusal of all if the men were once again dropped into a conflict they believed was not theirs to fight. The men who were dragged back were still in the reserves or were commissioned officers who could be called back at will. The atomic bomb? The nation was still horrified by the devastating results of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At the time this fight between the US and Russia would unfold, the US just didn't have more bombs in its inventory until the late '40s. By that time, the facts necessary to build a bomb were leaked to the Russians. It's why Mutual Assured Destruction has been an excellent deterrent to nuclear bomb exchanges.

[@jackharter660]

@@klynhall6315 United States military has never been a volunteer outfit during wartime. It's impossible for me to believe that you actually think they were going to take a vote should we have a war with Russia or not. We managed to get all the troops we needed in the Korean War and look at the Vietnam War we actually had to draft people for the Marine corps. Which is supposed to be completely volunteer. You should also look up how many atomic bombs we had or could have had. Your numbers and time is very inaccurate. We also could have counted on at least a million German soldiers they hated and feared Russia. If you wonder where we would get these soldiers there was 400,000 German soldiers in Norway at the end of the war. in all probability we could have gotten at least twice as Many which would be 2 million German soldiers to fight to protect their women and children. I remember well the draft for Vietnam. We managed to come up with a half a million people that really really didn't want to go. They were drafted, then had to go anyhow. THE UNITED STATES WAS PLANNING ON DROPPING 12 ATOMIC BOMBS IF NEED BE ON JAPAN, SO WE HAVE MUST HAVE HAD 12. And we could have made more.

[@willzyxOfficial]

Entertaining. The very last suggestion makes no sense though, Germany would be in complete ruins, and the axis would be even more weakened than the US, and perhaps also Russia.

[@AdolfHitler-zi7gr]

willzyx look up operation unthinkable

[@willzyxOfficial]

+Adolf Hitler That's about a conflict between the allies and Soviets yes, which wasn't all that unthinkable. Not about Germany rising again as a result, which definitely was unthinkable. Germany was already in ashes, and if the allies and Soviets would fight it out in Germany as this video suggests, even less would be left of it. The US would still have its intact industry back home, the Soviets theirs in the Ural, while Germany is leveled.

[@AdolfHitler-zi7gr]

willzyx In operation unthinkable UK and USA were going to fund and supply the German war machine to revitalise it

[@moejaime2654]

I agree the US was not bombed or attacked on its mainland like Russia this video is horseshit !

[@zafelrede4884]

i assume germany would be mostly neutral during this war, and not much casualties are had, exept against the rebels, berlin, and the few wehrmacht of course

[@mikebellaire3195]

Love this channel Excellent and well thought out.

[@locosiap4184]

Um why is Austria not apart of Germany since the 1939 borders where restored

[@callofwagamingpupolins482]

Maybe 1936 borders???

[@locosiap4184]

callofwa gaming pupolins no to quote the video “1939 borders are restored in all Europe”

[@abnakimaanlicht2109]

I think it wasnt wholy good maken

[@hog2433]

i think its 1937 due to hungary having northern transalvainia

[@shinetursukhbaatar4870]

Axis will rise again

[@keittomaster]

Finland wasn't under Soviet rule...

[@zvallid]

In this situation it would have been under Soviet occupation

[@1931Tre]

And how the fuck would it be under Soviet occupation? 1944 they wanted to make a peace with Finland to advance quicker into German heartland. In this scenario where they are fighting actually fully equipped and trained army (Allies) they could've never opened a new front at Finnish border, because there would be 500 000 Finns in arms against them and Soviets wouldn't have resources for that, as seen in 1941 scenarion where Soviet union was facing fully equipped and trained army of Germany. When Finland entered Operation Barbarossa, Soviets couldn't hold the Finnish border at all, and in this case where the enemy is even larger, with bigger airforce? Yeah sure.

[@zvallid]

Soviets never wanted to make peace with Finland but Finnish near the end of the war started to fight agaist Germans saving their ass. In this situation Soviets would have not stop the invasion

[@gdspathe1130]

And continue to waste manpower against a secondary front yeah right

[@niunia123niunia]

U all can see what they teached in history lessons on soviet union era :D

[@59Suntzu]

One major point you seemed to have overlooked is that the Soviet army was marching on US food and supplies. And with Soviets still at war, the impact of the German resistance would have been much more severe. And the Atomic weapons the US dropped on Japan could have been used against Russian forces. Japan very likely could have been talked into a conditional surrender rather than the US pressing insistence on an Unconditional Japanese surrender.

[@votesus9819]

Nope

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

Jepang join soviet

[@JohnDoe-sw1rs]

Only 7% of the war effort was from US assistance, they weren’t marching on US food lmao

[@vibingbob1846]

@@JohnDoe-sw1rsyes they were they were matching on us food. Boots trucks and parts😂

[@Acousticmf123]

@@vibingbob1846he legit just said 7% of soviet production was from lend lease bro is blind

[@israelforever4621]

Thanks for the video. Was very interesting

[@joeysavings4756]

This is the most detailed accurate information regarding the subject

[@samovarmaker9673]

Realistic or not, thank God that this shit never happened.

[@saltyroe3179]

Samovar maker there is a reason it did not happen. The US was tired of war and even if Patton had started a war Truman would not have declared war. Other issues: - P80 jet fighter -B29 could reach most of east ural industrial zone and it as well as well as bomb the transport systems -atomic bomb on Moscow might have taken out Stalin -US Navy could have contained Japan while USAF and US Army sent from Pacific to Iran to destroy Baku oil fields, no oil no go - USSR was getting much war material from USA - if we could agree with the Japanese their Manchurian army could rule west with our help threatening USSR from Pacific -IL 2 would be an easy kill for US fighters and were less effective than US planes in the anti-tank role. - US ability to destroy tanks from the air had a good chance of preventing USSR armor attacks from reaching US ground units. Look what happened to German Armor when the weather cleared after the Battle of the Bulge. Both Stalin and Truman would have found a way to avoid war.

[@KonoHarpDa]

Honestly wished it happened

[@salt27dogg]

Jerimiah Pearson it kind of did in a way. It’s called the European Union

[@nealogorman1810]

And the Russians would have had the same problem Hitler had transporting, Fuel, food, ammo from Russia to the Front. Especially with the Polish, Lativan, Estonian partisans attaching their supply train at every chance. The Soviet Air force would be no match against the RAF and USAAF. Plus the threat of the Atom Bomb.

[@abyssstrider2547]

Samovar maker The guy who made this is biased. Allies had better equipment than soviets. Not only that but many places like Poland would be disloyal to soviets and would probably work with Allies. Not only that but Allies had plans to nuke all Russian cities and military equipment if they ever attacked. Oh and that's not just it! soviets would be exhausted from fighting and would be low on manpower. People in occupied territories would also refuse army service and on top of that wage guerrilla warfare. Plus soviets had crappy commanders and chain of command. Their supplies were also small.

[@jaakkovaisanen5396]

FINLAND WAS NOT COMMUNIST!!!

[@Solomon0003]

Yes it was

[@aarokolkki9408]

@@Solomon0003 How?

[@Solomon0003]

@@henna5853 i read poland...😂

[@ajshdkebw8590]

@@Solomon0003 no it wasn't

[@quasar7951]

Finland was under USSR occupation at the wars end

[@user-rv2yq1uo4w]

And now the war has begun in 2022🥺😢

[@SNP-1999]

My father was a British airman during the war who was with British troops who crossed over the river Elbe and advanced into Mecklenburg in April 1945, where they met the oncoming Red Army units. He told me that the Russians regarded the British as enemies even then, before the Germans had even capitulated and before the war had even ended ! Great allies, hey ? Britain and the USA had supplied the USSR with military equipment, without which the Russians would not have been able to get as far as they did into Germany in 1945. Afterwards, the British troops and my father raced up to the Baltic coast to Lübeck to cut the Russians off from advancing up the Jutland peninsula into Denmark, which they attempted but were just too late. This shows that the Russian high command considered their Western Allies to be enemies right from the start and would have taken the opportunity to establish a foothold in Scandinavia, had the British Army not stopped them. All the show of friendly "Russian brothers in arms" was just that, a show. The individual Russian front line soldier most probably felt friendship towards the British and American soldiers he met, but most officers and commanders certainly did not. Watching this video made my skin crawl - Western Europe would have been totally devastated, millions of civilians killed or dead from hunger and disease, the infrastructures and industries completely destroyed. There would not have been a victorious side in this - thank God - hypothetical war scenario, only victims - hundreds of millions of victims. A major part of Western civilization would have entered upon a new "Dark Ages" and even the great economy of the USA could never have rebuilt Europe fast enough to prevent social and political upheavals, revolutions and revolts. Anarchy would have reigned free......and then we would really have had a problem !!! 😭

[@scottn1405]

Remember, just a bit over 25 year prior, the Brits and Americans were on Russian soil trying to upend the Bolshevik revolution. Their gravesites near Arkangelsk are proof of it. The Russians certainly hadnt forgotten

[@johnschuh8616]

Stalin knew everything about Manhattan at Potsdam. Not surprised by Truman’s announcement of the atomic test. No way would he have encouraged an engagement with the western allies.

[@stanchpandora3658]

Lmao ok buddy. The West had always considered the Soviet Union as an enemy, so naturally the feeling was reciprocated.

[@dave131]

Very entertaining ! Extremely well thought out and produced. Great job ! Thank God this didn't happen.

[@OGDankster_]

Finland was never a part of soviet union

[@zvallid]

Only because to save their ass they fought Germans. In this situation, Finland would have been invaded

[@niunia123niunia]

U do realize how much casulties finnish querrilla fighters would have caused to hostile soldiers occupying their country and raping and murdering their familys??? also when soviets and finland war ended Finnish military leaders told soldiers to stash their weapons and shit for the case soviets attack again.

[@TheCritter001]

When one Finn, (Simo Häyhä) can kill at least 300 Red Army personal, even Stalin had to ask himself is it worth it? Finland would have been a never ending guerrilla campaign, and the Winter War was a wake up call for what was left of the Soviet Officer Corp. They didn't want to be bogged down if forests and swampy land of the Karelian Isthmus, to Hell with the Molotov Plan in their minds.. Their later attacks were more successful, but Their losses were terrible that winter of 39.Unlike the other Baltic States, Finland remained independent of the Soviet Union.; losing territory-yes, but Stalin still went to the peace table with Mannerheim.

[@impalamama7302]

Red Army WAS brutal.... they liberated Ravensbruck Concentration Camp for women.....and raped the poor living skeletons!! German soliders, knowing that defeat was inevitable, threw down there guns, RAN WEST and PRAYED that the Allies would take them as POW's....not the Red Army. Same way with the scientists.... Remember there WAS a World War fought before this.....and folks or volks don't forget.

[@divinesan7786]

ImpalaMama German did same thing as Soviet before so yea

[@zmajzmajinjo9361]

Love your channel

[@nickcui4567]

Good job! Love this video!

[@jdizzle8751]

I like how the misspelled words are consistently misspelled.

[@zachmullin8891]

English isn’t his first language

[@jdizzle8751]

@@zachmullin8891 ahh. I see. Doesn’t change the misspellings.

[@juantamayo5295]

​@@jdizzle8751 its understable whats the problem dude?

[@jole0000]

0:00 finland didn't belong to the soviet union

[@zvallid]

what a shame

[@kurtandre.sitchonprotocol3673]

@@zvallid gay since Soviet forced them to surrender in WW2 it doesn't meant they will be annexed by the communist or the cultural revolution

[@HeilAmarth]

@@kurtandre.sitchonprotocol3673 We Finnish men would rather die by hundreds of thousands than take orders from Russians again (never forget 1809-1917)

[@argon2423]

The Yangem “Death is a preferable alternative to communism.”

[@argon2423]

zvallid Just wanna point our that your response is such a typical fuckboy response.

[@theoryli9966]

I don’t know why this video is getting nearly as many dislikes as likes. I think it is a fairly reasonable prediction and better than most of its counterparts.

[@blazefn8941]

14:56 wrong it would have been a continuation of ww2 not ww3 as japan still hasnt surrender when war started

[@meowvonmeow5783]

* grabs popcorn *

[@tolysopranos8214]

"popcorn" .... no words to answer! I just wish to see your land in the fire what Russia went through and it would be my time to eat popcorn!

[@trooperodst6880]

ironic switties eh'

[@chupschupslollipop9520]

Anatoliy Suprun dude, it‘s a joke, chill out. And anyways, what the hell are you trying to say?

[@chupschupslollipop9520]

Switzerland A Heck yeah! Switzerland is the greatest! Schöne Tag no😂

[@jamesfleming5849]

@red x17 -I read your comment.Your why the world thinks we're all buckaroos.I don't even know where to begin with all that stuff you opined on. It's got some truth to it.....but all bullshit does.

[@taunomyyra8421]

FINLAND WAS NOT ALLIED WITH RUSSIANS. FINLAND WAS/IS INDEPENDENT COUNTRY!!!!

[@taunomyyra8421]

@@nuckinfuts5481 what

[@nuckinfuts5481]

@@taunomyyra8421 Some Finns joined the Waffen-SS forming the Suomalainen SS during WWII. Read about Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, Finland's involvement in WWII and the Suomalainen SS. I'm not blaming them as it was join the Nazi's or be destroyed by Russians... It was a lose-lose situation but sadly the stigma exists of having been sympathetic towards the Nazi regime; much like other countries including Croatia...

[@rexhunt4695]

Finland fought a good fight against Russia.. US never declared war against Finland

[@taunomyyra8421]

@@nuckinfuts5481 yeah i know ss wiking were was finnish soldiers in nordland divizion. But its weird to hear "suomalainen waffen ss":D

[@taunomyyra8421]

@@rexhunt4695 but british did

[@Absurdislut]

Pls CONTINUE!

[@stuff9680]

To point something out the units that attacked Berlin had only 85% strength in terms of manpower, the soviets where spent in both manpower and logistics and the US had capable ground attack and low altitude fighter aircraft

[@billosby9997]

Nice graphics but the thought process behind the scenario is silly at best.

[@kyle857]

Bill Osby The process behind the real world war I and I were pretty damn silly when you think about it.

[@Joonavainio]

Interesting, but could you PLEASE stop colouring Finland red? They have tried to occupy us for a thousand years. But have never succeeded, and never will.

[@HooDatDonDar]

Russian province in 1809. Ruled by Russia for over 100 years, some Russian Prince was declared Grand Duke of Finland. True?

[@Joonavainio]

@@HooDatDonDar Partly true, but it was Sweden in 1809, if we wanna nitpick. The years you talk of Finland was an autonomous state with its own laws, own parliament, own currency, own army, own language (which was partly Swedish)... In any case the map is wrong at the starting point. And independent Finland as a nation state has never been overrun. Nor occupied.

[@AmirAli-zo5cb]

Joona Vainio You have been given almost complete autonomy, unlike other regions of the empire. This is not your merit, you were part of the empire, obeyed the emperor, even considering your atonomy

[@Joonavainio]

@@AmirAli-zo5cb Yeah, that's what I tried to tell. There were NO Russian soldiers occupying to speak of. We had our own army, as stated. And our own parliament. As an amusing anecdote, later marshal Mannerheim was kicked out from the Finnish army for disorderly (read: drunk) conduct. So he joined the Russian army and became an officer in Chevalier Guards. Russian law never itervened. Until the so called "sortovuodet" in early 20th century. WHen they tried russification. I think everyone here knows what was the result. One of the bloodiest civil wars, where Russians, then to be Soviet tried all they could to make this country annexed. DIrectly fighting for the reds. Please don't try to lecture me on my own history. We drove them away, like a couple of times since. Finland never wanted a war, but if forced, she will defend herself. To better understand the situation, you might want to wiki for: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Finland Never defeated still stands, how much they tried.

[@Joonavainio]

@@AmirAli-zo5cb DId you check the wiki? We lived in harmony with the Empire. BEFORE there came an asshole emperor who tried to annex and Russify us. EUgen SChauman was an isolated case, but considered a national hero by most for assassinating General Governor Bobrikov. That's when the resistance really started. This has nothing to do with racism, but if your name is really a real one, you don't have any clout to judge us for what our families had to suffer in the ensuing civil war. Often called justly a liberation war. Or Independence War.

[@acegabrielcruz3687]

3:49 Allies:has fully Mechanized Armies to stop the Soviet Advance Also Allies:Retreat

[@SacredCowStockyards]

Full mechanization prevents Allied armies from being encircled, it doesn't allow them to stop the advance of a numerically superior foe.

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

@@SacredCowStockyards alies lol

[@sacluvsBM]

Since America had the atomic bomb and Russia did not the question is rendered academic.

[@zunino631]

Very good apointment, the americans stolen the bomb from Max Plank institute, and them a " american" couple selded to russians in exchange to gold, a lot of it!, but you're correct, americans had the germans atomic bomb.

[@jackharter660]

@@zunino631 duh why didn't the Germans drop the atomic bombs and win the war. Could it be you're pretending the Germans had the atomic bomb.(it's called lying)

[@meryatathagres1998]

Are you aware, that they weren't exactly swimming in surplus atom bombs in 1945?

[@jackharter660]

@@meryatathagres1998 even with the limited amount of atomic bombs they would have had enough to destroy major railhead centers. Even without damage it takes a major effort to supply the troops at the front. Between the atomic bombs we had and the bombers dropping high explosives and especially napalm bombs we would have severely crippled the ability of the Russians to supply their troops. Russian troops without gas, food and ammunition Would be unable to fight effectively. We were supplying the Russians with trucks and parts. (375,000 trucks and spare parts) Without our continued support the Russians that were using the trucks to haul around anti-tank guns would have ended up with a very limited ability to seal off breakthroughs. We also were starting to manufacture a tank that was superior to the tanks the Russians had. We supplied the Russians with one large meal a day. Spam, the Russian troops called it the second front.

[@jackharter660]

@The Yangem I have to tell you Sparky the atomic bombs dropped on Japan did a lot of damage. We could have put a hundred bombers + 2000 fighter planes in the air 10 cells with a couple hundred P-51 for of each cells protection., If you follow what I'm saying ,we would know the route we were taking and what bomber had the atomic bomb on it the Russian Air Force on the other hand would need thousands of planes to cover all the routes. You'll have to pardon me I'm still thinking about how the atomic bombs didn't do any damage. The atomic bomb destroyed 5 square miles in Nagasaki. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima destroyed 5 square miles of Hiroshima. 100,000 dead. Hiroshima had 69% of its buildings destroyed.. I guess the only solution would have been for us to surrender. After all we had at the end of the war was b-29s b-17s 15000 top-of-the-line fighters good for long-range bomber protection. We had started turning out m26 tanks superior to the Russian t 34-85 tanks. We also could have armed 3 million German troops which would have continued to fight the Russians along with a couple million random troops that only needed equipment and weapons something we were making tens of thousands of tons of every thing. Yeah we were definitely in trouble. All I almost forgot, we had the ability to destroy 5 square miles bet we could have used to bomb major supply centers.

[@joshuatumambo5674]

This video is fun and tense. I know its not realistic but the way the video portrays the events dramatically is really good and fun. Good job mate, I hope you will make more of these

[@andro7862]

I need to mention that Yugoslavia wasn't an active ally of the soviet block. If there ever was a war Tito would be firmly neutral.

[@superstella8552]

Red Army eliberated Yugoslavia, so if Tito is firmly neutral does nothing

[@andro7862]

super stella Red army didn't liberate Yugoslavia, the partisans who were 100% local did all the work. The red army did jack shit in Yugoslavia. Also Stalin wanted to bring Tito in his sphere of influence but Tito, thug life as ever, fucked him off.

[@mrtrugglez5567]

They were part of the Soviet block up until 1948. It was Tito who suggested that the soviets should intervine in Greece so that the Yugoslavia wouldn't worry about their southern border and Soviets gaining access to the meds.

[@stuartgreen3758]

Andro A Stalin wanted Tito to join the Warsaw Pact, but Tito didn't want to. Stalin wanted to control Yugoslavia like he controlled the rest of Eastern Europe.

[@andro7862]

Stuart Green But he didn't succeed.

[@brandonshepherd805]

That was really well done.

[@neilhayes4166]

A very interesting video that I enjoyed watching. It’s certainly believable Patton would have ordered his troops to open fire on the Soviets.

[@alexandrosfotiou3589]

...but with better English on the explainatory lines.

[@bartdepalma3820]

Nonsense. 1) The allies would have won complete air superiority within the first week. Allied fighters completely outclassed the Soviet models and were coordinated with radar. 2) With air superiority, allied strategic bombers would have cut the overextended Soviet supply lines and the fighter bombers would tear up the Soviet armor. The Germans could not move during the day under allied air superiority, but had no problem doing so against the Russians. 3) In addition to air superiority, the allied ability to coordinate dispersed artillery enabled them to place overwhelming firepower at nearly any point in the battlefield within minutes, which offset German tank superiority. See how the Allies completely destroyed the Ardennes offensive in less than a month. The Soviets massed artillery to gain the same effect, which would be vulnerable to carpet bombing. 4) The allied armies were completely mechanized at this time. The Soviets would be facing the eqivalent of dozens of panzer and panzer grenedier divisions. The tank numbers here only count the allied tanks on the front and not the massive reserves of vehicles fed to the front to replace front line losses. 5) Soviet manpower was nearly exhausted. The Red Army lost well over 8 million KIA, times three wounded. The Brits were in similarly bad shape, but the Americans had only suffered a tiny fraction of Soviet losses and had a pipeline of first rate replacements headed toward Europe.

[@vojtech3748]

Red army have at end of war around 20-40 milion man

[@wildfire160]

In the video they drop three Atomic bombs and i dont think the guy who put it together really thought through their effect properly,or how the remnants of the German army would react,i really don't think in the scenario in the video that the allies would wait so long to mobilize them to defend Germany.. One part i found extremely laughable was at the end when we have the Russians withdrawing to regroup ... I`m wondering how they would manage that with all the roads bridges and railways already destroyed and no fuel or food

[@gordonc615]

U also have to remember Russian ground arms were at a ratio of 1:3 one gun for every 3 men .look at when everyone was racing to get Hitler the Russian were literally using anything they could as weapons. Allies had far superior resources

[@wewuzvikangz4829]

@Soriotian oh no the vatnick is triggered

[@suniketghosh4235]

Bart DePalma yes you are right

[@kevlarburrito6693]

There are quite a few examples showing that not only was carpet bombing incredibly devastating to armies in the field, but that the western Allies were quite capable of doing so ALL DAY LONG. This is not a well thought out video...

[@brucetucker4847]

Unfortunately sometimes it was devastating to the wrong army. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesley_J._McNair#Death_and_burial

[@justdane2720]

Exactly both British bombers and American B-17 maybe possibly by that time b-29s would have been brought in and literally bombed them day and night into Oblivion and without deliveries of supplies from their former allies they would have been in worse shape than they ever were with Germany and they came very close to losing to the Nazis!

[@poopshoes7579]

An AU where Patton was listened to/wasn’t killed!?! Someone needs to make this HOI4 MOD

[@jochengunther7592]

Dönitz was Acutally Grand Admiral Great Video !! Keep Up the Good Work !!

[@danmorris8594]

Ironically they would have had zero naval forces in this senerio

[@impguardwarhamer]

I feel like this really downplays the tactical use of nuclear weapons

[@VarietyGamerChannel]

Not really, there weren't enough such weapons and not enough delivery methods to make them tactically useful. They could only be used as terror weapons against population centers, and bombing your own cities and population after they were taken by the soviet army would have been useless.

[@pussylord1095]

Early nuclear weapons were tiny and required a strategic bomber just to carry one nuke. Today we have ICBM's that can carry up to ten (the legal limit as determined by the UN) nuclear warheads each large enough to flatten a large city. Comparing nukes in the 40s and early 50s to ICBMs is like comparing a WW1 tank to a WW2 heavy tank

[@Crashed131963]

The states was just beginning to factory produce the simpler Plutonium (Fat Man bomb) in 1945 and the B29 escorted by P51could fly to east Russia from west Germany or eastern France easily. The Russian in peace time could not build one bomb until 1949. In war condition they would have taken longer,by then Russia would look like a giant Hiroshima. While Russians troops never get resupplied in the Cities they occupied and run out of food and shells. The States would have build the even longer 10,000 mile range B-36 before the Russian had the bomb , then Moscow could be hit from even France.

[@commentingcauseican.5187]

Soviets:Ok, Let's place about 100,000 or more troops in Romania cause fuck it (1946 with the troops still in Romania) Romania: I WANT DEMOCRACY Soviets:But we still have lots of troops in your la.. Romania: FUCK LOGIC (Flips sides) Finland: Man, How am I a soviet country and can't gain independence even though the guy that made this had no logic Soviets:Idfk, Cancer? Everyone: No, Autism.

[@commentingcauseican.5187]

Good for you

[@kevinhughes720]

Very good, well done.

[@markfung5654]

Excellent 👌

[@whiterutheniaball1213]

NO NOT MINSK

[@freedommapping5770]

Sry but MINSK TARGET

[@Weisior]

Yeah like a single b29 could fly undetected through half of fucking central europe xD

[@theoneinthebackground4209]

ZLY WEISIOR It's not the fact of is it detected, more like can any thing hit it. Soviets didn't really have many high altitude fighters or artillery.

[@tonkool4736]

@ Tanner Bakker: are you sure?? The American B29 Superfortress had a serviceceiling of 9700 m. The Russian Yak 9D could reach 9100 m, the older Yak 7 9500 m. But the Lavochkin La7's flew well over 10.000 m: 10.450 m and the later La-9 10.800 m. Best of all was the improved MiG-1, the MiG-3, who could reach 12.000 m! Truely, Soviet fighters performed best at lower and medium altitudes, but look at the MiG-3: it would have been able to get to the B29's. And as early as Spring 1946 their first jets flew: the MiG-9, which could reach 13.500 m. It was armed with one 37 mm and one 23 mm gun, that could easily have blown a B29 out of the skies.

[@SAUBER_KH7]

@ton kool Are you sure?? The Mig-9 had three guns not two. It had two 23mms and one 37mm. imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/6/3/2/0792236.jpg?v=v40 Top gun is 37mm, bottom ones are 23mm.

[@ComradeDragon1957]

You know who wins here people? The people who don't start it to begin with.

[@dickchampion5860]

Really? The Soviets still lost even though they didn't start it.

[@maggotman9100]

+TheCommunistDragon51 aka "I know the soviet a will loose but this makes us look better"

[@ComradeDragon1957]

MaggotMan Yeah of course the Soviets would loose,America is a horrible place to invade. Excluding nukes the Soviets would have to travel all the way across an ocean to invade a country that is pretty large and has a diverse geography.If they attack from the west,which would be much better for them to do anyways,they would have to fight along the west coast,which is desert in some areas and a rainforest in another(Washington State has one) Then after that they got to go across the rockies.Good fucking luck with that. Lets go along the East coast.Much worse as the north will be cold as fuck in the winter and the south will be hot as fuck in the summer.So you're screwed.Not to mention another mountain range is in the way,albeit much smaller. The Soviets wouldn't be able to do anything without a navy anyways. European war would probably be as this video described,as the Soviets lost so much life in the first years of the war.Their industrial centers,such has Stalingrad,were entirely destroyed. Of course the Soviets wouldn't win. But if this happened no one would really win.The destruction would be enough even without the nukes.Europe would be destroyed twice over once again,destroying the population even more.The US would never be able to occupy Russia.At the very least the Eastern bloc countries would be removed from Soviet control.

[@maggotman9100]

the only war were nobody wins is nuclear war. the US and Britain and any country that would remain in tact in Europe would force Russia to surrender. They would get payed huge reparations from Russia. the costs of the war may outweigh the benefits but there would definitely be a victor, one who triumphs over the other.

[@ComradeDragon1957]

MaggotMan Europe would be utterly raveraged though.Not to mention we have no idea what Japan would do as well.The US would have to fight Russia and Japan. A world war set on the stage of the previous world war?It wouldn't be a pretty sight.Europe would have twice as much trouble than it did before. We also have to see the people's response.We know England did not want to go to war again,they kicked out Churchil for that reason(And also why Operation Unthinkable didn't even happen in the first place.) I don't know. We either have the russians loose horribly or there being a ceasefire or armistice.I do doubt the USSR would ever be able to deal with the US,maybe Britain,and even that is unlikelry

[@ronrowan4828]

Very interesting!

[@tech_drama]

I literally watch this video every few months. It's the best scenario I've seen regarding this topic. I hope you'll make more scenarios of operation unthinkable.

[@Alex365x]

Same, all other videos are basically “Soviets conquer Europe in less than a day”

[@rolandramos6926]

these videos are fun to watch, no clue why the low budget editing is funny and at times pretty professional not the best realism but it's always good to not just go off of numbers, and to have variability

[@jameskiely8703]

Same

[@NightHunter571]

Also you don't have to level a city to destroy it especially with a nuke. Like all cities Moscow radiates out from its cbd the centre of business and government, it also has clearly defined industrial sections. All the allies needed to do was drop a bomb on the cbd wiping out the government and economic centre of the country leaving a large and important section of the city uninhabitable while also cutting off many of the political, industrial, economic and political military leaders of the nation. The chaos this would cause would cripple the nation as it would be without much of its leadership but also without any of its records which are needed for the continued running of the country and the war.

[@jackuzi8252]

The Allies had no planes with the range to reach anywhere near Moscow. That's why in the video they nuke...Smolensk.

[@NightHunter571]

Gra Inc my point was that the allies had a clear air superiority over the Russians at this time which would have enabled them to devastate any ground forces or bases, this would mean the Russians would have a very difficult time making all those early advances. Meanwhile all the allies would need to do is advance far enough to get hold of an airfield close enough to Moscow to drop the bomb. It's not unrealistic for this to happen although it would certainly not be easy or cheap.

[@jackuzi8252]

The Russian advances described in this video are pure fantasy, for the reason you state. However, the Russians could hold onto the territory they already had by placing their units in the German/Polish towns and daring the Allies to come take them out. Basically challenge the Allies to a repeat of Stalingrad dozens of times large and small, with foreign civilians as human shields. Used on the defense this way, Russian numerical superiority would be very hard to penetrate. They'd then use these urban cores as launchpads for nighttime raids on surrounding areas. As for the nukes: I'd transport large numbers of German civilians east and set up concentration camps adjacent to high-value targets, ensuring that any nuclear strike would kill thousands of westerners.

[@restyquilang149]

we must be content on what we have now an be happy.. not 2 wish a world war agian war i not so very good for us, just be thank to lord jesus christ that he gives u a everyday life n lived in peace..

[@HaydenLau.]

But the industrial centers of Russia were not in Moscow, they were behind Moscow in the Urals. Nuking Moscow would not affect war production significantly

[@brucenewengland]

Very interesting zvallid , you've introduced many things that I did not know. I'm glad that this never happened, and glad that there was never a hot war between us - and I hope there never will be. We could accomplish so much together...

[@brits9050]

I dare you to make part II

[@joelmartinez6051]

15:40 it sends chills every time

[@Mickey-im3bg]

I'm not sure if you guys are familiar with the small fact, whoever entered mother Russia never left.

[@vaughnc5417]

NIGHTFOX but they didn't enter Russia...

[@alfreddupont1214]

I'm pretty sure the Tatars burned Moscow several times...

[@Mickey-im3bg]

Alfred Dupont burnt it because they couldn't hold it.

[@joekabira3986]

NIGHTFOX they actually thought the land wasn't good for them. They wanted pasture lands for their horses.

[@Mickey-im3bg]

Challenger 2 ATDU One of the biggest exporters of wheat on the planets land wasn't good enough for horses? LOL

[@user-es1sj8kn9g]

Awesome work and nice ending xD

[@user-xh8cq1pd3q]

НЕ СТАААААААШ!!!!!!!

[@ussre377]

Italy I switch side Luke mapper Romania: hold my side

[@UrbanSpaceman100]

you had me interested till the apparently disordered retreat after the Auvergne battle

[@mtrboater1]

Who "wroted" this english?????????

[@intensifiedfailure5681]

As someone currently studying Russian and Spanish I wouldn't exactly make fun of a mistake through a second language, hell if their primary language has a completely different sentence structure and just used google translate then that would example the grammatical errors too.

[@bospqr]

not making fun, obviously the guy's first language isn't english...the "who wroted english" comment was funny though...

[@Naplamguy2015]

I'm pretty sure this guy is German so

[@michahunicz1741]

Napalmguy 2015 Italian

[@seapeoplesdidnothingwrong1307]

He's African American

[@Majaungasaur]

The entire premise of predicting an alternate timeline with accuracy down to specific dates it utterly ridiculous.

[@JK-dn4pu]

“Damn didn’t America nuke Japan......” , I started to say as a mushroom cloud formed on my screen🤷🏽‍♂️😂

[@hellowelcometochillis2781]

Didn't an armistice happen?

[@seankauder9721]

We only built two.

[@SeattlePioneer]

Exciting!

[@mikhailv67tv]

I don't think that enough attention is paid to Allied Air power

[@zvallid]

air power in 1945 was not so important

[@Unbekannter2024]

zvallid please do scenario if Soviets rapidly attack NATO in 1985 year(or1986) It's would be great.

[@ramsesiiinbox]

This scenario is already done - Red Alert II :-)

[@Unbekannter2024]

Roman Petrov in reality, with M1A1 apaches, leopards, F-15, Mig-29, Mig-23,25, T-72/64/80, and other stuffs like in book written by Clancy- "Red storm rising"

[@MrProsat]

HAHAHA. Air power completely immobilized armored reinforements on the Western front from D-Day and on. Plus, you CANNOT supply armies without railroads. Logistical fact that when you move beyond the railhead more than 100 miles, that's it. The US were pretty good at bombing the most dense railroad section of Europe. The Soviets wouldn't have even gotten to France.

[@lukavidovic4033]

99% of comments about finland and being a grammar nazi 1% about the actual video

[@restoretheempire3866]

Jesus 1999 so true

[@michahunicz1741]

Jesus 1999 Haha that's true

[@john_smith_john]

thats because the actual video is garbage

[@michahunicz1741]

***** You are garbage

[@michahunicz1741]

Titan Predator No, you

[@giroshi8902]

5:35 Usa didnt have 48489 atomic bombs after second world war, They only started developing them

[@carolusaugustus1896]

I love the dyslexic subtitles on this channel 😆

[@kcrsradio]

This is a very interesting scenario yet one that would have been extremely unlikely in my opinion. The Russians had incredible logistical issues with which to deal that certainly would not have resulted in such a swift advance across Europe. From launch of Bagration to the capture of Berlin was 22 months so I don't see how they could have swept through the entire continent in only a few months. The Allies definitely would have massed tremendous resources against them and Truman unquestionably would have used nukes and this combination likely would have ended things very quickly. Overall, good job on this!

[@Achill101]

Best critique so far, with replies checked from the top. We know the Russian advance in Eastern Europe, and they relied on massive broad attacks that went deep into enemy territory, but had to stop at some point due to the Russian lagging supplies. After Bagration, Russia had won the war in the East, but still needed to stop twice to load up until conquering Berlin. The Allied airforce would have pounded the Russian railroads during all times and the Americans would have shipped massive resources to Europe to defend their harbors in Antwerp and Normandy.

[@bradcampbell7253]

Nick Landry there would be nothing like catching an Armored Division stuck on roads out in the open when the 8th Air Force comes calling talk about carpet bombing

[@thisnicklldo]

Yes. Between the middle of 1943 and the end of 1944 Russia advanced from Kursk to Warsaw, about 1000km. OK, it's a long complicated front, and you can get other distances if you really want to start and end somewhere else, but this seems to me to be a reasonable summary. I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge the immense military effort of the Russians in defeating Germany, but it's 850km from Berlin to Paris. In 43/44 Russia was fighting against a relatively small country, engaged in a war on multiple fronts, starved of supplies. The video makes much of the 2:1 advantage in tank numbers that the Russians would have had over the Allies - but over the 43/44 period the Russians had about a 3:1 ratio advantage in tank numbers over the Germans, but still could 'only' advance 1000km in 18 months (actually, 1000km in 18 months was a huge achievement, but not as big as 850km in 6 months that the video suggests). It is just not credible that the Russian army could advance anything like as rapidly as this video suggests. And I agree with other posters that the video underestimates the air superiority that the Allies would have had, from much earlier in the war than the video suggests. Nukes? Hard to say really - it's true that there were limits on US plutonium production, but they would have had a 3rd bomb in much less than the 6-9 months that the video suggests - but the video makes an interesting point that dropping a few of these relatively low yield weapons may not, by themselves, have forced instant Russian surrender. Still, Enola Gay flew 2400km to bomb Japan, which is about the distance from the British bomber bases in East Anglia to Moscow. I doubt Truman would have squandered his bombs on Minsk and Smolensk, when Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad were all available.

[@georgestauber5425]

The Russians had no logistics train at all. The allies could've taken the USSR at will. It simply wouldn't have been a fight at all.

[@kcrsradio]

@@thisnicklldo Yes, Allied air power alone would have made all the difference.

[@brandons4240]

Nuke Moscow? What are the Soviets going to respond with in 1945 they didn't have nukes til 1950's.

[@aguy3664]

Brandon S dont you read it said it would have to use 10 nukes to nuke moscow

[@MrJoshua1875]

regardless, hadthis happened in 45, the soviets would not have stood a chance due to the big bomb! which only the allies had, and it would not take 1o nukes to destroy the infrastructure and centre of moscow,

[@smithgary7236]

Brandon S yes exactly right

[@MrJoshua1875]

1 8tangles Im well versed on ww2, and I am not saying without the atom bomb, the allies would win automatically, though I do think they would edge it, however the fact soviets had no atom bomb confirms they would have lost, vast land areas are one thing, but troop regiments must be stationed together, and they would be obliterated, just my opinion

[@derekpierce2280]

Damn it what about tactical firebombings that the US used on almost every single major German and Japanese city? Each firebomb attack killed more than the nukes anyway. They work particularly well in large windy cities.

[@Chirchy]

Technically this would still be part of WWII since Japan was in the war until August