What if the US stayed neutral in World War 2?

[@Binkov]

Play Call of War for FREE on PC or Mobile: 💥 callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/e7c55a74 Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!

[@shrekisthebestanime3644]

Tesco vs Morrisons

[@ikanbilek4651]

Indonesia vs malaysia,philipphines and brunei 2021!!!

[@JesusKnowsAllComeToHim]

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

[@rigelmyrjpeollo4760]

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

[@SlashinatorZ]

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

[@derlasercrafterwally4342]

Saving Private Ryan would be a doctor movie because he would have a car accident and has to be saved

[@jawarakf]

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

[@hugolorente7705]

Lol

[@selfaccountable3464]

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

[@boejiden7093]

It would become Saving Ryan’s Privates

[@MK0272]

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

[@BritishEmpireForHisMajesty]

Japan invading New Zealand? Ha. The New Zealand Army consisting of 4 guys and a Bob Semple tank would resist any assault.

[@Captain_Yorkie1]

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

[@Taiyama2]

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

[@btw6301]

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

[@bremnersghost948]

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

[@finnmurphy9995]

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

[@hawawah8671]

"The US cuts off trade with everyone" "We liked the Great Depression so much we came back for seconds"

[@mickeyg7219]

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

[@rob5944]

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

[@darken2417]

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

[@Theanimeisforme]

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

[@Mike-fx1eu]

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

[@T0ghar]

It all depends on the definition of "neutrality". If that also means no lend-lease and no maritime delivery of materials for wartime production, both Britain and the USSR would have a big problem. Especially because we know nowadays how bad the supply situation was in GB and the USSR at some points in the war. I personally think there would be an impact on the soviet tank and aircraft production. Key materials were hard to come by without the US. Rubber was a big issue.

[@scratchy996]

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

[@nickolayyegorov4755]

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

[@stigandersen3783]

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

[@grumblesa10]

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

[@AnImperialGod]

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

[@Koolaidheart11]

New Zealand would never fall, they had the bob simple tank. The best tank of the 20th and 21st century. We’re still decoding the alien hardware that was put into it.

[@sp6450]

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

[@toofbar3]

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

[@dogeknight6000]

You mean the burger buns used to keep it together

[@dogeknight6000]

@Pro Tengu do you want a rainbow cookie

[@Koolaidheart11]

@Pro Tengu means a lot thank you

[@Tankerpaul223]

Anybody who has ever played the game "Risk" knows that the Australians are just waiting for us all to be distracted fighting each other. This is when they will start their move.

[@benchoucroun5815]

Australian Turtle Strategy

[@joeynino6577]

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

[@austrakaiser4793]

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

[@allangibson2408]

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

[@rajeshkanungo6627]

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

[@pumkintheboi7545]

European theater: literally has countries on the brink of collapse Japan in asia: *its free real estate*

[@rudrakshpainuly1294]

India: I don't think so

[@darthvader5558]

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

[@nomercynodragonforyou9688]

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

[@brucetucker4847]

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

[@xela6349]

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

[@xisotopex]

this doesnt really take into account how degraded the USSR response to Germany would be, given no lend lease. it assumes the USSR would still be able to produce the same amount of tanks... for example they wouldnt produce the same amount of tanks, those resources would have to go into logistics transport ie trains trucks airplanes etc. not to mention Germany would be able to devote much more of its strength to the Eastern front, not having to fight in the west as well.

[@axdde6428]

lend lease wouldnt change the outcome only make the war longer

[@UnknownKnower2]

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

[@xisotopex]

@@UnknownKnower2 the western allies would have been fuked if the germans had 50% of their strength deployed in the west...

[@peterbaker8443]

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

[@grumblesa10]

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

[@flipdart]

One thing I read that stuck with me was how difficult it would have been for the Nazi's to exploit the Caucasus oil fields even if they captured them. No existing pipe-lines and direct rail lines would mean investing in a vast infrastructure project just shipping the oil back to Germany as well as needing to build new oil refineries for it. It would have taken years, at least.

[@gimmethegepgun]

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

[@brianlong2334]

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

[@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022]

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

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

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

[@VascoDaGamaOtRupcha]

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

[@davidglover5894]

Could you do a continuation of the US joining Germany in WWI? That one was really interesting

[@Dallas_strong82]

Yessss

[@kaox44]

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

[@kaox44]

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

[@PhillyPhanVinny]

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

[@davidglover5894]

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

[@paulsteaven]

What if US stayed neutral during WWII? Japan: "It's free real estate."

[@rudrakshpainuly1294]

India: I don't think so

[@darthvader5558]

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

[@bluemarlin8138]

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

[@roycorlett5778]

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

[@keitht24]

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

[@markbrisec3972]

Although it's very entertaining to watch these kind of alternate history what if scenarios, they entail such a huge number of variables mixed with a healthy dose of chaos theory inputs, that it's practically impossible to recreate the potential string of events that would constitute a coherent history events. This particular alternate history presented by Binkov is as possible as thousands of others any one of us could think of and create in our heads. Just imagine that the nuclear weapon wasn't discovered by the US and the impact that single event, (or better to say the lack of event) would have on a history of the 20th century.

[@huguesjouffrai9618]

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

[@lookoutforchris]

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

[@markwalker2627]

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

[@rc59191]

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

[@Voucher765]

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

[@Daniel_Lancelin]

Alternate title: What if the Sleeping Giant hit the "snooze" button?

[@LotsOfBologna2]

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

[@Leadblast]

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

[@matthewdouglas8368]

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

[@LotsOfBologna2]

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

[@Arnold-is9xw]

@@matthewdouglas8368 Whatever u say general sheep🤡

[@Viguier89]

I guess Vichy and Free France role would had been different in that scenario.

[@SlashinatorZ]

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

[@krisp1871]

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

[@thekraken1173]

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

[@augustindavid8649]

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

[@tictac2therevenge291]

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

[@earlwyss520]

I'd suggest that without US Lend Lease, the British wouldn't send anything to the Soviet Union choosing instead to keep their military hardware for their own defenses.

[@strongbrew9116]

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

[@earlwyss520]

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

[@strongbrew9116]

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

[@earlwyss520]

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

[@strongbrew9116]

@@earlwyss520 It's not lend lease.

[@pinksheep406]

The war would have been dragged on for another 2-3 years with a possible peace treaty if this scenario played out. Also like half of Britain would have just straight up starved and japan would have conquered the pacific with little opposition.

[@claytonberg721]

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

[@inurmomsbedroom123]

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

[@cityman2312]

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

[@maynardburger]

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

[@airraverstaz]

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

[@ericlanglois9194]

Throughout this video only one question kept popping into my head... "Where is the Axis getting all the oil in this scenario since they were running desperately out of it by end of 1941?"

[@ericlanglois9194]

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

[@teslaman9065]

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

[@ericlanglois9194]

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

[@teslaman9065]

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

[@teslaman9065]

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

[@chancelorhiggins-gloor6999]

I feel the impact of food through US lend-lease to the USSR is a bit downplayed here especially in 1942 but that was my only gripe. Good alternate history video.

[@concernedliberal4453]

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

[@thedreamscripter4002]

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

[@pax6833]

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

[@thedreamscripter4002]

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

[@mikejunebobby3291]

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

[@nickthepersonidk6161]

What if dinosaurs were still alive and aided the axis powers in WW2? 😂

[@Captain_Yorkie1]

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

[@nickthepersonidk6161]

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

[@juantamayo5295]

this dude Lol

[@rocket_sensha4337]

Dino d day.

[@nickthepersonidk6161]

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

[@benjaminrush4443]

Like some of these Alternate Analysis. Makes history more interesting. Thanks.

[@DylanoRevs]

Imperial Japan, be like: "It's the best day ever!"

[@conroypaw]

14:47 - El Alamein may not have gone in favor of the British, without US supplies and equipment. Remember, the M4 Sherman tank was a very formidable tank compared to German and Italian armor in that theater. If Rommel's Afrika Korps had won, the Germany may have gained access to Middle Eastern oil, and that would be a huge game changer.

[@strongbrew9116]

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

[@pax6833]

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

[@daileygaming9488]

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

[@brucetucker4847]

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

[@Halbared]

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

[@hi13760]

That would a good video of a super Japan vs US after the outcome of this video. Say early 1950's

[@earlwyss520]

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

[@patriot5514]

Imagine a nuclear powered japan vs non-nuclear america

[@TheThundertaker]

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

[@earlwyss520]

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

[@____Carnage____]

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

[@andreabindolini7452]

...and this is the timeline created by Leonard McCoy when he went back in time, preventing the premature death of the peace activist Edith Keeler. For Star Trek: The Original Series hardcore fans.

[@ZephyrusMapping]

Something not taken into account here is how Japan was utterly reliant on the US for oil in our timeline, while in this timeline such trade would've been cut off 2 years earlier. This would lead to a Japanese fuel shortage as early as 1939, which would cripple their war effort in China, leaving them vulnerable to Chinese counterattacks (counterattacks that actually happened in our timeline in the winter of 1939-1940). This could be alleviated by a Japanese attack on southeast Asia two years earlier, but at this time the phoney war was still ongoing, Indochina was still under French control, and the Dutch mainland had not been invaded. This would lead to the Japanese having a harder time there than in our timeline. Overall this video overestimates Japanese capabilities and underestimates the impact of the US embargo on Japan.

[@michaelimbesi2314]

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

[@ZephyrusMapping]

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

[@canadianmmaguy7511]

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

[@user-pn3im5sm7k]

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

[@ZephyrusMapping]

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

[@GuardrailBandit]

Interesting alternate take on the outcomes of WW2 honestly. Seeing how changing small events can snowball into something bigger.

[@lolmao500]

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

[@donotgodothebreathe6384]

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

[@llamazing4326]

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

[@donotgodothebreathe6384]

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

[@GuardrailBandit]

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

[@sebping7205]

Honestly, this is one of the most interesting scenarios of an alternate World War Two that I have ever heard of :D

[@theotherguy__]

US: Doesn't get involved in ww2. Australia, New Zealand and Canada: "Fine, we'll do it ourselves."

[@doogin9965]

A real military KZbinr would advertise the chad Hearts of Iron IV and not the simp Call of War

[@missk1697]

+1

[@kalebk9595]

You don't understand sponsorships at all do you?

[@skyninjaslayer337]

@@kalebk9595 😂😂

[@strongbrew9116]

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

[@waffleyumboyr5342]

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

[@MayDayMei98]

Japan would never invade New Zealand. To this day, they fear the Bob Semple tank and are constantly looking over their collective shoulders to make sure New Zealand isn't invading Japan.

[@Chocolatnave123]

hey friend, where is your pfp from?

[@jshaw3793]

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

[@snapdragon9300]

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

[@dennisfoster5910]

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

[@starmnsixty1209]

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

[@danielvelasco4003]

last time I was this early Hitler was still just a painter

[@mpalfadel2008]

Well done and researched binkov 👍

[@Gondolin232]

I would have to assume that in this timeline with the German Army really only having to focus on Garrison Duty in occupied counties and then the Eastern Front (2 if you count North Africa) as well as no D-Day landings ( Unless the Allies still attempted it and it fell flat in it's face at a massive cost to the Allied war effort) then the German Military Industry as well as Economy back home would fare slightly better and be able to last longer. With the relaxed pressure on both areas you would have to factor in the German Jet Propulsion and Nuclear programs, both of which were way to late in the war in our time line but might make a massive difference in this alternative reality.

[@johnburns9634]

Interesting concept. And with no proposed DDay landings to prepare for, does that mean Diepppe doesn't happen. Since the Allies, without the US, don't land in France, do they still land in Sicily? Do they even make it to Italy? Would this happen at all: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJypYpKtjZKDZ9U

[@gordonspicer]

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

[@rodan2852]

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

[@kevinking8222]

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

[@bemolp7498]

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

[@dardanianmapper9906]

Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria: Just pretend we're not here

[@matyaspiller3942]

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

[@steveweidig5373]

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

[@guyperson4748]

Kosovo is not and never will be a country.

[@HoshikawaHikari]

The ship silhouettes used in this video aren't random (unlike some other channels, not gonna reveal them), they are the nation's ships. Love the detail~ Edit: Other vehicles I'm not sure but I can assume the same, I'm more interested in ships~

[@davidmouser596]

The US bomber raids alone halved German production so have you included the doubling of Panzers, Flak, Uboats, & aircraft?

[@tapeesa2866]

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

[@davidmouser596]

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

[@nobleman9393]

Suggestion: What if France and Britain invaded Germany in 1939?

[@mehmetemirkaraaslan4339]

Ends?

[@aviationwithebin2121]

Yes

[@cengizsogutlu]

Weaken and surrounded magniot line will make Sedan second Dunkirk

[@davilimalol4612]

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

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

Germany loses

[@OtherM112594]

Why wouldn’t the Japanese Soviet nonaggression pact happen in this timeline? Are you implying that the attle of Khalkin Gol wouldn’t happen? US neutrality doesn’t mean that what happened in the Asian theater prior to Operation Barbarossa just ceases to exist.

[@lordkfc1297]

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

[@OtherM112594]

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

[@lordkfc1297]

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

[@OtherM112594]

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

[@lordkfc1297]

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

[@nobleman9393]

Suggestion: What if Italy switched sides in 1941

[@WildBillCox13]

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

[@DuffyTVv]

RIP Italy

[@KingcupXI]

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

[@Bhoope]

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

[@KingcupXI]

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

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

11:07 Lend lease provided the Soviets with 1/3rd of their explosive materials (including rifle propellant) 1/3rd which would result in 1/3rd less amuntion (with artillery disproportunatley affected). This is why Context of what lend lease was, rather than simplifying to basic figures is important. The video mentions only 6-20% muntions and equipment were imported which makes it look insignificant, but when you realise that 33% of muntions required lend lease to exist and it looks completely different. The Soviets were perfeaclty apple of producing guns and tanks, but not their ammo in sufficient numbers.

[@floycewhite6991]

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

[@Mattebubben]

I think the lack of lend-lease would have a much greater effect on the 1941-1942 North African campaign. The British relied heavily on US made tanks (Stuart,Lee/Grant+Sherman) And aircraft (P-40) During the north African campaign. The lack of these would not necessarily effect the British numbers significantly (since Tanks and aircraft that were sent to the USSR irl could have been sent to north Africa instead) But it would effect the quality/performance of the forces in north Africa (As the Hurricanes, Crusaders and Valentines etc they would have had to rely more heavily on instead had worse performance then the American made vehicles that replaced or supplemented them). But perhaps even more importantly in 1942 the US navy assisted the British navy in bringing supplies and aircraft to Malta etc. (With much of those Supplies themselves being part of Lend lease like Aviation Fuel for example) So all of this + the fact that the British would have fewer ships in the med (Due to having more of their own ships on Convoy protection Duty or Guarding against the Japanese) Could have a significant impact on the situation in North Africa. (For example it could have influenced the Siege Malta and if Malta had fallen in 1942 that would have made it that much easier for the Axis to bring supplies to their forces in North Africa while also making it far harder for the British to do the same without sailing around Africa)

[@bogdanm436]

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

[@alexkudzin4980]

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

[@strongbrew9116]

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

[@Mattebubben]

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

[@Mattebubben]

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

[@SJ-wh3id]

Japan scrapped their plan to invade USSR in 1930s after their defeat in Mongolia so Russo-Japanese situation really wouldnt have changed

[@Theanimeisforme]

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

[@Jomare-j3b]

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

[@Zen-sx5io]

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

[@MorokLeviathan]

@@Jomare-j3b I very much doubt that, the reason why the US was attacked by Japan was because Japan was failing in China and I doubt that the rebellions in India would have occurred or even make a huge difference.

[@brianlong2334]

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

[@Stormy_Boi]

*Switzerland and lichenstien sitting back and sipping on some lemonade while their neighbors duke it out*

[@millennialwatchman6703]

I would have to definitely disagree with 14:59. Without US involvement there would almost definitely have been no El Alemein. Not only would the economic hardships have definitely effected the army in North Africa but the Australian and New Zealand forces would have all gone home to defend their own homelands from the Japanese. This didn't happen in the real timeline because US troops were pouring into these countries. In fact I reckon even Winston Churchill would have considered Australia and New Zealand more important than Egypt and probably would have sent British troops there

[@sercravenmohead3631]

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

[@dizzyonaball4623]

Couple of points. Binkov's scenario doesn't take into account the effect of the RAF having no fighters using 100 RON fuel from the USA. This has huge impact on not only Spits + Hurricanes aerial battles with Bf 109s on 87 RON, but even if they could get up to decent enough altitude in time to engage with advantage. Maybe the BoB isn't lost so quickly that a 1940 invasion can take place (Dowding system should preclude that) but the threat for 1941 could be real enough to restrict the Desert Air Force etc to a few squadrons of Blenheims, Gloucesters and other 2nd raters. OTOH, Binkov is way too generous in describing the USA "giving" 50 WWI era destroyers to the UK. The bases-for-destroyers deal was a one-sided bit of fleecing (prime Atlantic and Caribbean real estate for decrepit hulks that took many months to make seaworthy) that even Chief Justice John Marshall would have had trouble justifying.

[@ricknieland368]

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

[@maynardburger]

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

[@stevenundisclosed6091]

What if Chuck Norris joined the German war effort in 1939?

[@lucabedancinggamermomenets9134]

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

[@stevedavenport1202]

Nah, the Nazis didn't like bearded men

[@enriqueouro9]

March 1945 more interesting

[@davidhughes7547]

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

[@btw6301]

Ever watch Iron Sky??

[@mrle0719]

the most enlightning part is the effect on USA peace would have had

[@MrCmon113]

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

[@michaelstodovski2219]

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

[@geesixnine]

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

[@waffleyumboyr5342]

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

[@nutman2353]

@@waffleyumboyr5342 What

[@Agnus_Mason]

Did I miss something or did you completely forget the bombing campaign and the massive impact daybombing (by the us) had on the german production?

[@Geckogold]

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

[@kelvinw.1384]

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

[@davilimalol4612]

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

[@martinjeffery3590]

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

[@floridaman4073]

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

[@zachboyd4749]

The Battle of El Alamein had quite a few US lend lease British tanks, including Stuarts, Lees, and the first combat appearance of the Shermans. I don’t know how well the Brits would fair there without their US made tanks and other vehicles.

[@danielmocsny5066]

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

[@googane7755]

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

[@benbim540]

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

[@ChrisCrossClash]

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

[@gumdeo]

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

[@derricktaylor470]

I love these videos... “Wrecking Hay-Vok“ is hilarious! Binkov pronounced "Wrecking Have-Vick" definitely subscribed! Great Channel

[@c7zr179]

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

[@CrabSpirits]

It's hard to believe that the Japanese empire could be more prolific than it's zenith in the real timeline, just based on the number of troops it could muster. I could see them taking the place of the USSR in the Cold War in this scenario though. They would be a very different society, now emboldened.

[@chickenmadness1732]

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

[@Fred_the_1996]

Well do i have the video game for you

[@maynardburger]

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

[@LordDrazile]

Greatly interesting and thoughtful video, Binkov! Loved it! However, assuming your hypothesis of 6:22 and 7:43 it seems to contradict each other. Furthermore, success of Japanese army/navy in 1902 Russo-Japanese war amply demonstrated ability of Japan small army to take on Russian Bear in Far East. Effectively, making Russia fight a 2-front war just like Germany. Don't you think so? What's the economic/strategic value of New Zealand and Indonesia over resource rich Far East Russia?

[@Rangerage]

The issue with your points on the Russian aid is that the lend lease was that the lend lease equipment arrived just in time to support the USSR forces as most of their frontline equipment was destroyed in barabrossa. Sure, this wasn't a huge amount of equipment early on, but even that small amount was crucial to replace the early losses of equipment.

[@Bizanio]

Thank you! Everyone seems to forget this!

[@kylesmith1601]

And the food! Soviet troops fought on American food at times because the Germans took the Ukraine which was the Soviet bread basket.

[@MrHel-hf3nk]

@@thebrigadier1496 And where did *that* equipment come from? As well as the material support to build that equipment? That's right: The US

[@Sealdrop]

annexes liechtenstein

[@Snowwie88]

Interesting to see that the map you are using is showing both past situations as present ones. For example, in Europe, you can see that The Netherlands did not had it's polders yet, but in central Russia we see a present day Aral Sea, which by that time was still a full sized sea. :-)

[@dzschultz]

Great video. However, I have a question to the fact that in this alternative timeline Japan did not attack US territories but still managed to conquer Indonesia and its oil fields. From what I have learned, in the real timeline, Japan had two options after the US embargo on Japan in 1941. Japan could choose to withdraw its conquered territories, because the lack of oil would make a Japanese war effort useless. Or, Japan could conquer Indonesian oil fields, however this would inevitably violate US territories, and thereby provoke USA to join the war on Japan. Was it possible for Japan to invade Indonesia without violating US territories? And if so, why didn't the Japanese just do that in the real timeline?

[@mariuskarevik882]

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

[@Geckogold]

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

[@leesickler3249]

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

[@Cacowninja]

Switzerland would say to itself: It's about time they wised up like us!

[@casbot71]

With Japan having free reign in South East Asia, Australia might *withdraw all forces from the Middle East* in order to protect the Homeland… And that would effect the British Middle East campaign - the majority of the Australian professional army were sent to _"support the Empire"_ while the second tier were left to stop the Japanese in PNG. [it's a interesting story, with a lot of the Australian soldiers being raw and by necessity innovative. They came up with a bunch of original tactics due to not following traditional by the book strategy. And it's why even in Vietnam Australia was more experienced in jungle warfare… they wrote a new rule book by scratch]. But anyway, without the US reinforcing Australia the political will to send Australians to the Middle East would not be there (The Australian govt was ordered to do their duty for King and Country… ra ra). And as well, without Amercian equipment the Australian defence industry would swing into full gear (there were some good gear that wasn't put into full production because it was just easier to ship in US arms). Japan would likely try and take Darwin, and may even succeed in landings, but a full scale invasion of the _continent_ would be geographically difficult. Just crossing the vast territories without any local supplies would be difficult. And they would have to expend a lot of forces in just holding the territory in SE Asia, particularly Indonesia. So Australia would itself become isolationist *Fortress Australia.* And without Australia in the Middle East, the Germans would have a easier time of it and may just tip the scales on some of the pivotal battles. As for New Zealand, keeping hold of it would be very hard for the Japanese, especially if the Maoris and Whites combined [none of the axis Powers were clever enough to exploit local ethnic tensions to recruit from marginalised oppressed peoples … such as the Nazis with non Russian Soviets that hated Stalin, but ended up hating the SS more]. New Zealand is made for asymmetric and guerrilla warfare, the Japanese would lose _a lot_ of troops, particularly if as I pointed out, the indigenous Maoris had full access to military weapons … a warrior culture in their Homeland, which is dense Woodlands. They held their own against early British invaders, even with the technological disadvantages - level that and it's… … …

[@VictorIvanov-u3k]

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

[@nickc3267]

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

[@boblaryson3621]

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

[@manhbuiuc7699]

As Vietnamese, is not true.

[@paulstone5917]

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

[@Nate34]

This one actually makes sense

[@oj3458]

Thats exactly what i was gonna say 😂

[@bootywarrior69420]

if only it actually happened that way

[@handhand212]

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

[@oj3458]

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

[@handhand212]

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

[@Rofl890]

Finally an actually well thought-out version of this, as opposed to hur-duuur USSR would conquer the world with one hand

[@jimkeating5166]

I think you missed an important aspect of how us bombing disabled v2 rocket facilities. After all the us and Soviet Union took all the German scientists involved in this program so surely in this alternate storyline production and effectiveness of the v2 rocket program would have only gotten better dealing a more significant blow to Britain and maybe even the Soviet Union

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

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

[@MrHel-hf3nk]

@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 Yes and no

[@wraith5085]

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

[@petersteenkamp]

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

[@sovieticodiabetico6874]

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

[@silarpac]

"almost two-thirds of u-boats were destroyed by the US"? I have never heard that before, certainly never in a British history of the Battle of the Atlantic.

[@somewhere6]

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

[@silarpac]

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

[@Mishn0]

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

[@somewhere6]

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

[@carwyngriffiths]

Its because its incorrect

[@dl5270]

I really think it was a nice touch to show a US soldier carrying M1 Garand and a different helmet@2:19, as they go into 1942! Good job! Detail Matter!

[@Halbared]

I think there's a possibility that without the constant daily bombing, the German war effort would not have been hampered as it was, so her plans to move to underground cities would have worked and her forays into wonder weapons, maybe an atomic bomb, would have borne fruit in '45/'46/'47.

[@andreslinares6429]

I think you got those U Boats numbers wrong, the Battle of the Atlantic was mainly a British effort ( Since a huge bulk of the US Navy was tied up in the Pacific). 519 U Boats were sunk by the Royal Navy or other Commonwealth forced and 175 were sunk by the US Navy. You had it backwards here

[@andreslinares6429]

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

[@grimtermite191]

That make more sense

[@w8stral]

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

[@dongately2817]

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

[@PhillyPhanVinny]

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

[@karlnemo8658]

Since we're talking theories, I've read that prior to the actual start of war in Europa, long before _Barbarossa,_ Stalin was planning to start WW2 in 1942 by attacking Germany. It would be interesting to run that scenario.

[@agris8859]

congratulations, you've created the basis for the next major HOI4 mod

[@tombblades]

I believe that the Empire was to big to defeat, I think they would lose land to Japan, but would maintain most of the Empire and would be able to bring the war to a stalemate.

[@tristan9648]

Three different scenarios for this 1: US stays neutral and trades with no one (this video) 2: US stays neutral but still trades with the allies 3: US stays neutral but trades with the Axis (yes I know that would almost never happen unless something crazy happened just figured I'd mention it)

[@elyisusking3603]

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

[@Joker-yw9hl]

I think it's often overlooked that 1/3 of supplies sent to the Soviets came from the British. I think the allies would have won in Europe but lost in Asia. Though it's hard to say definitively whether Japan could have prevailed against both India *and* China as well as the Europeans eventually. Interesting to speculate. The Japanese would lack the ability to get oil from the Middle East which could have interesting implications

[@mickeyg7219]

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

[@jafr99999]

Japan would have secured Oil in the Dutch East Indies.

[@w8stral]

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

[@Joker-yw9hl]

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

[@atari947]

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

[@pauljakubiak9495]

Interesting, it appears Japan would be the real winner. An undefeated germany would mean the holocaust and impact on captive populations would be much worse than it was.

[@sergeantmajor_gross]

Actually it would be less bad since the Jewish population could just freely migrate to Palestine as they did before the war broke out.

[@flaflak]

@@sergeantmajor_gross it probably wouldn't be less bad as in our current time line, it's probably Will be a lot worse as the Holocaust continued cause Nazi germany is still around

[@recordkeepingandinformatio8206]

Lots more japanese war crimes though...imagine ten more Nanjing Massacres

[@sergeantmajor_gross]

@@flaflak The holocaust would be less bad because if the war is over sooner or if Germany doesn’t appear to lose like they did in our timeline then there would be no need to keep them in labour camps or kill them since they could just move to Palestine as they did before the war.

[@flaflak]

@@sergeantmajor_gross and why would they let them go and walk free? The reason they were sent to the labour camps it's not because of they supported the allies it's Because they hate them and blame them for everything that happened

[@johnhickman8391]

Barbarossa would have kicked off in March if there had been no lend lease, etc. It happened late in June because Germany had to send forces earmarked for Barbarossa, to Greece to help the Italians. No lend-lease, would have kept the British from fighting in Greece.

[@petersteenkamp]

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

[@Battyj]

This isn't true at all, greece beat the Italians pretty much alone the first time, Britain provided air support which they definitely still would have. British forces arrived in time for the German invasion, and they still definitely would have been sent, churchill was keen to keep greece in the war and lend lease played basically no role in the Mediterranean until later on at el alemain

[@Yoshi14832]

Sci-Fi scenario Entire US Airforce vs 1 Alien City Destroyer (Independence Day 1996)

[@missk1697]

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

[@Yoshi14832]

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

[@jawarakf]

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

[@user-SanderBrock]

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

[@chellenge6447]

Instead of Over There, it's "Over Where?"

[@trinalgalaxy5943]

One interesting thing that could also happen in this scenario is that the battleship Bismarck might have made it to France. In our timeline, lend leased Catalina flying boats were used to track her and a US Coast Guard ship spotted her, radioing in her location after the british lost her. this allowed the brits to be in position to jump her when she broke radio silence, but without either of these 2 things the british would have a tough time finding her and tracking her after she successfully ditched that tail. Having one more battleship would have caused increased headaches for the british navy in the atlantic, especially without the new American 16" gunned fast battleships being ready if (IRL) Tirpitz sortied, and now they have the Bismark still...

[@trinalgalaxy5943]

@GodBAINS Yt . 6.1M views Still, without the earlier sightings it would have been even more guesswork by the British. Giving increased chance to Bismark. In our timeline, the British had the initial loss of contact, USCG contact, and flying boat contacts before the transmission, so they knew where to look. Take away one and significantly reduce the effectiveness of another and it's probable the royal navy would not be in position to keep her out from under the protection of the Luftwaffe.

[@lordkfc1297]

Interesting thought, there would also be fewer ships available to hunt her due to the Japanese intervention even if the incident with the Hood still happens

[@trinalgalaxy5943]

@@lordkfc1297 Also I just remembered that HMS Rodney was on her way to the US for a refit when she was turned arround to go after bismark (her captain correctly guessed where Bismark was headed), so So she might have been laid up in the isles and unavailable for the hunt.

[@kordellswoffer1520]

@@trinalgalaxy5943 the chances that will happen are slim and even then that’s saves the Bismarck in the short term but by the British will find it and sink that hunk of garbage.

[@MrChickennugget360]

it would be largely irreverent. however if Germany's U-Boat offensives went up wards that would not. British could have been made to starve and loose the war if it was. Removing the UK from the picture could cause the USSR to fall in the long run giving the Germans and Japanese a victory. No mention of the Japanese plan to cause India to revolt against British rule- if that happened that would hurt UK and potentially give Japan ability to link up with the Germans. While people point out that Japan and Germany did not work together its important to realize they did not have an opportunity to do that.

[@thomasaquinas2600]

In college, my history professor stated just that: did we have to enter the war? Could we not just have kept supplying England and Russia? He also said that the Japanese hegemony over the Pacific wouldn't be a problem. Of course we all disagreed. Still and all, what if we had kept out. We might have...if we knew with certainly that the Manhattan project would succeed. But that wasn't proven until July 16, 1945.

[@arnaldoenriquez6191]

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

[@lesleynicholls5677]

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

[@xanx1234]

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

[@looinrims]

What if the comment section actually relied on facts and accredited history? We will never know

[@Gabriel-sdf]

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

[@looinrims]

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

[@handhand212]

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

[@looinrims]

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

[@someblackguy7371]

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

[@shanejones6955]

Had the U.S Government made it clear to the British and French prior to the German invasion of Poland that it would not do business with either side if they declared war on Germany, the western allies would most likely have not went to war over Poland. By doing this, the time table for Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union goes as it did with the British and French in the West watching both sides exhaust each other leaving them and their empires to pick up the pieces after the war and both remaining major global powers for decades longer.

[@rumrunner8019]

For that to realistically happen the US president couldn't have been FDR. Maybe Hugh P Long wouldn't have been assassinated and he could have defeated FDR in 1936. If that was the case I could easily see him staying away as the US military slowly built up and, sometime in 1945 when both sides are in a stalemate, he would seize the moment and declare war on Canada and the UK, capturing Canada, the Caribbean and Belize with little opposition, and maybe even taking Greenland.

[@Tatusiek_1]

interesting timeline

[@_-.-_-_.._--.-_-_----_-.--_._-]

I mean, just read his book... yes, Huey Long wrote his own alternate history book about what he would do as president. That may give you some insight into such a timeline.

[@Nollic15]

That would’ve been awesome.

[@scotttild]

“They” put FDR in office because they knew he would get the U.S. involved in WW2 even though most of the country was opposed just like most were opposed to WW1 but W. Wilson forced that phony war on the U.S when we really didn’t have any real national interest in that war at the time. The globalists war mongers have been forcing these wars on people. W. Wilson also forced the creation of the Federal Reserve so he could barrow money to pay for his army, no fed, no money to buy arms most likely the U.S would not have gotten involved in WW1.

[@wacobob56dad]

I like the Star Trek episode that has the US delayed in entering WW2 giving Hitler time to get the A-Bomb first and delivering it with the V-2 rocket to conquer the world.

[@paulpeterson4216]

What is heavily underestimated here is the impact of the U-Boat war on the British Isles. Without lend lease, without the US Navy, and without the US building thousands of Liberty ships, it is quite possible that the U-boats create an effective blockade of the British Isles just by effectively destroying the British Merchant Marine. The lack of materials would impact the civilian populace, of course, but also heavily affect the British ability to produce and maintain weapons. Could the British have prevailed at El Alamein without Grant tanks, and without the supplies made possible by Lend Lease and the ability to draw on US production. Quite possibly not.

[@ZeroEagle667]

I think you overexxagerate the US effort in the war. The British navy was far stronger than the German navy on it's own and the British and commonwealth forces had virtually no American support in El Alamein.

[@SuperCatacata]

@@ZeroEagle667 I think people underestimate just how much the US was trading to the allied forces as well before they joined. Especially the Soviets. Even though they usually just get flak for being late to the party in another neighborhood.

[@keitht24]

@@ZeroEagle667 The British won at El Alamein with American supplies. The British weren't winning anywhere in the war before the Americans joined. You're delusional.

[@ZeroEagle667]

@@keitht24 No, you're delusional. The British won at El Alamein thanks to air superiority, not some American supplies. Look it up. Also the British had already won the battle of Britain and had stalemated Japan in Asia.

[@keitht24]

@@ZeroEagle667 The battle of Britain was only won because the Germans were focused on the upcoming invasion of Russia. You need to look up the battle of El Alamein. The battle was won through attrition, not tactical brilliance. That was only possible because of the American supplying the British. I don't know what you mean by stalemate with Japan. The British are completely irrelevant in the pacific. The Americans singlehandedly defeated the Japanese in the pacific war. Without American involvement, the Japanese would conquer the entire south pacific. That conquest would include Australia & New Zealand.

[@thelovertunisia]

My Masters degree supervisor, a Cambridge Doctor, told me, Britain would not have laster more than a year without the US.

[@raptordoniv6779]

I doubt the Germans had a strong enough navy to invade mainland Britain.

[@thelovertunisia]

@@raptordoniv6779 I was not talking about invasion, seaborne invasions have always been problematic, even for great naval powers. D-Day almost failed! I just meant that Churchill would have sued for peace which he would have done given he was a realist and not like the US who are too iddealistic (everything is good vs. evil etc).

[@thelovertunisia]

@@thebrigadier1496 Yes Sir. However this was in a world where PM Churchill knew he would ultimately prevail with US help. In a different world where Great Britain would be on its last leg, a realistic and shrewd politician like Churchill would make the sound decision of accepting peace especially since he also dislikes Communism even more than Fascism. Greetings from Tunisia. By the way did you know that Churchill stayed in the same villa on the beach here in Hammamet where Rommel had stayed to write his memoirs! The world is a strange place isn't it. If more people were interested in military history and human history in general, we would all focus more on what brings us together than what separates us. Even considered from an economic sense, war only very rarely makes sense compared to just trading the resources you want to have! Only mutual understanding will bring us together.

[@thelovertunisia]

@@thebrigadier1496 I'm sure he did. In reality, relations in the real world are much less based on institutions than on personal relationships not only here in the Mediterranean world where it is obvious but even in Europe.

[@garrydhintz8017]

The only thing that kept Goering and his Luftwaffe from leaving the uk a complete crater was all the munitions coming from the us and all the other things as well.

[@ismaelmolina8882]

This video is so good! And I have a question for you; Could you make a video about the continuation of this scenario? It would be useful to see the Japanese-American War would played out

[@emmanuelmacute6921]

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

[@cityman2312]

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

[@cherub3624]

I feel like Germany controlling all of Europe would push its manpower and production capacity far past the USSR in the late war.

[@boblaryson3621]

The British might lose north Africa as significant portions of manpower were from the colonies which would not be possible since they would be deployed to deal with japan

[@av4693]

The British would also lose India, I mean they lost India later on but they’d lose it in the middle of the war and there’s a chance that they’d join the axis too. The Indian freedom fighter Subhash Chandra Bose who first created the Indian national army actually went to Japan to request their help in retaking India, with Japan in full strength not needing to worry about US or Soviets, they could go for China and India. If India switched sides and became a Japanese ally then there would no longer be a need to maintain neutrality along the Russian border and all the far eastern territories would be lost

[@MrTangolizard]

What ? The British didn’t even introduce a draft in India had there been a chance of losing it they would have drafted millions of men

[@av4693]

@@MrTangolizard 2.5 m Indians died fighting in ww2. They were even part of the allied forces invasion of Sicily

[@av4693]

@@MrTangolizard also Indians bore 1/3 of British war debts incurred in ww2 not to mention the millions who died when supplies were diverted into the frontline’s resulting in famines. British India also supplied most of the logistics including medical supplies, rations etc They might not have had a flamboyant role as the US but completely overlooking their contributions is nothing short of shameful

[@MrTangolizard]

@@av4693 no they didn’t 87k died fighting

[@MrTangolizard]

@@av4693 so who is overlooking India’s contribution?

[@wintryhard]

I think the battle of El Alamein could have gone differently with the fact having Japan at the door steps of Australia and New Zealand defeated. You will be removing some very important anzac units that helped hold the line there. Along with the fact you also have to take into account the likelyhood of dwindling supplies from a stronger axis navy and air force. So it is possible Africa falls and maybe the axis headed to the oil fields of the middle east. But I think the axis being pushed back would be less likely. Also I would like to add that even though the US didnt supply as much the the USSR, I feel the impact of the logistical difference between trucks, radios, and other equipment like that was a little over looked to the USSR's war effort. But of course this is a fantasy idea and doesn't really matter. Enjoy the video.

[@nomercynodragonforyou9688]

Allies would've definitely fared worse, even if they still would've won regardless. The amount of effort and resources it would take to win would strain Britain and the Soviets, unless they could get other nations involved. Now I don't think Japan would take all of China, but they would still try to take Australia and New Zealand. Bypassing American owned territories and make a run for the rest of the British held areas.

[@TheDeepState2001]

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

[@TheDeepState2001]

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

[@TheDeepState2001]

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

[@MrHel-hf3nk]

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

[@TheDeepState2001]

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

[@jimbofh9001]

I think if the US is staying completely neutral and uninvolved, stretching back to the mid-late 30s, then the British are going to come to an accomodation with the Japanese prior to war breaking out. They simply don’t have the capability to constrain Japan’s expansion into China in this case and would likely try to reinstate their previous treaties with Japan to shore up their indo-pacific flank. Without the sanctions on oil, rubber and metal in place, Japan wouldn’t need to expand into British or American holdings in the region, and would be almost certain to take the opportunity to consolidate control of China and Korea with the bonus of recognition (or at least tacit approval) by the British.

[@AdhocHoopla]

Regarding the French navy, I'd imagine in the alternate timeline Mers-El-Kebir might not have happened. The situation would have been so different even in 1940 that can imagine several different courses of action will have been taken. I can see the French navy being forced to take refuge in the Pacific instead of Africa due to the increased threat of German capture.

[@curiousentertainment3008]

I really don’t know how the US could’ve stayed neutral. Japan would still see the us as a threat and with the Philippines seen as a problem for their expansion. I don’t think the US could’ve ever been neutral in WW2. With the Japanese destroying almost the entire British pacific fleet and the German kreigsmarine cutting off all trade to Britain, it’s safe to say Britain would either be starved into submission or forced into a peace negotiation. It would take time but Britain would run out of essential materials to manufacture planes. Fuel being a huge issue even in the real time line. If the US was neutral in WW2 operation sea lion might have happened that’s a huge point of contention but with no lend lease and the luftwaffe bombing only raf bases and war production sea lion could’ve happened it may have failed or it could’ve been a costly victory that makes Germany delay operation Barbarossa. The Soviet Union would still get attacked and still loose a lot of men, land, and material. The first two years of WW2 on the eastern front would play out relatively the same. The Japanese may actually try to make a move on the soviets if the ija could get more support seeing as the ijn already conquered the pacific. With Japan having more resources and no naval threat from the us they might attack forcing the soviets to splint their forces. In 1943 for example the Germans made 4.25% more steel than the SU and with the ija attacking Vladivostok and threatening the Kamchatka peninsula along with the Siberian rail network the SU would be pressured on two fronts while the axis basically would worry too much.

[@nicobruin8618]

Depends on if the US is still willing to sell oil to Japan. If it isn't it definitely gets attacked. If it is it likely though not certain that Japan doesn't attack.

[@tyagainlater]

Agreed. Even if the US did everything it could to remain in Japan's good graces, the US existing as a major naval power in the Pacific and the Philippines was still directly counter to Japan's vision. The US would have had to made HUGE territorial concessions (like ceding the Philippines, Midway, Guam, Hawaii, etc.) and given Japan very favorable trade deals to keep the peace.

[@krondarr8865]

We were not going to change our stance with Japan on China so the Pacific War was inevitable but we would have beaten them much sooner by concentrating on Japan alone. We could have stayed out of Europe but I am pretty sure that the Cold War would almost be the same as the Soviet Union would have taken over most of Europe with the possible exception of Great Britain. The Soviets didn't really need America to beat Germany and Italy. It would have been bloodier and longer but the result was just as inevitable. Plus with the Soviets probably capturing more of the German scientists they would have gotten nuclear weapons sooner as well as a huge advantage in the space race and ballistic missile system.

[@curiousentertainment3008]

@@krondarr8865I don’t necessarily think the Russians alone without lend lease could’ve won against the Germans. The first two years of Barbarossa saw Germany take huge areas of russia. The big issue is the number and locations of factories. If Germany had bombed some of the factories or captured some intact the soviets couldn’t easily replace it. They wouldn’t have had as much of an air force without American aviation fuel the us supplied over 50% of Russian aviation fuel. We all know what German air power was capable of and no fuel no planes. The lack of trucks and locomotives would’ve been a huge issue over 2,000 locomotives were sent and half the rails used by the Soviet Union were from lend lease. The us supplied over 400,000 Jeeps and trucks along with 12,000 armored vehicles about 7,000 were tanks. As for nuclear research the germans didn’t allocate many resources as it was considered “Jewish science”. There was a small nuclear program started but it was for a reactor. America already had the physicists for the Manhattan project some having fled Europe because of the nazis. Now the Russians definitely would’ve had a better rocketry program and over all space program as well.

[@alexkudzin4980]

If the US is utterly neutral and doesn't fortify the Philippines, say it signs a non aggression pact with Japan. Then perhaps there's a chance Japan decides not to attack America, sticks to its original strategy of waiting for America to come to them and takes the Dutch Indonesian oil as quickly as possible. If America sticks to the treaty Japan with all its commitments and access to the coal, iron, copper, rare minerals and oil from Indonesia etc. Will likely start a cold war with the US. I don't see Japan taking new Zealand, instead I see them causing rebellions in India and using Sri Lanka as a naval base to cut off the UKs middle east oil. With Indian uprisings, no US lend lease and no/limited access to supplies from the middle/far east I don't think that Egypt would be safe The focus would be else where, there's no/less Indian units and no Lee/grant tanks with less fuel, sure Suez might be safe but it will be the siege of Alexandria not the siege of Tobruk. The allied goal would now be to prevent axis access to Suez rather than to keep it open as a supply route. I think Moscow would fall in 1941. The UK won't provide aid, or as much aid, to the USSR. As to Churchill Stalin and Hitler are different flavours of the same thing. Without the boost in mobility provided by the boots, trucks and supplies as well as Japan's expansion now NOT focused at America, but China and Indonesia, fewer troops will arrive in Moscow later to hold off the Germans. I don't think Moscow would fall in 1941 but we would see a Stalingrad much sooner. Russian counterattacks would be less mobile/slower due to missing supplies from lend lease and lower moral but likely involving similar levels of manpower, the German lines in the winter would be less stressed and become better dug in, German supply lines would also benefit from the reduction in losses and Russian moral probably reducing partisans, if the Kremlin is in flames and Stalin possibly dead.... In 42 I think Germany would be able to take the Caucasus region, yes the British would intervene to slow down the Germans but Germany would get a steady influx of oil, if somewhat reduced due to constant air raids and sabotage. At this point Germany is completely overstretched, too many people to control and too long a border, I don't think they can do much beyond consolidating the front line along geographic boundaries Japan although it's getting resources they are just vanishing into the black hole that is China, they don't have a reason to attack Russia but the boarder region would have a lot of troops on standby The UK controls the seas but suffers heavier shipping losses as with no US shipping to hit German U boats are sinking everything, the UK would also probably have local air superiority over the UK and raids into Germany but beyond that.... Russia would suffer greatly if Stalin fell, from the moral blow and power scramble, and the leveling of Moscow I think the Germans would just shell it out of existence instead of trying to take it. With reduced moral, mobility, supply and manpower Russia aren't going to be defeated but it will be 46/7 before they push Germany back Russia will still out produce and out manpower Germany The UK will still tie down German forces and destroy factories etc. Free forces and partisans will still cause Germany huge losses and tie down lots of man power. UK/Canadian scientists will still invent the atomic bomb, but now that they are doing it alone it will take a lot longer. 47-50 the British will start nuking Germany Russia will start crossing into Poland Some time around 1950 Germany will fall, huge losses, nukes and a land invasion ended Japan so it stands to reason Germany would fall similarly The losses will be horrific Europe will fall under a very vindictive USSR China and Japan..... Does that have an ending? Sure Japan may have Indonesia.... But China will take decades to even partially subjugate... Will Russia want to get involved? Can it afford to (politically, resources)? India will be independent, there was a strong independence movement already other fringe colonies may follow India's example like the middle east... Africa? The US might still be a superpower because of how horrific the losses were to everyone else and the sale of materials over such a long time (though less in yearly amount) the US would probably engage in a lot of fleet building to prevent a possible German (while they exist then USSR) - Japanese attack. Maybe a 3/4 way cold war? US -------- UK, Canada, Australia, NZ Vs USSR Vs Japan The question is what would post war recovery be like? And technology advances? About the same just delayed a decade?

[@maco3893]

It is quite clear that the US Engagement in WW II made an decisive difference. Without the US Support Britain alone had not the military and economic strength to reconquer the mediterran and Western europe and strenghten the sovjet war efforts

[@gekostar22]

Good video and I agree with most things in this hypothetical alternate history, however I think Egypt would fall the the Axis in 42 with out the us help. There were so many US tanks there that there wouldnt be and with the disruptions in shipping and supplies they would be much worse off. The US also helped a lot with the resupply of Malta and the air power the UK sent to help Malta would have been more needed back at home without all the US planes that were there. So I think Malta and Egypt would fall.

[@justwhenyouthought6119]

Less than 25% of the total tanks in the WD were of US manufacture, a sizeable amount nonetheless but Monty had an overwhelming superiority in tanks in any case.

[@lolmao500]

Yeah the UK got destroyed by the Rommel in 42 without us help it would have been over.

[@justwhenyouthought6119]

@@lolmao500 Which is why the Brits were at Tunisia fighting through Mareth. Read some history fan boy.

[@aminebe1263]

@@lolmao500 but they pushed back

[@strongbrew9116]

I don't think Egypt would have fallen without the US. The US was leaking all intelligence in North Africa to the Germans throughout 1941-42. US Army office Bonner Fellers, who was working as a military attache in Cairo (and also a huge Anglophobe), was using obsolete and compromised codes when he made reports about the British. Rommel was being given everything he needed to know by Fellers. Eventually, the British found out through Ultra (British Enigma team) that Fellers was leaking information. The US removed him from Cairo in June, 1942.

[@PhillyPhanVinny]

Thank you for doing this video. In the decades after WW2 in the West the effects the USSR had on the winning of WW2 were massively overlooked. But in recent years things have really gone the other way through internet culture where now people think the USSR was the only thing that decided WW2 and that all other allies in the war didn't play a part which is even further from the truth then what the West thought of the USSR in WW2. I'll go even further then you did in this video and explain why I think without both US military and economic support (both free and paid for aid) I am of the opinion that the allies can not win the war or hold the war to a draw as stated in the video. First, as you said most US aid went to the UK which then was able to send aid itself to the USSR of it's older equipment. This is only when you look at military aid or aid by weight. Many non-military aid items were sent to the USSR that were massively important such as medical, logistics, factory equipment and much more. But what is not considered in this video is the amount of fuel the US was supplying to all allied nations (USSR included). If the US is not even going to be willing to sell fuel to the UK and other nations engaged in the war then the UK is not going to be able to even operate their fleet at some point (probably 1943 if not earlier) and will be limited in how they can use their planes as well. The UK had similarly low fuel production to Germany during WW2 and if the Japanese navy is free to operate without the US navy as a threat the UK is going to have trouble getting fuel from their colonies while they still hold them. The lack of fuel will drastically hurt the UK's ability to keep troops and supplies up in the Middle East. So as I result I don't see any way the UK holds the middle east destroying the only other way they would be able to get fuel (while also being incredibly hard to get out of the UK as well). The fall of the Allied held Middle East then opens up another possible front that the USSR could be attacked through and at a minimum makes them keeps troops on it's southern borders to prevent a possible attack by Axis forces there. Germany winning in Africa also allows Germany and it's allies to commit even more of their troops to the eastern front in massive numbers. The Axis forces had to keep at their lowest numbers 20% of their troops on other fronts to guard against possible invasions that would now not be happening. More importantly the Axis would be able to have a much larger air-force facing off against the USSR as 40% of the German air-force and all of the very under rated Italian air-force were facing the Western allies in the Mediterranean and a even larger amount of the German air-force was forced into Western Europe when the Western allies started their bombing campaigns of the Axis in large numbers. Most importunately to helping the Axis war effort and hurting the allied war effort though would be the lack of the bombing campaign on the Axis. This would be as a result of the lack of fuel for the UK, needing to spend more of it's now limited production on defensive equipment (fighter planes) and the US bombers not being there which were the majority of the allied bombing fleet. Now if you have heard the bombing campaign of WW2 was not effective you are listening to people who have not looked into or thought about all the ways the bombing campaigns actually effected the Axis war effort. Most of the people who say (wrongly) that the allied bombing campaign was a failure say so because German production numbers went up each year as the war went on. And that is true that happened. But it happened because Germany shifted production from more expensive things like bombers to fighters for example. And most importantly people who believe that don't look at what Germany had to do to keep production up through the bombing campaign and what else it cost them. According to Alan Bollard the author of "Economists at War: How a Handful of Economists Helped Win and Lose the World Wars" Germany spent 2-3% of their total GDP during the whole war on tanks and other armored vehicles. While at the same time Germany spent more then 40% of their GDP during the whole war on their air-defense. With that number going up to more then 50% depending on what you count for air-defense. If Germany was not being bombed they could have spent so much more of their economy on logistics and other things but by far logistics would be most beneficial to them. Germany also would be able to use all of those 88mm anti-air guns they had to use to defend their cities against the USSR for example. Germany spent so much of their building power constructing anti-air defense around their cities/factories. That work could have been used to construct many other things that would have helped them on the Eastern front of the war. All that work spent after a bombing happened is also work/time lost that could have been spent improving their war winning abilities. Most importantly there are hundreds of thousands of Germans working on those air-defense systems to defend the German production systems. Some of those people are quality front-line soldiers. Others could be used in all kinds of ways to effectively help the Axis win the war instead rather then playing defense. We then need to look at all the other ways that Germany not being bombed benefits them and the rest of the Axis as well. First, they are not constantly having to repair/reconstruct all of their factories, rebuild housing for their civilians, rebuild medical facilities after hospitals are destroyed and rebuild/repair other important buildings as they are destroyed or damaged. Saving this time rebuilding/repairing what they already had allows them to construct new factories or work on other projects like railroads into the USSR for example. Second Germany is not having to keep hundreds of thousands of their soldiers in the rear working their air-defense systems. Third, Germany is not wasting their incredibly precious and limited medical supplies on soldiers and civilians being injured in allied bombing runs. And then lastly you need to look at these same things for Italy and to a lesser degree the other minor Axis allies as well. These all cause a domino effect in all kinds of different ways for the Axis to have a more effective campaign against the USSR. And then this all plays the same for Japan as well. Even if Japan doesn't declare war on the USSR they can keep far more troops on their border with the USSR which will either force the USSR to do the same or cause Japan to declare war on the USSR. So now not only is the USSR pulling divisions away from the East to help stop operation Barbarossa then are forced to keep more troops out East as well as stated in my first paragraph, in their southern territories to defend against a possible invasion there as well. We then should also further think about what countries are going to now start joining the Axis if things start going their way like this without any US help for the Allied nations. I could easily see Turkey joining the Axis and other Middle Eastern nations rebelling against the UK for independence and helping the Axis against the USSR for the promise of independent rule as Germany and Italy move into the Middle East after defeating the UK in Africa as already talked about. This could play within India as well with Japan getting them to switch sides or start a civil war within the nation. Which would be another massive blow for the allies. And then lastly back to the bombing campaign it works like a series of dominos as I already said. Without the Western allies bombing the Axis, all of what the Axis gain as stated above then opens up the opportunity for the Axis to work a bombing campaign on the USSR. Not the minor bombings that Germany pulled off on the USSR in select locations as they were pushing into USSR territory but a planed strategic bombing campaign like the US and UK executed on the Axis. That in return sets off a series of dominos in reverse that Germany was encountering as I described above. So perhaps the USSR keeps their factories running like Germany did in WW2. But doing so weakens them in many other areas. The USSR also has the disadvantage of not having the spare parts and repair equipment to get their factories back up and running like Germany did without US support (this was mentioned in the video). The USSR also will need even more medical equipment that they were already incredibly low in even before the war to help with all the bombing victims as well as the greater attacks the Axis would be able to issue with the massive amount of more soldiers, tanks and planes they will have along with better logistics. And that is also in addition to the USSR having already greatly leaned on Western allies for the medical equipment they used during the war. So if the US can still give/sell products to the allied nations in WW2 I would then still say the allies win with the war taking a few more years to end (1-3 for just the European Axis; 3-5 when counting Japan as having to invade Japan would take years to fully occupy without resistance). But if you disagree with me on my main point of what would happen in WW2 if the US can't help in the war in any way as described in this video please let me know why. I would actually like to hear why you disagree with what the US not being involved at all would not result in the changes I describe in my above post.

[@Shinyworldwide]

man 3 months ago when i first saw the video i was disgruntled with how poorly the video was made. there were so many holes in the story that it just felt off. the US not being in ww2 would have given the axis such a massive advantage that a stalemate ceasefire sounds like germany repeatedly shot itself in the head twice as many times as it did in our timeline. i'm glad you wrote your comment as it seems accurate and it would probably end in germany going through the perilous task of "germanizing" the eastern lands fully. also, how long would britain realistically hold out with german submarines being far more able to wreak havoc on british supply lines? i don't think very long and i think churchill would be forced to resign and someone else would negotiate a peace with england. probably lord halifax. alas, again, thank you for this comment. your comment should have been the video

[@clanc433]

Agreed, 6 out of 7 gallons of oil used in WW2 by the allies came from the US. No fuel, no machines, no machines, no win. It's simple.

[@Grafknar]

Finally someone understands that the Soviets would not have just over run the entire freaking planet.

[@d.olivergutierrez8690]

I always laugh at comments saying things like "the Soviets could have solo the entire axis without any help" when they do not take into account that the allies help was vital for their war effort, that and the determination of Stalin to send to the front every human being who could carry a rifle, in a scenario without the rest of the allies I dare to say that the human losses of the Soviets would have been such that they would not have been able to recover

[@keitht24]

@@d.olivergutierrez8690 The thing is it's possible the Soviets could've won over Germany on their own. But people who suggest that this would've happened regardless of the western allies is insane. Without western efforts, the Soviets would've faced as many as 3 million additional German troops & thousands more tanks, aircraft & a massive increase in industrial production of war material without the western bombing campaign against German industries.

[@vlad_47]

@@keitht24 The real thing is that Germany attacked the USSR not alone, but together with Rumania, Finland, Italy, Slowakia, Croatia, Hungary on top of tens of thousends volunters from all over Europe like the spanish Blue Division or french SS which fought even in Berlin. Germany had europe's industry like czekhoslovakian tank factories, bought chrome ores and other goods from Sweden and Turkey. In an real 1on1 the Soviet Union would have destroyed Germany. Imagine all the troops from Sibiria and the Far East in Poland. In the end the Soviet Union defeated the axis countries on the eastern front, while recieving recources and weapons from its western allies which ultimately made up for 4% of the total soviet war production.

[@vlad_47]

Not to mention the defeat (1939) and obliteration (1945) of the Kwantung Army by the Red Army shows that with regards to Japan, the Soviets had a position of strengh. Japan didnt want any trouble the USSR after Khalkhin Gol.

[@keitht24]

@@vlad_47 4%. Try more like 15%. Also these statistics are often highly scued. The massive amount of food, steel, explosive powder, fuel & logistical support provided by the U.S. is immeasurable.

[@TechDeals]

I've noticed that these alternate timelines never have Germany winning... the idea of it is so horrific, the events get twisted to make sure they can't win.

[@bololollek9245]

Because Germany basically could not win. If USSR was close to collapse, Germany always was closer. The fact that they held for so long is the crazy bit as by 1942 they were basically out of oil with nowhere to get more.

[@gastão127]

Japan was way more horrible than germany. They killed 25-30mio. people in ww2 and they had fun doing a "who cuts off the most heads of chinese people wins". And two japanese soldiers won, after killing 200 chinese humans together. Japan loved torchering every chinese human soul they could find, even if they surrenderd or said that they are friends with japanese people. The same thing happened to Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, India and every other country they invaded.

[@ColinTherac117]

@@gastão127 You say that like that wasn't the norm for warfare for the vast majority of human history, including for western powers. Japan hadn't signed the Geneva convention. As such the belief that they would be held to those standards is absurd cultural imperialism. The Japanese acted not particularly differently than the western powers treated the inhabitants of central Europe during the 30 years war. They just had access to better weapons and modern medicine.

[@dosmundos3830]

@@gastão127 lol @ "torchering"

[@countessmargoth469]

German was always doomed to fail. This may have not been apparent at the time, but no matter how much you alter the actions of Germany, the Soviets always win eventually.

[@5aax]

I think the conclusions on the Eastern Front rely too much on official German casualty figures that were probably understated. Front-line German divisions in AGC were largely reduced to half- or third-strength even before the Battle of Moscow, and indeed Barbarossa was predicated on the Soviets collapsing completely in the first months of the war. The German economy was falling apart even before D-Day, largely because of the Allied blockades and attrition on the Eastern Front, which would still remain true in this timeline. I think the conclusion of the war in Europe would be similar to how it was in the First World War: Germany would be gripped by revolution after their economy inevitably implodes and their people become disillusioned with the prospect of winning the war, however this time the Allies would have the motivation and be in the political/military position to press for an even harsher peace than Versailles. That said, I think this entire hypothetical falls apart in the Pacific. Japan's decision to go to war with the US was the direct result of the embargo and their belief that they couldn't secure the DEI (and its oil) without neutralizing the Philippines. Their colonial ambitions in East Asia and the Pacific were impossible without a source of oil, and moreover their military and political leadership was (probably correctly) convinced that a war with America was inevitable. It's hard to imagine a scenario where Japan invades the East Indies without preemptively striking the US, and symmetrically where such an invasion could take place without leading to severe political backlash in the US. I think even if US leadership was committed to neutrality, which FDR very much was not, the pressures for America to tip the scales in favor of the Allies would still be practically irresistible by 1942.

[@Clickathon]

Germany ran on synthetic oil, and due to Oil Campaign and blockades only had 3 months of oil left, thus the push in winter for Caucasus oil. Most German tanks were parked during Barbarossa. Strategically oil is no.1 reason why they lost. TIK did a very good video on this. If they pushed east first to secure oil, it would have a very different outcome. In Binkov's timeline Germany would have still lost, but with much greater casualties for Allies.

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

@@Clickathon TIK is not a relyable source. I ha e seen his videos on subjects I am intimately familiar with from first hand native language sources, and he didnt even provide a remotely faithful account. I wouldnt trust any of his content. And yes, oil was an important reason for the southward push, and the african campaign, quiet self evidently the wermacht still could conduct large scale armoured operations in the winter of 1945 (operation margareth), in a secondary theater no less. Their oil shortage was a concern, bjt never enough to actually halt their armoured forces. In this scenario, it would be less of a problem than it was in reality.

[@Clickathon]

@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 TIK is not a source, he uses other sources directly from official first hand accounts from Wehrmacht, Allies and Soviets, then puts them together. None of the sources contradict each other regarding oil, in fact other historians, channels, studies, etc support it. You cannot refute hard official evidence and transcripts from Hitler himself unless you have proof they were meant to deceive or lies by the person it was taken from. edit: btw operation margareth was about oil which only supports Germany's desperation even further

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

@@Clickathon Oleration margaretha was an abortive armoured thrust to relieve Budapest of the soviet siege in the january of 1945. By the time it got into position to strike at the siege ring itself, the city was beyond the point of saving, and so the operation was aborted. The point however is, that the nazis pulled off a corps scale armoured thrust in 194fucking5, on the southern front. Yes, they certainly struggled with a lack of fuel, but its impact clearlydid not paralyze them as much as most people seem to believe.

[@Clickathon]

@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 they had parked tanks and trucks, then depended on horses, I have yet to come across a cited refutation. 1945 southern front is not a refutation, only that it shows it was necessary to keep the war alive. This argument would be like saying Britain also had multiple fronts all over the world with a combined force several times that of Germany so never really had any issues on the Western front.

[@ThePoint6]

One thing I always think about is the term. "WW2 was won by Russian blood and American Steel"

[@ThePoint6]

@Fabian Kirchgessner russian blood, American steel, and...British? Participation?

[@Battyj]

@@ThePoint6 the actual quote is Russian blood, American steel and British intelligence

[@ThePoint6]

@@Battyj I can dig that

[@Stockfish1511]

More like soviet blood and soviet resourced. Us evolvment in ww is is higly overrated. They landed on normandy when soviet crushed wehrmachatband sent them into full retreat

[@jafr99999]

@@Stockfish1511 Look at a Map of the front lines in November 1942 when the US invaded North Africa. The War had been on for just over three years at that point. The Germans were at their high water mark. Two and one half years after the US invaded Germany was in ruins and the War was over. You must also remember that the US was fighting two World Wars simultaneously. This video clearly shows that US involvement was a Force Multiplier to all Allied Nations involved.

[@chomper720]

I love the action in this timeline!