The Only Way Germany Could’ve Won WWII | History Teacher Reacts | Alternate History Hub

[@MrTerry]

How do you think Germany could have won WW2?

[@xandermillstorres2573]

If they did not kill the Jews and used them, I mean, Pharos use the slaves to make the pyramids so yeah same tactics

[@jeffslote9671]

No. Nuclear Weapons would have ended the war

[@LorainPsycho]

I always figured Germany lost once their meth labs were destroyed. That Pervatin was their real secret weapon

[@Swedishpolymath]

Interesting video but the commentor blabs on to much. He clearly works with immature brats on a daily basis. It seeps into his videos.

[@Jargolf86]

Yes. There are several possible Ways. This Scenario seems possible. Just do it like this, and dont declare War on the USA after Pearl Harbor.

[@bryanrichards1403]

I disagree that British POWs would’ve been treated the same way the Germans treated the Soviets. Remember Mustache Man and many other high ranking no no Germans had an ideological hatred for communists and Slavic people as a whole but had a much softer viewpoint on Western Europeans seeing them as not too much below Aryans in terms of their racial hierarchy. Even in our own timeline British POWs received half way decent (still not good obviously but when compared to Eastern Europe or what the Japanese did to their conquered countries it’s not even close) so I think there wouldn’t be too much resentment from the British people as they would see it as a mercy to get their people home relatively unharmed after the disaster of Dunkirk that Cody presents in his scenario. I could be wrong here and overlooking or forgetting things but that’s my take on it. Also being that this was still early on in the war I could see the British people being thankful they wouldn’t have to fight another long grueling conflict like WWI even if this time it did end in a defeat and loss of overseas territory and money.

[@Longshanks1690]

It was also the first year of the war. There’s a reason there was a football game in No Man’s Land in Christmas 1914 but none of the following years, because the hatred caused by perpetual war got deeper and deeper. Likewise, Germany and Britain would have only been at true war with each other for a few months and fought a few battles in one campaign, barely long enough to establish any kind of hatred at all. All the incentives are there to treat British POWs well to end the war quickly, whereas all the incentives were there to treat Russian POWs miserably.

[@IIITheDeadGamerIII]

@@Longshanks1690 No. The Football games in NML in 1914 only occured in parts of the front. Fighting still happened across the front. The officers on both sides of the war didn't like that this happened and made sure their soldiers wouldn't do it again. OP - A lot of European and US soldiers were treated horrendously during WW2 by the Wehrmacht.

[@Longshanks1690]

@@IIITheDeadGamerIII The fact that it happened at all is testament enough to the point that hostility among the soldiers was not nearly as deep as it would later be.

[@IIITheDeadGamerIII]

@@Longshanks1690 my point is that it happened once and there wasn't a deep-seated hatred. And that deep-seated hatred never grew. They were mostly young men dying for nothing in the worst conditions imaginable.

[@bryanrichards1403]

@@IIITheDeadGamerIII Def not saying American and British POWs were treated well, just relatively so compared to the eastern front or Japan’s POWs. Both are still experiences you’d never wanna go through

[@jurgnobs1308]

western POWs were treated a lot better by the germans than soviet POWs. because the racist politics of the germans saw them very differently.

[@delano4526]

I think he himself countered his own point when he was talking about them

[@sunnex474]

Yes, Hitler saw the Nordic, British and American (white Americans at least because of their British heritage) people as much more Aryan than Slavs.

[@delano4526]

@@sunnex474 I’m curious as to weather he favored the French more than the Italians as a race. Apparently he saw Latin countries as lazy and not as good as Germanics but not as bad as Slavs.

[@MidWitPride]

A lot of people miss about H-man the thing that he was actually quite principled man. Those principles were for the most part garbage, but he did have his own internal moral frame work of right and wrong, and in that he held Brits to somewhat near-peer status to Germans. Meanwhile Russians were close to the bottom in hierarchy in his evaluations. With H-man there were lines that if he would cross them he would be disgusted with himself. Seeing all human life as something valuable in on itself just wasn't one of those lines.

[@geraldgrenier8132]

​​@@sunnex474it less that they were slavs. Nazi propgander was soviets were Jewish puppets.

[@Longshanks1690]

I think this scenario is plausible, but not with Churchill as PM. I don’t think there are any conditions under which he would have accepted a surrender/peace with Germany, he would have fought tooth and nail all the way. So if Parliament wants terms with Hitler to negotiate a prisoner exchange, it necessitates replacing him in a no confidence vote with Halifax which, given the now crushing demoralisation of so many POWs, is definitely more than possible.

[@Wyliecoy0te]

You are right, something to remember at the time was is 1) the conservatives had the majority in parliament. 2) while Churchill was the Prime Minister he was not head of the Conservative Party. neville chamberlain was. Historically during dunkirk Churchill convinced enough influential MPs to persuade Chamberlin that the UK should keep fighting. Chamberlin was the decider.

[@TheIT221]

@@Wyliecoy0te Interesting, it’s easy to forget about parts of history like this

[@ZachCarney]

There is always the possibility that chainberlan never resigns

[@jacquesstrapp3219]

@@ZachCarney Chamberlain had little choice about resigning. The Labour and Liberal parties would not serve under his leadership.

[@janetd5121]

It would not have mattered if Churchill opposed if he did not get the majority vote of the cabinet 3-2. If the vote went the other way 3-2 or 4-1 Churchill would have been replaced by Halifax as PM to negotiate. There was strong pressure to make Halifax PM anyway and Churchill only was picked by a hair, if Dunkirk was a disaster than it would be the peace faction winning the vote and Halifax chosen to negotiate terms.

[@jordaninktv6538]

One thing that people seem to be overlooking, especially in this alternate 1940, is that there's still a presidential election in the US. How does an alternate Dunkirk change the perception (if at all) of the US populace? That is something Roosevelt would HAVE to think about if he wanted a third term.

[@Merennulli]

Seeing the British lose is likely have pushed further towards isolationism. You might see Taft win against Willkie, but Roosevelt was campaigning on soft isolationism already. This scenario would make it easy for him to slide into more firm isolationism since Cash and Carry wouldn't really work at that point. That would undercut any advantage Taft had and Willkie would have been even further disadvantaged. The policy against Japan was billed as simply not supporting "aggressor nations" so I don't see this actually changing the US policy.

[@Golden-lc6oi]

@@Merennulli + With no immediate World War at the US doorstep, It is very unlikely for Roosevelt to actually go for a third term, if his party would even allow it due to it being pretty taboo for anyone to run for a third term for pretty much all for US history.

[@Ali-bu6lo]

16:40 Actually Germany treated POWs from the western allies according to the Geneva Conventions, it was the Soviet POWs who were sent to slave labor and concentration camps.

[@Archon3960]

Yeah. As close to the limit of the Geneva Convention in some cases. But they did treat them better than Soviet POWs.

[@schwebor]

Not in all cases but most of the time thats true.

[@minestar2247]

Yeah, its really weird, right?

[@Ali-bu6lo]

@@minestar2247 Not weird at all, Hitler believed his main goal is the war with the USSR so it was his policy to a point to keep the option of peace with them open.

[@minestar2247]

@@Ali-bu6lo I just ment that western europeans are super racist.

[@InternetDarkLord]

One of the boats of the Miracle of Dunkirk, The Sundowner, was the ship of Titanic's senior surviving officer, Charles Lightoller. The man could not stay out of adventure.

[@misterbubbles6389]

My biggest question is, if Britain and Germany sign a non-aggression pact, how does this impact the Holocaust? The original plan wasn't to kill all the Jews, it was to send them to Madagascar and turn it into one massive police state. Most of the higher-ups in the Nazi ranks wanted to do all this and hoped the British merchant fleet could be used to help with that goal. Since Britain was the reason their ships couldn't leave to deport them and why they lost any chance to control Madagascar, does this scenario mean Europe's Jewish population is going to be deported, at least in part? How does that impact the war if the resources to build all those camps are used elsewhere? What happens with Jewish resistance groups?

[@ronmaximilian6953]

I think the German Madagascar plan only occurred because the British were still in the war. The Nazi leadership or at least Hitler honestly believed that Jews controlled Britain and the Soviet Union. I think he was trying to Curry favor with the supposed Jewish Masters of the UK. Hitler viewed Jews as an existential and almost inhuman threat to the Germanic peopled. Our extermination was end of the war for Hitler

[@MidWitPride]

Scenario about Jewish Madagascar post WW2 would make for a good video.

[@jaketheberge1970]

He may not have mentioned The Holocaust for the same reason we have mustache man.

[@lastwolflord]

They still would have been killed. But end the war fast enough and they get sent to the middle east. Which is something even Churchill did after WW1. He was more than happy to help Jews leave Europe for Palestine.

[@toomanykatsu]

“Mustache Man and the No No Germans” would be a sick band name tho, you gotta admit 😂

[@toomanykatsu]

Just remembered the random generated Rock Band 2 name I have is Moustache Towel 😂😂😂

[@RMSTitanicWSL]

FDR was desperately seeking an entry into the European war. But a world where Britain calls it quits is hard to qualify. Britain would have to have another go at Germany after losing much of its army. Probably a lot would depend on how many survived and were repatriated back to Britain. It might be possible to do something if Hitler declared war on the US after the Empire of Japan attacked US territories and bases across the Pacific, which is what he did in this timeline. The problem is the alternate timeline assumes Hitler is much more savvy--in that timeline, he might tell the Japanese they're on their own......

[@TheIT221]

Honestly, Mustache Man isn’t really shown to be much more savvy in this universe. He already imagined that he could work with the British Empire, and otherwise of his terms demanding restoration of colonies in Africa, following this different timeline, he easily could simply give up these plans to instead get other terms, like the Suez (which nations like Italy would pressure Germany for) Otherwise, he acts somewhat the same, including the ‘lets break the non aggression pact’ since that’s exactly what he did with Poland

[@RMSTitanicWSL]

@@TheIT221 His lack of savvy is a big problem in most WW2 alternate history scenarios where the Axis wins.......

[@nathanmalik7056]

The video was interesting to be sure and I like the usage of Dunkirk but there are some things Cody missed: 1. Lord Halifax proposed Italy as a mediator between Britain and Germany in any potential armistice, something that is not mentioned at all in the video. He even wrote a memorandum suggesting an approach to the Churchill cabinet during the war cabinet crisis of 1940, and both Mussolini and Bastianini were eager for a second interview, if not peace. Even before this, Halifax wanted to start negotiations with Germany through neutral Sweden by asking a local businessman to speak with Reichsmarschall Hermann Goring as early as May 20th. In other words, it is another peace conference involving the likes of Britain, Germany, Italy, France, and maybe Sweden similar to Munich in 1938. On that note, Italy would never declare war on Britain butterflying the North African and Middle Eastern campaigns entirely leading to a different version of World War II. 2. The proposed terms Cody described in the video would be completely unacceptable to Britain since they are too harsh and interfere with its independence and territory. Even Halifax was adamant about wanting to preserve both, and neither he nor Churchill would go as far as giving away Malta or Gibraltar. Also, Britain's negotiating position is much stronger than France's since it's not being actively invaded or at risk of surrender/capitulation. 3. One of Adolf Hitler's foreign policy goals was to secure peace with Britain so that he could conquer and subjugate Eastern Europe after destroying the Soviet Union and Poland. He was also an Anglophile who liked the British Empire and didn't want to see it destroyed, especially in the early years. If anything, he'd be more content with not declaring war with Britain since he's got everything he wanted. Thus, Operation Sea Lion is completely butterflied since it was only conceived when Britain refused to give up which obviously isn't the case here. Thus, they have no reason to consider an invasion. 4. With Britain peaceing out of Europe, the United States has no real incentive to drop an atomic bomb let alone two on Germany. After all, isolationism was fairly strong amongst the American populace for Europe itself and Asia with many groups and individuals like the America First Committee and Charles Lindbergh arguing that a British defeat in the war would not endanger the US. Since Britain, in this scenario, lost very little and is out of the war for now, even FDR and his administration would know that trying to intervene in Europe without the British is impossible, let alone America dropping two bombs on Germany since they and Italy had no desire to fight the Americans. Hitler and Mussolini predicted that with Britain out of the war, America wouldn't enter the war in Europe. This also butterflies the Lend-Lease Program, which gave considerable resources to Britain and the Soviet Union starting in 1941, just before Pearl Harbor. 5. In the armistice, Germany is more likely to get Alsace-Lorraine and Madagascar from France alongside Nice, Savoy, Menton, Corsica, Tunisia, and French Somaliland for Italy. Alsace-Lorraine was considered German territory since the local populace was German-speaking and it's loss in World War I was highly controversial in Germany with Hitler and the Nazis wanting to take it back. In the case of Madagascar, the Germans were gunning for the colony to serve as a half-ghetto, half-concentration camp sized dumping ground for Europe's Jews under a brutal police administration led by the SS and this was before the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was adopted in 1941. And the Italians had grand territorial ambitions for the Mediterranean and Southern Europe including predominantly Italian-speaking territories or territories with a significant Italian diaspora. The BEF being destroyed and an Anglo-German armistice means that Germany would get not just Alsace-Lorraine but Madagascar as well which means the Madagascar Plan would be fully implemented rather than the Final Solution to the Jewish Question, drastically altering the fate of millions of European Jews who would be gradually killed off through various means. 6. Yugoslavia joining the Axis caused a coup by pro-Western officers in the Royal Yugoslav Air Force and they'd still go with it as well for the same reasons as OTL even without British assistance. 7. Japan going up against the FDR-led United States is simply suicide as they can't compete with a country that is fully concentrating its resources on one front with no war in Europe, making military preparations in peacetime, and actively supporting China even before Pearl Harbor. The only way Japan could win World War II alongside Germany and Italy is either the U.S. is not involved at all with no FDR or is going up against a U.S. that is less prepared and slow to mobilize itself for war while keeping most of its naval fleet and airpower intact by winning key battles such as the Coral Sea, Midway, or Guadalcanal. 8. I doubt that the Axis would even take a year off to lick their wounds since Germany and Italy would be fully focused on conquering the Soviet Union and succeed in doing so, which means they have, for all intents and purposes, more or less won. Japan is simply too engaged in a war with America to do so and has to win it so that it doesn't become too prolonged. In the case of Dunkirk ending in disaster and Britain signing an armistice with Germany in 1940, I see it as a reasonable scenario as someone who has read books on the 1940 British war cabinet crisis since Halifax had come as far as to draft the aforementioned memorandum to Italy with permission from the cabinet until Churchill got them to reject his proposal.

[@erdood3235]

What's bef?

[@nathanmalik7056]

@@erdood3235 The British Expeditionary Force (BEF).

[@henrikg1388]

I think you are rather correct in your assessment. Very few understand what a close call it was. After the Daryll Cooper controversy, you barely dare to say it. Were you aware of that when you wrote this? In practice, I don't think that Nice, Savoy, Luxemburg or Alsace-Lorraine would be the biggest nut to crack. Even with an armistice and a peace-deal, Germany would need access to ports in the occupied countries as a safety guarantee. That is where I imagine things would fail. Any peace treaty would remain fragile. The very negotiations could break down at any time if the one thought the other was buying time and building up strength. And how would the Soviets react in the mean time? What I mean to say is that it was very close that peace-negotiations would begin. The outcome from that point is just too hard to predict.

[@nathanmalik7056]

@@henrikg1388 Thanks for the response. Anyway, the Nazis had annexed Luxembourg because it was part of the Holy Roman Empire/German Confederation and had close ties with Germany historically speaking, such as its membership in the Zollverein. It was even occupied by the Germans during World War I. Alsace-Lorraine was a German-speaking territory and the center of the Franco-Prussian War, and its loss was already unpopular in post-World War I Germany. And Nice, Savoy, Corsica, and others were considered Italian land by the Fascist government with the first one in particular being the birthplace of Giuseppe Garibaldi. In any peace deal/armistice, Germany and Italy want specific territories and they have the pressure to do it. They would also want some access to foreign ports as a guarantee and its most likely France that would do it since they're losing pretty badly in the war and a weaker position. As for the Soviets, they would not be so blind to Britain peaceing out of Europe in 1940 after Dunkirk. With the Western Allies no longer an active threat and the United States never entering the war in Europe, the Soviets are going to focus on preparations for a potential invasion. Of course, they're plagued by army purges and mismanagement not to mention that they don't have the Lend-Lease Program for supplies and Germany is not fighting a two-front war so they could win. Besides all that, I think you should elaborate on the first sentence because I'm interested in your thoughts.

[@ryanwilson_canada]

Alien space bats? Shhhh. Those are my secret weapon. Lol.

[@robbporter1847]

One thing you have to remember about ww2 pow's being held by the germans is that, if you where from a western power (aka the UK the USA or france) you where treated MUCH better the eastern pow's. Soviet pow's where starved to death on mass while wester pow's where given red cross packages and yu-know food. (Yes obviously not all western pow's where treated well. There where massacres and Jewish pow's where often sent to concentration camps. But I think the broader point stands.)

[@colvamoon6962]

I think its possible, but there are a LOT of X factors that just cant be predicted easily.

[@DragonShiryu]

I was in Dover just a few days ago and there's an exhibition on Dunkirk at the castle. They also stated that had Dunkirk failed, England would most likely have been unable to keep fighting.

[@oliversherman2414]

That's a bit of a dramatisation. Britain still would've won the Battle of Dunkirk and there still would've been no invasion of Britain. Also, the UK could've just trained the British military back to a good enough size to continue the fight. Plus, the USSR and US still would've been dragged into the war

[@Wyliecoy0te]

In this scenario it appears that there is a period of peace between later June 1940 until the summer of 1941. With peace in Europe does FDR still run for a third term? If so, does he still defeat Wendell Willkie?

[@chaost4544]

This scenario has an element of plausibility.

[@Redline82436]

You never hear this but what about Japan attacking USSR from the East before going on their island hopping campaign and no Pearl Harbor

[@SKPanda1915]

They were at war with China since 1937 (Sino-Japanese War), that caused the embargoes which lead to the Island hopping for resources. Can't see anyway they don't levy Japan with the trade embargoes, they owned Korea and were running through China.

[@lollofixxi2216]

​@@SKPanda1915the embargoes were because of the taking of indochina

[@erikwebster1608]

Hey Mr terry , have u looked at the channel historymarche at all? They do in depth looks at some of the more famous battle in history, predominantly battles from before 1750

[@Lottililex]

16:29 To the Nazis, Soviets were considered subhuman, while the British were considered close to, if not complete equals to the Germans. As such, Soviet POWs were treated terribly. On the western front, they wouldn't do such a thing, because they respected the people on that side of the continent as humans.

[@herzimhimmel]

Yay, I was waiting for you to react t this ever since I watched it.

[@christopherstephens2849]

One of the reasons for Germanys early success against the USSR was that Hitler told Stalin he was moving his troops to the soviet border in order to keep them out of range of British bombers. So if Britain is knocked out of the war Stalin might have been more suspicious of German troop movements and thus might have put up more of a defense.

[@triplec3217]

You had the entire Soviet spy network telling Stalin that Hitler was lying and planning imminent attack though. And Stalin just disregarded all of that. I don’t see that outcome changing much in this alternate scenario with Stalin’s behavior.

[@carso1500]

​​​​@@triplec3217and honestly even if he did there is not much a prepared soviet union could have done, this is just right after the catastrophic winter war and the purges that drained the soviet union of some of their greatest general The soviet union did improve through the war but they were never really better than the nazis they just had more people and lend lease, in a world without lend lease and the germans not being distracted in Africa and the constant bombings by the british that should be enough to crack the russian bear I dont think that would take the soviet union completly out of the fight realisticaly Stalin would have fled to the east of the country but with the germans conquering the caucasus and with that the grozny oil fields they would have gotten exactly what they wanted and would only need to hold the line Honestly this one scenario the more I think about it the more sense it makes

[@sefhammer6276]

21:53 Also they did do it in our timeline but the government changed (with brittish help)

[@centurion7398]

The Windmill boys I think is my favorite social media euphemism.

[@TheCsel]

There were several instances where Allied aircraft just flew into Germany and made Germany completely overhaul their air defenses. So I don’t think it’s implausible a nuclear armed bomber could fly in. The US could do it alone, or the British may assist them and break their treaty.

[@jankusthegreat9233]

Hell yes!!!! Mr terry reviewing cody

[@shanewallace2564]

People just assumed it was winter because the bleak, barren terrain in all the pictures from history books, but that wasn't winter that was Stalin.

[@marknieuweboer8099]

Moustache Man himself pointed it out in his book My Struggle: don't get at war with Britain. So occupying Czechia in March 1939 before starting the Polish crisis was a blunder. I don't think good weather at Dunkerque had made a big difference. Britain's main trumps were the Navy and the RAF. It had not much reason to make peace. Mustache Man's best chance would have been a serious peace offer in July 1940 - as offering Britain something difficult to refuse. 1. Withdrawal from Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium (except German speaking areas like Eupen) and Luxemburg. 2. Britain recognizes the Petain-Laval regime. 3. Withdrawal from France. 4. Restoration of the pre 1914 French-German border. That would have boosted the morale of American isolationists and British appeasers. Also most governments in exile would have pressured British government.

[@bobbynygaardchrisitansen6874]

I think we would have seen a completely different war if the enigma code wasn't cracked. The aliies had the fire power but in reality what won was the intelligence gathered.

[@jean-louislalonde6070]

I would add to your comment the oil needed to run the war machines. Don't forget the reason why moustache man sent the German army toward the Caucasus was to take the oil field in/near Baku. However he got swallowed by Stalingrad instead. The US war machine was never restrained in this matter.

[@TheSmileMile]

In the proposed scenario, Germany is much more successful against the Soviet union. It may have prompted Imperial Japan to go with attack plan north, rather than attack plan south

[@Roowfc705]

Limited it's war aims, probably Halifaxx comes to power in Britain and makes peace of. Ultimately though this probably only delays it's defeat

[@alanbeaumont4848]

The German failure at Dunkirk 1940 was primarily an Intelligence one. Kleist and Rundstedt thought it was inconceivable that France lacked the means for a powerful counterattack and were also aware that the Panzers weren't that effective in the terrain around Dunkirk with already about 50% destroyed or out of action. They were needed for when the French counterstroke arrived. What is baffling is that aerial reconnaissance should have provided all the information he needed to see their worries were groundless, so I assume Goering was over focused on bombing the Dunkirk pocket and not locating the French reserve made the army more paranoid, not less. By 1940 Germany had solved all the command, control and supply problems that had beset them in 1914, but not their intelligence failures. In 1914 they were surprised by the strong French counterattack, in 1940 they were surprised when it didn't arrive.

[@NuclearWintr]

Potential History's video sums up why Germany couldn't have won regardless. You should react to that one as well

[@cormacb2326]

Potential history's video seems to miss the point of defeating Britian via capturing the soldiers of Dunkirk, thinking only in military terms and not considering that Britain may simply give up if so many troops were captured.

[@Kez_DXX]

1901 by Robert Conroy asks: what would have happened if the Kaiser wanted to fight the US over the newly acquired Philippines and Cuba? If I recall correctly, the book was inspired by the publication of actual German invasion plans.

[@taraldomland8657]

The thing I want to point out about the British pow, is that the nazis thought of the British as an natural racial ally, the Slavs and Bolsheviks where their sworn enemy, so the British prisoners would probably get an rather nice treatment after peace is signed

[@stenh.6243]

"Ok Japan, don't fuck with America and we've got this." "I wirr fucka with amerika" "NEINHONJIN! VAT HAVE YOU DONE!?"

[@Mike-mz8dl]

It is simple in December 1941 Germany declares war on Japan for attacking the U.S. The political situation would been rough on Roosevelt.

[@Joe-e7s]

Imo Germany just didn’t have the population to win a war and occupy the Soviet Union, German technology whilst advanced initially couldn’t keep up with soviet, British, and American production

[@im2randomghgh]

Wasn't that traincar also used for the franco-prussian war?

[@sufi09853]

The only thing I disagree with, is with the aftermath of the British surrender to Germany in WW2. Because yes, the British technically lost the war. But how would the Soviets react to this victory? And more importantly, what would they do in response to a victorious Germany? Because you got to remember, the Soviets just wanted to keep the German's fighting as much as possible against the allies, in order to prevent the German solders fighting communist forces in the east. So in this alternate timeline where the Soviets eventually go up against Germany after a British surrender, The Soviets are going to have go on an offensive war in eastern Europe, well the German's have to go on a defensive war to prevent their newly required territory being lost to the communist forces. At that point, would a Nuclear weapon being dropped on berlin even be necessary? Because Britain can just betray their previous agreement with Germany (after the surrender of Britain in WW2) and just attack Germany well the Germans themselves are fighting in the east.

[@johnnamorton6744]

OK 3:53 I have to diverge with you... Go back to May of 1918 and the German Breakthrough. Very much the end of the war Germany brakes through the line and is on the move to Paris. The only thing in his way a group of Americans known as "The Buffalo Soldiers" and a commanding officer named Omar who disobeyed a retreat order from the French. His famous line "Why should I retreat I just got here" Even in 1918 you take out the Americans and this is what you have. The Germans knew the battle Plan they had the same factors in 1918 (No fight with Russia Russia is in its own civil war, They have fresh troops not war wreary and starving, and No Americans. ) This very much is the same tactic and with the more desirable result, the result that should have happened in 1918.

[@kendrickhilton1991]

Holy cow. Even at work, I managed to catch a Mr. Terry video in the first 30 minutes. Maybe today will still be okay.

[@benjaminmclaren8782]

I think the German POW camps were a reaction to their own prisoners treatments. The British treated Germans captured with respect, so the Germans mirrored that treatment. But the Russians had no resources to spare for captured German troops. So they were disposed of. The only question is, who mistreted first? And if the Germans had the resources to spare for captured Russian troops?

[@stefanperju2238]

Yeah like you said I think it would be near impossible to get a US plane with the nuclear bomb all the way to berlin, its just too inland. The whole area would be patrolled by the german army. Apart from that I think the video took a pretty reasonable route (as reasonable as fiction can be). Thank you for the great content, keep it up!

[@cmd31220]

The biggest problem i have with this scenario is that the Germans attacking Britain years after the treaty just doesn't make sense. Ironically, for the opposite reason as your criticism of the POWs. Hitler didn't view the English with the same contempt as he did the russians. The peoples in western europe he viewed much more as partner groups than enemies, and he spoke very highly in his writings about how the British were a powerful potential ally. The reason the germans treated russians so terribly was because Hitler literally did not view Slavic peoples as human beings. The reason you saw unfathomable brutality in the east but not on the western front is because the Germans were fighting a campaign of extermination, not warfare. The russians obviously responsded in kind, which is why the detah tolls in the eastern front make rhe western front and nortb africa look like playground scuffles by comparison. So bearing this critical racial view in mind, i dont see why Hitler would be so insistent on invading and conquering Britain. At this point he would have already conquered the entirety of Europe, secured the resources in the middle east and Caucases that he needed to keep the war machine operational, and will have established facism as a legitimate governing philosophy. He would have won, period. And even if it made the US and UK uneasy (and for good reason, obviously) it would be much easier and much better politically for them to deal with Germany on diplomatic and economic grounds than as out and out adversaries. Think how US-China relations are today. Maybe a war kicks off between them in the far future, but in immediate terms it wouldnt make sense for either side to start one.

[@YugoslavForever]

No way, Terry watching Cody's video?! This is a good day

[@LatinxMatt]

Could you go over the latest Tucker Carlson podcast where his guest talks about how Churchill was the "Chief Villain of WW2". It seems to be inspired by Pat Buchanan's theories back in the day, would love to see a debunking of some of the egregious (in my view) points they made. Cheers :)

[@wuxiagamescentral]

If Germany was satisfied with Austria and Czechoslovakia they could have built up for another 5 years then they could have sustained the war effort. They jumped into Poland too quick and Barbarosa was a tactical nightmare

[@ltmund]

They needed resources, without taking them they knew they would collapse. It was all about taking those resources to create their Reich

[@cormacb2326]

The allies would have matched this build up and the USSR would probably be much stronger by this time.

[@KentuckyMills]

6:15 Talking over the video while the ad is playing is distracting. Turning the videos volume down during its ad would help your viewers.

[@SCComega]

You have to remember, that Germany was way, way behind the Allies in Radar tech until the very end of the war, and most of their improvement came from reverse-engineering British and American designs from downed night raid aircraft. Warning times would be largely minimal given in this timeline, they would not have dealt with the sort of air attacks they did OTL, and the B29 could fly higher than most German aircraft would be capable of in this timeline as well - no experience with western bomber fleets would mean most of their design experience would be based on the low-altitude fights on the eastern front, and thus there would be no need to develop high altitude fighters like the TA152. While early jets would be capable of intercept, they would likely be in limited numbers, given the lessened priority in this timeline, probably seeing a more refined Me262 just entering service when the nukes fall. What's more, is that as the UK hasn't lost North Africa in this timeline, the US has the option to launch B29's from North Africa, while tight on range, it would still be possible, so long as they intend to land in the UK, and would not be something that Germany would probably plan on. Especially if coordinated to grab German attention in another theater at the time of arrival and making use of having broken German ciphers alongside british intelligence coordination.

[@johnmcmanus2447]

The Germans considered the British as pretty much fellow aryans, so I don't think they would have done anything too bad to the POWs. They treated the soviets horribly because a: they were communists, and b: the Germans considered the eastern Europeans to be untermenschen, lesser men

[@jean-louislalonde6070]

Building an efficient navy takes several years. Admiral Erich Raeder told moustache man in the 1930s that the Kriegsmarine wouldn't be ready to take on the Royal Navy before 1946. I can't see how the US, with Britain being sort of neutralised, would have been able to drop nuclear bombs on Germany. The rest of the video seems plausible.

[@gyukgaming6037]

32:32 the air fields of British will be still there and in perfect condition due to the code breaking and the uk is like a unsinkable carrier

[@michellejean11]

Operation Sea Lion was always an impossibility. Germany never had the transport capacity to move enough troops to invade England and never gained air superiority. Every scenario of Germany winning WW 2 has too many what if's to make it work.

[@hopedream11]

And assuming the Soviets don't just crush the Germans which they likely do. Only way Germany wins is combined German Japanese attack and Japan was scared off after that battle in Manchuria. So Germany basically loses no matter what. Only difference is the year in which it takes place.

[@michellejean11]

@@hopedream11 i agree even as a what if scenario Germany still loses.

[@necropants9971]

8:00 sealion was impossible even if Britain lost every soldier in Dunkirk, the royal navy woulx have annihilated any attempted landing in the imediate term, and by the time the germans had built up to the point a landing could have been attempted the brittish coast would have been impregnable.

[@TheCsel]

Yeah for every new battleship Germany made, the UK would have made 4. Plus the RAF would have been upgraded as well.

[@Golden-lc6oi]

@@TheCsel While the statement of the UK building four battleships for one german one is probably Hyperbole, Germany would very likely have a bigger navy after years of buildup, especially with a pacified russia, not to mention how Britain would be easily starved of resources thanks to a massive U-boat fleet, which was already the main focus of the Kriegsmarine in our own timeline.

[@AldebaranBaron]

Germany wanted peace with the British Empire, as a German-English Alliance was his dream alliance, so I think it's entirely possible Germany would have accepted a lax peace (Atleast with England).

[@superferrariman]

I think the intermediary would be Portugal not Spain… good relations with England and similar ideology to Germany (despite Salazar despising Hidler 🤯)

[@migga86]

The weird part with the ending makes an even harder follow-up possible: Would there be as much communist states, if the battle was decided that way? I mean in our timeline the red ones got huge chunks of Germany which wouldn't be nearly as much, if the other side burst through so much further. But if East Moustache Man fell by the no-no Germans, then communism wouldn't thrive in the satellite states. Making for a much weirder space race and mostly eliminating the cold war.

[@rogueemerald]

I know this isn't a super realist scenario but have you heard of TNO mr terry?

[@RangerAstarte]

in this scenario you have to remember britain still has africa, so launching a bomber from africa, with enough fuel.....its possible

[@eclipsedragons1477]

Theoretically if the UK doesn’t join the US would be fighting Japan and would probably land on the Russian territory next to Alaska and have their troop in supplies moved over by train rall

[@MrTerry]

What do you think about this video on Tiananmen Square? kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y3-me5-tismErZo

[@Andrew-x3w6i]

Seems accurate

[@rellosapostolos2266]

Though a feasible scenario, after brits surrender, the ussr would be more alarmed and more prepared. Also, also the point of hitler diverting armies around were not a bad idea because these diversions helped to destroy the southern army in Ukraine, which was doing well during Barbarosa, and they helped army group north to finish the Encirclement of leningrad. but anyway thankfully

[@alexamerling79]

I don't think they could have. Their war economy was lagging too far behind and only reached peak production in 1944.

[@alexejfrohlich5869]

i dont think that mustache man would've gone for an invasion into britan after the here hypothesized peace/non-aggretion deal. his view point was always that the brits were "brudervolk" (siblings people) like the dutch, danes and everything in the north... even frenchmen were considered "acceptable race". the no no germans had an issue with the french resisting them, but they would've want them to just swallow their ideology and be obedient instead.

[@Longshanks1690]

This scenario was doing fine and then went off the absolute deep end with the nuke ending. 💀 In this timeline, there is simply no way that the Manhattan Project is ever commissioned since America is never at war with Germany, and isn’t even able to establish a lend lease program. There’s no war to justify such a project in the first place. Additionally, many members of the Manhattan Project were British. Without going into the technicals and deciding who was responsible for how much of the project’s success, it seems extremely unlikely that the project would have been finished along the same timeline because the same people weren’t there. But ok - FDR commissions the project anyway out of caution. Every British scientist, and their families, were just coincidentally on holiday in America in 1940 so there’s no way for Germany to exert pressure on them and they can work freely, fine. What incentive does FDR have to drop the bomb? In this timeline, this bomb doesn’t end a war, it starts it. Without a need to stop America’s lend lease program to Britain, Hitler has no direct incentive to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour in 1941. In this timeline, that’s entirely Japan’s problem. So the president who bombs Berlin doesn’t make a calculated sacrifice most Americans understand to end years of gruelling war, he starts one with a neutral country for absolutely no reason they can see. I think it far more likely that the President is impeached and, in a haste, Congress extradites the cabinet and the Manhattan Project to be tried in Germany in a desperate attempt to avert war. It would be absolute lunacy to drop a nuclear bomb on Germany, when we know how resistant the American public was to war in our timeline, it would be even more so in this one. But even leaving all that aside, how is the bomb to be dropped at all? In our timeline, we assume the plane would fly from an RAF base in the UK, but that wouldn’t exist when Britain is now neutral. So in the 1940s, a plane is going to fly across the entire Atlantic Ocean, over Britain, over Europe and into Germany while not being shot down by a much more powerful Luftwaffe? In terms of pragmatics, politics and logistics, this decision and ending for this scenario makes absolutely no sense and it really just seems like Cody wanted a shocking ending for the video cos he couldn’t think of a more realistic one.

[@tankpea2]

I think you forget about the Pact of Steel , Germany declared war on the US along with Japan. It even says it in the video lol

[@Longshanks1690]

⁠@@tankpea2They did that in OTL because of America’s lend lease program and support of the UK despite official American neutrality. If Hitler can force Britain out of the war in 1940, what gripe or casus belli does he have with America? He has no reason to honour the pact of steel since America has done nothing to him to make him want to declare war, it would be entirely Japan’s problem so far as he was concerned.

[@ale-xsantos1078]

Hitler thought Japan would succeed in the Pacific(in the short term at least) and help attacking the USSR, he also saw the US as a evil pervert land controlled by jews that was a far cry from its "glory days" as a english settler colony that made it "great" and believed it & Japan would be Germany's final challenge after they conquered Europe to unite the "aryan race" Likewise I could definitely see the british working with the americans behind Germany's back on something like the Manhattan Project However I do agree it makes no sense for the US to have the atomic bomb without british support and to use it in Germany without a german declaration of war

[@tankpea2]

​@@Longshanks1690this is hitler we are talking about , he would still likely declare war on the US. lets say if not , the british would still participate on the nuclear program (secretly of course)

[@chrisriley2321]

​@tankpea2 I think he'd do it if not out of hatred for our policies he'd for do it more living space for his empire

[@saekhmet4186]

I'd also argue that Stalin / the Soviets would be more prepared for Barbarossa in this scenario.... Part of the reason they didn't believe the intelligence they were receiving was because he thought they'd still be tied up in the West Vs Britain. Without them to worry about I'd assume Stalin would have been on more of a war footing...

[@phoenixtvgaming8865]

there is literly no way that the nukes would reach berlin

[@obsidian179]

They could have reached Berlin just fine if they used a British Mosquito. Even in our timeline, the Brits made bombing runs there with those planes frequently enough that they earned the nickname “The Berlin Express”. In a timeline where Britain sued for peace early enough in the war that no such bombing runs would have been undertaken, it would have been all the more effective. If you don’t believe me, go watch the Fat Electrician’s video on the Mosquito. You’ll see what I mean. 🙂

[@sketchygetchey8299]

Nostalgia Critic thought of a perfect pseudonym for the No-No Germans: KZbin! 😁

[@jwilson9273]

@MrTerry. There are some factors in their alternative scenario that make an ultimate German victory possible. First, why was Germany forced into Russia in 1941 in the first place? OIL! The German economy would have ground to a halt in late 1941 early 1942 if they'd not siezed the Caucasus oil fields. Thus, OIL plays a critical factor in a German victory in this alternative history. Avoiding the Battle of Britain not only spares German aircraft and pilots, it also spares precious oil that will prove pivotal in a Soviet invasion... along with the 2,000 spare aircraft and pilots. UK peace terms buy the Axis Powers control of the entire Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea, Indian Ocean, as well as opening up the eastern Atlantic and North Sea to the entire balance of the Kriegsmarine -- U-boats and the surface fleet -- without significant opposition. This grants the Axis two advantages. (1) There is no way for the USA to supply Lend Lease material to the USSR either north by sea or south via the Persian Gulf without facing the Kriegsmarine threat and the ire of the US public without a war declaration. (2) The Axis now have access to Middle East oil and may invade the USSR at their leisure. They can maintain the German economy with Arabian Oil, build their forces and logistics (fuel) up for Barbarossa, and may focus on neutralizing Soviet oil supplies from Baku rather than the more force intensive and desperate task of seizing Baku to exploit the oil fields. Thus the Axis may rely on a steady oil supply will choking the Soviet's supply. Access to British petroleum in the Middle East and secure lines of communication also might forestall Pearl Harbor and allow Japan to attack the Soviets from the east. How? With access to Middle Eastern oil, Germany may convince Japan to circumvent the US oil embargo by trading with them, in exchange for a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union. This keeps the Japanese from being forced to tease the USA into the war as the oil embargo served as the primary casus belli for Japan, and places Stalin in a two front war. Even if the FDR Administration is outraged, there is little they can do to convince the American public to go to war without the dastardly attack at Oahu. Now Germany can time Barbarossa with the Japanese invasion. The Germans aren't forced to try and sieze the Caucasus, but rather isolate the oil fields with fewer forces which now means the Germans may concentrate combat power with Army Groups North and Center... thus Moscow, Leningrad, and the Urals become achievable. Stalin cannot reallocate forces from the east, and the sudden surpruse onslaught from both sides may likely have worsened Stalin's emotional breakdown and caused the Communist Party to collapse.

[@RadekLazok]

Good vid

[@schwebor]

The problem with operation barbarossa was the troops missing that belonged to the afrikakorps, they were supposed to fight in russia... but thanks to good old benito m. they had to help out in africa. How did churchill react when von ribbentrop told him that italy would fight alongside germany this time? "Well last time we had them, its only fair that this time you have them!

[@deenman23]

pro tip: pause the video when your talking,hes louder than you lol

[@johnnamorton6744]

Final Thoughts: ... I don't think the massive loss at Dunkirk changes much. the UK is buffed by a navy the loss of its Expeditionary Force changes much. They are not going to give up key points and they have the Royal Navy. It's conceivable that they get offered a soft landing Loss of trade in the Med. but ultimately the UK and Crown nation have a vast army to draw from. Still likely the Battle of Brittan happens. At this point the USA is out Germany isn't going to attack the UK with the USA in the fight. December 1941 still happens that means conceivably Germany Declares war on the USA causing the USA to declare war on Germany. If the UK stays out than that means a massive collapse on the eastern front (Imagine the combined might of the USA and Russia on the Eastern Front.). I don't see this as the point the USA isn't the deciding factor here. There isn't going to be Jutland II thats insane. Coral Sea alone proved that style of warfare was dead, Midway shows a totally new style. The only way this works is Germany not declaring war on the USA on the 11th of December 1941.

[@tihomirrasperic]

I have a question what would have happened if Hitler had not invaded the West after Poland? That he only hod the border in the west? German submarines did not go out into the Atlantic and do not touch the British Italy would not enter the war, France would sit behind the Magilot line, Belgium and the Netherlands are neutral and serve as a trading zone for both sides Would Britain and France agree to peace in the fall of 1940? Consider that keeping the army on the border is a big strain on the economy of France and Britain. and the Germans do not attack. And when he gets peace with the British and the French, the door is open for Hitler to deal with Stalin The Wehrmacht was not stretched across France to Norway and all the way south to Greece All divisions could attack the Soviet Union at once Not to mention how much stronger the Luftwaffe would be

[@adampurcell5179]

Couldn't see that Happening, Because we had 5 Years to build more Ships and Planes,Tanks And have a Fully Fit and trained Army of probably 2 Million plus by then😁

[@ktvindicare]

I think this scenario is plausible up to Operation Barbarossa and the strengthening of the German Air Force. What happens after that though I don't know. Does the US get involved earlier? Do they stay out? Does the extra German Air Power even matter that much when weather conditions in Russia can be so volatile and were a big reason that Stalingrad went the way that it did in the first place? Would the German Super Ships he's proposing even make sense when in our own timeline, WW2 was the last war in which the battleship was even a thing because Air Power was quickly making them obsolete? In the end I still don't see how Germany wins World War 2. They simply don't have the men or resources to fight a prolonged war against both the United States and the Soviet Union. I cant even see a scenario where Germany sues for peace successfully with the west because of Mustache Man's insane ego wanting to be able to hold onto everything including France.

[@010Jordi]

The United States wouldn't have created the atomic bomb that fast without the research the British had already done and didn't have the aircraft to bomb Germany anyway from the other side of the Atlantic

[@stonehenge2493]

I feel like dunkirk was more of a reprieve for the US populace in a sense that it allowed the masses to be somewhat pacified or relieved. Which lessened the political pressure. If say, 1/4 million troops were killed or captured then I think that would lead to a direct US intervention into England and the same real world scenario kicks off with exception to pearl harbor being ransacked. As the US would be officially in the war and on high alert meaning the Japanese fleet would have been heavily damaged during its assault on Pearl Harbor. Having a fully deployed Pacific Fleet would likely have absolutely crippled the japanese fleet.

[@alfonsmarklen1345]

I'm honestly not that convinced that the USA would interfere if the UK are not a part of the war since the only relatives to the American population would that's occupied would be Denmark and Norway and I will assume that the Americans don't have any major love towards the Russians

[@marksheen4873]

Or obviously not invading ussr. War would’ve happened either way but it wouldn’t have been ww2 anymore

[@tremendousbaguette9680]

11:40 If you ever visit the Armistice Glade in Compiègne, they'll show you a reel about how after taking the wagon in 1940, the Germans dismantled everything else and carried it over to Germany, leaving absolutely nothing, even the railtracks, all but the big statue of Foch overlooking the empty space as a final gesture of vexation. And then a camera on a Fieseler Storch shot the scene from above for ultimate propaganda purpose.

[@Eluzian86]

I think it was all plausible aside from the successful dropping of atomic bombs by surprise on Germany's two most important cities. Even when Germany was still at war with Britain and the Soviet Union when they declared war on the United States 5 days after Pearl Harbor. Germany honored their oral agreement to join the war against the United with the Empire of Japan. I think they would still honor that agreement especially because they'd likely be an a more advantageous position. Much of the public in the United States believed Germany had a hand in planning the Pearl Harbor attack. The "neutral" country of the United States had been sending military aide to Germany's enemies, so Germany would naturally view the United States as a threat. With Japan keeping them busy, it would be an opportunity to attack the United States in a weaker position and force them to fight a two-front war on their own. With the land war basically done, the industry that fed the land forces in our timeline, could be put to building up their navy instead. Things like aircraft carriers would be prioritized. With most of Europe under Germany's direct control or as allies, it's possible the 3rd Reich could have reached a level of industry almost to the same level as the United States, especially since most of it would still be intact in this scenario. Germany wouldn't take all of the Soviet Union yet. A sensible stopping point would be the Ural Mountain range that makes a strong defensive line and they would have around 2/3 of the Soviet population under their control, and most of their industry. If there wasn't some kind of Vichy Russia, then the Germany's could still easily hold the line since the Soviets would have mostly just fresh conscripts without the war industry to sufficiently supply them. If the United States still gets the atomic bomb developed, I think the more likely scenario is it being used to annihilate Germany's invasion forces. I think Germany could fend off the United States long enough that they could develop atomic bombs as well. Germany would have a larger population to pull from, and their airforce would become superior with the jet technologies, which would actually make it easier for Germany to drop atomic bombs on the United States. Frankly, I believe that would tip the scales far enough in Germany's favor to defeat the United States.

[@SKPanda1915]

Who's making the bomb for the Germans? The same scientists missing from completing the bomb in our timeline would still be gone in this timeline no? I thought documents showed they weren't nearly as close to being done (infancy stage) as believed. Those needed to split the atom etc were dead or in a camp somewhere.

[@Golden-lc6oi]

@@SKPanda1915 Definetely agree with that take, While I don't doubt that Germany could develop the bomb after many years, it would likely be of little to no use for the Germans, as there would be no clear target for them to strike that would require a nuke, unlike the allies at this point in time.

[@philipcone357]

Mr. Terry you forget that the Axis was an alliance in name only. So yes Japan would still attack America and Britain was not an island. Britain was the Empire. Canada, Australia, Egypt, the Middle East, Gibraltar, India, Hong Kong. And America was ready to send material through Alaska to Siberia in our time line. They would have done so if England dropped out. But I do not see Churchill dropping out.

[@JoshDerenburger]

Memory serves me well, the US and UK thought that both the Germans and Soviets were both horrible and just didn't know which one of the two they'd have to fight first. So i don't really know if anything Russia would bring the US in. And if the UK was out for whatever reason I'd guess the US would just fight Japan and leave Europe largely alone. Especially without all the lend lease and pre-entry war gaming the US did with the other allies. More so if Germany didn't declare war on US post Pearl Harbor. Of course I'm the long run the US and Germany probably would go at it cause Germany Ukraine had that as an eventually goal. But I'd guess it'd have been years after taking all Europe and Russia. If they managed that

[@TheGameDomeGuy]

the funny thing is that cody only gets hated on twitter because of his comic book video on his pointlesshub channel and honestly yeah it was a really bad take on the boys comic

[@GuillaumeForman]

Under 1h gang😂

[@UV_Lightning]

K

[@crosshyparu]

I think that kind of surrender or annihilation at Dunkirk would have turned the US against Germany and the call for war would have been much sooner by the populace. I don’t think it would have been enough for FDR to declare war but it would have kicked our military growth into high gear a lot sooner than the attack at Pearl Harbor. Japan probably still would have attacked but probably in a more strategic way with a much bigger adversarial Navy to deal with, and Russia still would have pushed into Berlin and ended the war. The Allies would not have been able to push past France in that amount of time, since taking back GBR would have been painstakingly difficult. I think history definitely would have changed, but it would be more of the Cold War period rather than a German WW2 victory.

[@lucasholmberg5708]

If you want your videos to be interesting but also educational you might wanna pause the video your reacting to when you speak. When you talk and he is talking to I cant hear anyone. Just a tip :)

[@Flametrooper118]

I believe it is quite impossible to nuke Berlin and Hamburg in this scenario, with the resources not depleted by a dragging eastern campaign and, as he already mentioned, beefed up luftwaffe and kriegsmariene Germany would have a lot of superior aircraft like mass produced HO229 and Me226. And the US did not have the opportunity to use Britain as a Base of Operation, so the planes to deliver the bombs need to fly all the way from the US to Germany, not impossible but I think not unnoticed and consequently shot down. In this scenario the use of the Atomic Bomb would be too risky for the US

[@Flametrooper118]

An additional thought here: I am not so sure if the US would even have a reason to prioritize Europe over the Pacific. With Britain surrendering, the US don't have to send aid to Britain, hence no or less U-boats sink US Ships in the Atlantic. So when Japan attacks Perl Harbor Japan is the bigger thread to the US than Germany. Sonthe bombs would still hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[@peter_oso]

Read book "Vaterland"

[@FireteamJoker]

Is it just me, or was anyone else annoyed when the original video narrator kept saying "Bridden" instead of Britain?

[@usrevenge]

These "they would have won or lost" are always weird. Germany could win if a lot of things change. But it would require england or the ussr to surrender or something crazy to happen like all of France unite and join Germany instead of surrender and hate themselves for it. There was no world where Germany with its resources could sustain itself like England and the ussr could with the us backing economically. And even if the us was idle I think Germany would have went further but ultimately still lost to the ussr. Stalin was building factories all the way by the ural mountains in preparation for losing the western half of Russia. He was in the for the long haul assuming his people would support him.

[@hopedream11]

Taking Moscow wouldn't have did anything contrary to what German field marshalls said. Napoleon took it, burned the city and still had to flee the entire country and his campaign was arguably more prepared then Hitler's was in the 1800's no less. Also factories in the Urals meant no way in hell Germans were taking out USSR production. Their logistics were already shit in early Barb, and got even worse after 42 hence Kursk op which was basically a last gasp. Game was over from that point no matter what Germany did. Many people assume Germany could force a surrender. Stalin said it was a war of annihilation that meant to the last bullet and man. Military historians don't like to mention this or alt history people because it basically kills any Germany victory scenario.

[@gumdeo]

Any meaningful change would have to occur in 1940.

[@sagethegreat4680]

Well there is a ton of actual ways Germany could've have won. 1. If Germany stopped the eastern expansion and focused on Britain. 2. If the Italians were a little more helpful Germany could've won 3. If d day failed Germany could've have won 4. If the germans v 2 rockets were more refined and effective they could've won 5. If the Germans had rolled out their jet planes earlier they could've have won 6. If the Russian's failed to defend against the Germans and start pushing back Germany could've won 7. If hitler convinced Mexico to atrack the us . Germany could've won . 8. If hitler had stopped before Poland the world might just him have everything he had already taken Surprisingly there is a ton of ways he could've have won but he didn't and that makes the hard fought win the allies got that much better

[@polishlithuaniainanutshell5146]

All of these are shitty ideas cause of time. The Soviets were already planning to invade

[@hesamrazavi5755]

28:38 Japan doesn't need to attack pearl harbor.they attack soviet and obtain oil that way

[@tomhalla426]

There was no oil development in Siberia in 1940-41. It was all around the Caspian, which is what Stalingrad was about.

[@gmanbo]

At the time the Japanese were scared of the Soviets. If the war crushed them then the Japanese might consider going north. But as the above commenter said it didn't have much if any oil production.

[@gmanbo]

​@@tomhalla426 I agree. However an alternative source of oil was the south Pacific. The Dutch east Indies. If the war in Europe had kicked England out... + The Dutch did not have British support.... A sale of oil from here bypassing the American embargo is possible. Not nessarilly forever but enough to delay the start of the war. + Break more of China's resistance.

[@tomhalla426]

@@gmanbo But in our time line, the Brits and the Dutch were tight. Royal Dutch Shell was half Brit owned.

[@hesamrazavi5755]

@@gmanbo so they can buy oil from germany

[@johnnamorton6744]

28:50 ... First of All You still had the Canada UK route. Greenland (Denmark) was still largely free of German control, you still had Iceland. Most Supplies were going Maine- Gander- Revijek- Edinburgh. Americans fought in the Battle of Brittan. That's still a reality and there is no way the UK is going to surrender its Navy and Germany didn't have a Navy. Lend lease still happens. CONVERSELY We are still shipping things through Unalaska to Vladavostak and to the front line via the trans siberian railway. Like Ukraine today we were selling off old equipment to make new equipment. Pearl Harbor isn't til December 1941 and that western route isn't cut off til June 6 1942 the battle of Dutch Harbor which is halted because of the loss of 4 Aircraft Carriers the Dutch Harbor fleet has to turn tail and protect the Japaneese Navy. The UK if ANYTHING is going to be buying more shit cause they took heavy losses. in 500 years of history no one was content to let the UK be idle not even the Irish who revolt when half their army is at war in France.

[@ronmaximilian6953]

In general, the Nazis treated Western pows fairly well, especially British pows. In the beginning of the war. The Nazis fought a race war against Slavic people and the fantasy delusion of the Judeo-Bolshevist menace in the East. The Nazi is truly wanted to wipe out a significant proportion of Slavic peoples, enslave a minority, and expel the rest into Asia. On the other hand, they saw the English as their cousins or at least a mixed race ruled by a Germanic overclass. So in this scenario, they would have treated the Dunkirk pows quite well and had them write home for propaganda purposes. Whether each and every British Jew captured would make it back is quite another story. And I could see the US being able to drop bombs on Germany at night. The b-29 was quite effective at night and while the Germans became quite proficient at night fighting in our timeline, they would not have been in this timeline. They wouldn't have had night interceptors here. The b-29 would have flown at 30,000 ft, which would have been well above the 88 mm flak guns and anything short of the 128 mm flak guns which might not have even been invented at this point in this scenario. Of course, if the United States is involved, the German Navy is doomed because we would have had four or five modern battleships and a dozen modern aircraft carriers in the Atlantic.

[@Curtisscout]

No, not a chance. They took on the 3 largest manufacturing countries at the same time. We had more men, oil, food and the ability to build 100s of times more stuff. Not a chance.

[@timnewman7591]

I don't think the political considerations are realistic. I can't imagine who is going to change sides in the key vote to ask about peace terms. I presume Churchill won't, and then you've got Attlee and Henderson from the Labour Party who aren't likely to split and who aren't going to go against what at this stage was party policy. Not to mention that even if that happens the peace treaty would have to get through the House of Commons which is hugley unlikely in the circumstances. Also, the issue with the Germans in Russia in 1941 wasn't aq lack of resources; it was that they couldn't supply the ones that they had in place. Now lets add more troops that also need supplies (particularly aviation fuel). This does not happen. The Germans knew that before they started the invasion - their supply planning pointed it out in planning conferences that they couldn't take all the objectives planned for the campaign without having supply capabilities they didn't have. While the scenario doesn't lead to the Naught Germans under Moustache Man winning, here's one where the post-war settlement is very different. Group Captain Stagg was wrong. Not very wrong. Not very wrong, D-Day still goes ahead on the 6th June and the troops get ashore. And then on the morning of 7th June, the wind is getting up and the waters of the Channel are turning nasty. My estimate is that four days of bad weather from the 7th June, and there's no Normandy campaign. And at that point, the Iron Curtain runs along the Rhine.