Was Germany's Defeat Inevitable in WW2? Turning Point? And more... TIK Patreon Q&A 4

[@abc68130]

Personally I think the turning point in WW2 was Millions of years ago, when large amounts of oil formed in other parts of the world, but not in Germany. That meant it couldn't produce their own oil, which meant they would run out eventually.

[@deason2365]

Based

[@sijul6483]

Mother nature is always three steps ahead.

[@robertschumann7737]

Problem with Hitler was he never tried to fix the problem. He always just treated the symptoms. The Germans idea to solve their oil crisis was to take it from somebody else. In the late 30s (1938 I believe) biodiesel was discovered in Belgium. There was no shortage of farmland. Had he invested half of the Marks he spent turning coal into gasoline on biodiesel and switching his tanks to diesel engines he could have solved the Wehrmacht's oil shortage without firing a shot. The best leaders in history have always found solutions to problems. Instead of applying band aids to symptoms. Hitler was always one of the latter. FDR wad am example of the former.

[@kellyaquinastom]

German Coal turned into liquid fuel. Diesel

[@bautistamercader4737]

​@@kellyaquinastomthat more than clearly wasn't enough

[@Duke_of_Lorraine]

"I don't know what Venezuela uses for money" Monopoly money

[@alex20776a]

That hit to close home

[@Dmartinez117]

Bolivars, Otherwise Known As Monopoly Money

[@odysseus2656]

I read that they import their printed currency and it costs more to buy the currency than it is worth.

[@ricardoguanipa8275]

currently, The US dollars irregularly but the the Government regulators Look the other way , everything in the streets is now priced with US dollars rounded up two the closes $ US Bill denomination so one "Arepa" is $0.50 but you have to buy 2 of them to pay with $1.00 Dollar bill because no one give change back. Currently The Government mandate Minimum wage is at $1 a month with $ 1 extra that the government subsidies but Most International Companies pay they the Minimum wage around $150 a month

[@halporter9]

@@odysseus2656 wwwwww

[@ninjasheep7492]

The turning point was when Germany invaded Luxembourg. In every war Germany fought against Luxembourg they’ve lost badly. Luxembourg is just too strong in their 200 years of existence they have literally never lost a war and usually their enemies dissolve into revolution or civil war they get beaten so badly

[@mathewkelly9968]

NinjaSheep lol

[@divyeshpatel147]

Wtf???

[@adamandsharonrowe6605]

The absolute and only truth. :-)

[@chuckschillingvideos]

Yes, never underestimate the mighty duchy!

[@davidbofinger]

They fought in Korea, which I'm guessing would be scored as a draw. So not a perfect record.

[@theanonymousmrgrape5911]

“I don’t know what Venezuela uses for its currency.” I’m not sure that they do either.

[@williammunoz744]

hah true.

[@robertsteinbach7325]

Anything but their own currency. A 2020 50,000 Venezuela Bolivar note can't buy anything.

[@treman722]

I love how he gets right to the question invoked at the title right at the start of the video. So refreshing for KZbin.

[@kaywonderer]

This channel is not sponsored or managed by youtube..

[@4h844]

@@kaywonderer And? It's still a breath of fresh air ON this platform.

[@kaywonderer]

@@4h844 not really, he doesnt say anything controversial or fresh.

[@4h844]

@@kaywonderer I'm explaining to you the comment you seemed to not understand. Overly left brained ?

[@SinOfAugust]

May I point out that reaching Moscow is not the same as taking it. Moscow was made into a fortress in the end of 1941, much more-so than Stalingrad.

[@lewistaylor2858]

true but it wasn't one isolated Germany army trying to take it, 6th army actually did very well within Stalingrad itself and had essentially taken the entire city, the operation was lost on the flanks outside Stalingrad and hence 6th army was defeated without actually fighting. An equivalent of Stalingrad would not have happened in Moscow because the entire mass of Army Group Centre was focused on the city- the Red army was nowhere near strong enough to complete an encirclement and then containment and destruction of Army Group Centre in 1941/42.

[@Cornel1001]

You are naive ! First off all the CCCP had a second capital Kuibashev-Samara !

[@smithnwesson990]

@@Cornel1001 😆 The Soviets losing Moscow would kill morale. Not only that but their lifeline of supplies from the US was viyal to moving troops and artillery

[@Cornel1001]

@@smithnwesson990 Morale ?! The soviet leaders never lost their morale ! Not a single second ! The rest were expandable ! The OKW never had a clear plan to conquer CCCP. They never understood this country, this military power. They made same estimation like : soviets lost 85% fight capacity in just 6 months. 85% from what ?! Even now this strength is a secret. The number of the divisions, tanks , planes, shock armies, CEKA armies are pure Secret. Even now they pretend was no soviets troops, on the border of Finland, Germany, Slovakia, Romania and Turkey in June 1941. Some of the units were in meter away from the official borders. Not too many , just 5 millions ! USA and GB help for CCCP was not vital. But they were there, and that count when soviets stopped the army in Berlin in 1945. Even was vital, for days or weeks, they will never recognise this situation. CCCP industry was in state of war since 19 August 1939 ! So at Stalingrad they produce tanks not tractors, in that night shift already ! Hitler move to the war industry the entire economy in 1942 ! I will say he lost his morale in that day ! Next to any hopes to win the war. The front line generals advise Hitler for peace since November 1941 ! Low morale was already well installed on Wehrmacht. I will say you pointed in the wrong direction, with the morale .

[@vandeheyeric]

And even taking it isn't the same as holding it. The Polish-Lithuanians took it in the 17th century, Napoleon took it in 1812, and the Crimean tatars took it a bunch of times on and of. But nobody except the latter were able to translate that into any kind of meaningful strategic advantage.

[@mihaiserafim]

"Let's be Halder", I immediately reached for my Luger to shoot myself. It didn't work.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

lol

[@joaocabral3541]

one of the best comments i have ever seen

[@twirlipofthemists3201]

@Jim lastname Stalin was a bastard. It wasn't just him, though. After the war, USA sponsored ex-nazis to kill off partisans in Greece, for instance. Empires don't like armed groups with experience fighting tyrants.

[@bradenatkinson6401]

I thought he said Halderp lol

[@jeffreyroot7346]

Regarding the Greek partisans, the Greek civil war was the opening stage. of the Cold War. The British started the support efforts, with the majority of the old Partisans being Communists.

[@squamish4244]

Really, the fact that Germany got as far as it did was staggering, and unbelievably tragic.

[@casparcoaster1936]

I am 62, a yank, always loved any ww2 in any detail. This channel, or whatever you call a youtube subscriptions, is wonderful. My PHD in ww2 history. All jocking aside, many, many thanks.!!!!!!!!! (you have made it possible to really look at the largest conflict in world history, from a perspective of greater depth and perspective than I ever considered. Really glad I came across this)

[@smokindragn1]

I am curious to read your opinion on why Germany's defeat was inevitable. I believe it was because Germany was still operating a peace time economy prior to 1939 instead of a wartime economy

[@philodonoghue3062]

It’s what the Brits do

[@Violent2aShadow]

For me, the turning point was when Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge....

[@sammycalifornia8002]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ' - Genesis 1:1 " is when I was convinced.

[@panzerfaust375]

Jurassic period. Clearly Hitler can not win the war that he will wage 150,000 million years from now.

[@Brandywine53]

I would have to say the turning point for me was when Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins.

[@atzuras]

@@panzerfaust375 the Dinosaurs leave Germany because they don't like the weather, so that's why there's no oil in there.

[@hrdley911]

It's been all downhill since then...

[@kaczynskis5721]

One book on the Eastern Front I read years ago (its name escapes me) mentioned that Luftwaffe pilot maps marked in areas of the occupied USSR that were considered dangerous because they were not under genuine Axis control and partisans or in German parlance "bandits" were able to move around freely. These areas were coloured in pink on their maps and it was considered suicidal to bail out over them or to crash-land.

[@signoguns8501]

Im sure that was true of the entire eastern front lol. It was all a meat grinder.

[@HoH]

My mouth waters looking at your bookcase.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

It's all thanks to my Patreons!

[@Isserson]

Hi, I love your channel. Saying that, regarding the topic, I think that Germany could never, ever win WW2. Arguments: 1.) Germany barely had resources to defear Poland. Halder in his journal stated that they had issues with production capacity of gunpowder. That Germany had a steel deficit of 600k per month, that.Guderian had losses of 15%-20% but total replacement was not possible. This situation described was end September 1939 when the main raw material source for Germany was the Soviet Union. 2.) Germany couldn't conquer entire France. Of course, France capitulated but if Germany had the logistics, manpower, resources wasn't a more logical ideea to occupy entire France - nice roads, nice weather, conquer industrial centers of Lyon, Grenoble, Toulouse and so on. In addition, Germany had issues keeping the conquered contries under control France, Yugoslavia, Netherlands and so on. The reports of the Gauleiters (appointed german administrators) always complained for lack of manpower to keep the population under control. 3.) The attack on Pearl Harbor - on 7th of December1941 rhe fate of Germany in Soviet Union was sealed. Japan was the major german ally which could had a huge impact on soviet military operations. After the attack on Pearl Harbor the soviets were sure Japan will not attack and could start sending important amounts of military reinforcements from the Extreme Orient via Transsib. There many others but I think it suffice for now. my2c

[@twirlipofthemists3201]

It's my eyes that water.

[@davidolie8392]

My mouth dries up. My bookcase (well, one of several) looks like this, but Glantz is a long drive in the sun. You really have to want to get to your destination, but it's worth it in the end.

[@rafopderand8524]

You should see my library then, bruh! I don't want to brag about muh library-dick-size, but I'm sure you'd have some fun with it as well.

[@SwabianWookie]

As a german: I really like your analytic mind and if you need help in learning german and/or need help in translating german archive material: I am glad to help!

[@MrDead00]

No nazi

[@altaiaurelius]

Don’t mind the idiot replying to you

[@koj2698]

@@altaiaurelius Did you mean the anti-nazi guy?

[@altaiaurelius]

@@koj2698 the guy who stereotypes the original commenter as a Nazi for being German.

[@JohnBrownsArmory]

@@altaiaurelius The funny thing is, isn't that the Polish emblem???

[@nvo7024]

8:55 - "dollars are meaningless in Britain" - ehh... just send this meaningless heap to me. I'll even pay postage. Promise!

[@joeyl.souzaneto3597]

I believe that the germans lost the war when they didn't focus Barbarossa on the south. Had they gone directly to the Caucasus, they'd have a fair chance, since the first months of the campaign were of immense advances by the germans.

[@Stockfish1511]

Problem with this is that Stalin actually had guessed that this would have happened and that Hitler would go for the oilfields and concentrated large portion of the army in the south. Funny but this is what Hitler actually wanted aswell, this direction was changed by Halder prior to barbarossa to go for Moscow instead. Another problem is that they had really hard time advancing in the centre with huge manpower and equipment advantage. So chances are if they gone for south, they would have risked massively to be cut of with counter attack from the centre. Imo no matter how you look at it, barbarossa fails. Soviet union was just to tough of a cookie to break.

[@J7Handle]

@@Stockfish1511 Actually, the North African Campaign would have allowed Hitler to win imo. Italy suffered great defeats against Britain early in North Africa due to poor planning. Had Italy and/or Germany put more effort into North Africa early on (I'm talking about securing the Suez Canal in the Fall of 1940), they could have cut the Suez Canal and hurt the British that way. More importantly, the British would lose influence in the Balkans, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq as a result. Yugoslavia would probably have joined the Tripartite Pact and not suffered a coup, Greece might try to stay out of the war but would be pressured into the Tripartite Pact (or they would suffer a joint invasion with no outside help and be defeated in late 1940 or early 1941). Turkey would then lose faith in Britain and allow German supplies and troops to move through Turkish borders, if they don't get pressured to join the Axis outright. With an axis invasion through Turkey at the start of Barbarossa in April 1941 (2-3 months before reality which would make the Soviets even further from completing their overhaul of their military), the Soviets would lose the most important parts of the Caucasus in possibly under a month, too fast for them to recover their oil storage or destroy the oil fields. This would also give the Axis a land route to North Africa and the Middle East, starting in April 1941. Unknown factors in this scenario due to expanded Axis influence would be the fates of Spain, Portugal, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Arabian Peninsula, and Africa as a whole. Spain supposedly planned to join the Axis upon the Axis reaching certain objectives in Operation Barbarossa, which never happened. In the scenario where the Axis invades the Caucasus via Turkey, they would presumably end up crushing the Soviets as they run out of oil to run their planes, tanks, trucks, factories, etc. That would then be Spain's cue to join the war, presumably taking Gibraltar via the element of surprise, and Portugal would now be a potential target. Portugal might cave to pressure from Spain, but if they hesitate, the Axis might take the initiative to avoid the opening of a new Western Front and invade. In any case, Portugal would be controlled by the Axis one way or another. With Gibraltar gone, the Allies would be locked out of the Mediterranean. That would leave Malta and Cyprus as easy pickings. Without North Africa and the Suez Canal, Britain would now be fighting along the Nile (and this situation would already be underway by January 1941, so before Barbarossa by 3 months). To secure a land route to Italian East Africa, the Axis would then fight south along the Nile River, pushing the Allies out of Sudan. From there, the Axis could hold position in East Africa, go west towards Free French territories in Central Africa (Chad, Cameroon, Central Africa), go south towards Kenya and Tanzania (incidentally opening a land border to Portuguese Mozambique, where we're forced to speculate on the status of Portugal again), or even go southwest into the French and Belgian Congo. If they chose to go south, which I think they would, they would use the Albertine Rift as a natural barrier and proceed down the east side, gaining the opportunity to push through into British Zambia and Portuguese Mozambique. Fighting West to secure Chad and Cameroon would likewise be done. All of this I could see being done with the Italian ground forces numbering somewhere in the range of 200,000-500,000, happening by the end of 1941. By that time, Spain would be Axis and Portugal would be either conquered or Axis, leaving Mozambique to be either freely invaded or freely traversed by the Axis. Basically, fighting down the east coast of Africa could realistically threaten South Africa by mid-1942 at the earliest, which would cut the British Navy in two, but presumably the U.S. is in the war on the Allied side by that point. In any case, the British would be tied up with the Italians in Africa for years after the Axis secures the Suez in 1940. Meanwhile, Iraq was pro-allies, but IRL they suffered a pro-Axis coup. Not sure how an alternate timeline would go, but safe to say the Allies would have low influence in Iraq. The Arabian peninsula also might be threatened by the Axis. The parts that aren't already Allied would likely stay neutral, but they might trade with the Axis. Similarly, Iran, which favored the Axis prior to the allied invasion of Iran, would trade with the Axis, or maybe could even join Barbarossa, giving the Axis a front into the Stans and into the British Raj. They would almost certainly be sucked into the war at some point or another even if they don't join Barbarossa (northeast Iran is pretty much too far from Germany for Germany to maintain a high force count there, so Iran probably wouldn't invade the stans but just fortify the border and maybe the Germans would fly sortie against Uzbekistan). Afghanistan also was supportive of the Axis, and would also have a chance of being sucked into the war. They wouldn't likely capture any territory, and might even fall, but they would tie up a small number of Allied forces. Presuming Africa and the potential Iran-Raj front could tie up British forces for years, the Japanese might enjoy significantly greater advances against the British when they eventually go to war, and India might be destabilized due to the independence movement. The weakening of the British and multiple countries joining the Axis leads to the collapse of the Soviet Union sometime in 1943 or 1944. From there, the Germans either turn towards India or the British Isles. Under these circumstances, with Iranian and possibly still Afghani forces already fighting for the Axis near India, Germany might send significant forces to south Asia, leading to the British losing India. By 1945, India could still be holding out, and the U.S. has already started to destroy the Japanese Navy if they haven't already (the Japanese really caved in naval power in 1944, while they were sort of holding out in 1943). By 1945, the U.S. has the nuke. But who do they use it against? Germany and Italy are too far from Britain to nuke, not to mention Germany has a strong Luftwaffe in this scenario. Only a nuke attached to a ballistic missile could threaten Germany and Italy at this point, and the U.S. doesn't have any. If they have Iwo Jima or Okinawa by this time, which I imagine they probably do, they can nuke Japan. But without the Soviet Union, with the British collapsing in India, and with China possibly surrendered by this time, Japan would not even surrender in the face of a handful of nukes, and could possibly develop weapons to shoot down B-29s. The other Axis countries could also move supplies and forces via Russia to Korea, then flying them in to Japan, and Japan could again contest the skies. The U.S. would need to invade mainland Japan. This wastes time, and by 1946 Germany has all of the available resources to pummel the British into submission. The United States becomes the last member of the Allied side, and must agree to peace by 1948, as by that time Germany is at least close to having nukes, and while the U.S. would likely also have ballistic missiles by that time, both sides would understand that a long drawn out conflict with no fronts would not be worth it. Thus would begin a cold war. The initial peace would likely not be great for Japan after being occupied by the U.S., and if the U.S. agrees to withdraw from Japan, the Axis would throw Japan under the bus and split influence over the Pacific with the U.S. All of this just from the North African Front. Really, Operation Compass. And it was only really Italian incompetence and German complacency that allowed Operation Compass to succeed.

[@Stockfish1511]

@@J7Handle That was a long post to read. But to me african campaign wouldnt not change anything nor taking turkey etc. Problem was that Axis was out of time. It was then or never. Soviet union was having a massive industrialization. The economy was growing at massive rates and they army was getting stronger and stronger. Not only this Stalin new war with germany was unavoidable and had big factories and other plans to grow the army. So if germany say waited another year or two it would have failed far worse because the soviet army would be at insane size, better prepared, better fortified lines. I think Hitler should just not attack soviets. They tried, but it was a tough cookie tbh

[@J7Handle]

@@Stockfish1511 Wait a year or two? Yes it would have been worse, but I was never suggesting that. In fact, my suggestion was to move the invasion forwards to April instead of June. Also, I saw that the USSR had 86% of oil production and 50% of oil reserves in Caucasus, and in 1941 USSR was in the midst of expanding the military. Getting a deal with Turkey to invade through the Caucasus would take the oil fields in 2 months, and that would end Soviet industrialization. I wasn't suggesting to take Turkey but to have Turkey join the Axis. Trying to take Turkey would be a waste of time of course, but getting Turkey to sign the Tripartite Pact would not be. But swaying Turkey would require taking the Suez.

[@vidavuk1649]

There are more breaking points. It simply could not be done : too big teritory, logistic problems, infrastructure, human factor. . . man could learn from Napoleon defeat, but ambition was too great. The Germans did not count all the facts properly, and they understimated enemy. because of well known attitude to the Slavs generally.

[@thekoolaidkid337]

Hey TIK, I wanted to say that your Operation Crusader videos every week are extremely fantastic videos to watch. They are something that I look forward to seeing in my subscriptions every Monday, can’t wait for the next one.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Awesome! That's good to hear :) I really want my Battlestorm videos to be the best quality possible, so to get this feedback is fantastic. Thank you!

[@EvilMaleficus]

You and me both.

[@DoddyIshamel]

@@TheImperatorKnight If you keep it up to the quality of the crusader videos you will make a lot of people very happy, they are excellent.

[@011258stooie]

@Psychic Electron I'm finding them as dry as a David Glantz book.

[@neilwilson5785]

It's really detailed, and well-researched, so unlike everything on mainstream TV. I'm sick of documentaries that show those Panthers at the gates of Moscow. Except for the Man in the High Castle.

[@andrewdolokhov5408]

The USA was working on the Manhattan Project very early on in the war. It also was working on the B-36 bomber project. No matter how well Germany did in Europe, it was likely to face destruction from the air in the late 1940s, in my opinion.

[@stevenwillicombe9505]

Hindsight ?

[@shannonkohl68]

Yep. Any road that did NOT lead to a German exit prior to August of 45, lead to Germany being nuked.

[@andrewdolokhov5408]

@@stevenwillicombe9505 History. The Manhattan Project was aimed at Germany from the beginning. If Germany was still fighting in August 1945 the West would have had the weapon, the will, and the delivery capacity to use it.

[@kaywonderer]

​@@mapac8866 The Uranium US used for nukes was possibly seized from Germany.

[@kaywonderer]

If Germany did well and used its me262 how could they drop nuke in europe anyway?

[@deepcosmiclove]

I was in Venezuela in the 80's and there was a 5 Bolivar silver coin in circulation. It bought things. It wasn't monopoly money.

[@233kosta]

Unfortunately 40 years later, things aren't quite so rosy... 😞

[@Ambtran2023]

For me the turning point was when a little Austrian guy didn't get into art school.

[@pierresihite8854]

For me the turning point was when the British soldier didn't shoot the disarmed man with a funny mustache

[@jubalandersonearly4123]

You are right. Scarlett O'Hara tipe. Very talented, but so many things to do. Plus stupid ideology of race and social - darwinism. Nothing of Spengler.

[@honkytonk4465]

@@just_a_random_n00b_ Göring

[@harrymills2770]

For me, the turning point came when Bismarck dreamt up socialized medicine: fee.org/articles/socialized-medicine/. This is when the hereditary elites tried to buy off the working class with Free Stuff, in an attempt to head off the commies, back in 1883. Of course, he saw things as a false dichotomy between the ruling aristocracy and the commie takeover, rather than LETTING laissez-faire capitalism take root and the workers become shareholders, rather than serfs.

[@Phunny]

For me, the turning point was when the Big Bang happened.

[@heres1for2day]

Hey TIK, love them vids and the proper historiography of WW2. My one thing to say, is it's a shame their isn't more people online making vids this detailed on other points in time. Keep up the stellar work!

[@johnnydavis5896]

The Axis defeats in 1942 sealed their fates but before that -victory was possible but better strategic decisions needed to be made. Big difference between odds against vs. impossible.

[@Nathan-zw7nq]

I would agree the odds were against them before the war started, but there was still a chance. As it went on the odds kept getting worse, but Fall Blau/Stalingrad was the last opportunity for the Nazis to go against the odds and potentially win. After that, they were done. It was just a matter of time.

[@Treblaine]

I don't see how anyone could have reasonably made a much better decision with the information they had available. Inevitably the German supply lines would be both stretched over a longer distance and diluted over a wider front as the Soviets would be closer to their supply lines and be able to decide where to strike. Then the Axis would run out of fuel then it's like trying to win a game of chess when you only have pawns and your opponent has all queens.

[@CruelDwarf]

You touched the thing about difference of German logistical capabilities in the center and in the south at the time of Stalingrad and I happen to have a perfect illustration for that difference. Entire 6th Army used 200-400 tonnes of artillery munitions daily on average in the period of August-October 1942. Overall stocks available to 6th Army rarely amounted for more than 1500 tonnes overall. In comparison 39th Panzer Corps alone consumed 500 to 800 tonnes of artillery munitions daily during defense against Mars offensive in November 1942. And artilley munition stocks for the corps were sustained at the level of 3000 tonnes. So one corps of AG center had twice as many artillery shells available to it than entire 6th Army. It is the difference between how well could Germans supply the center and the south of theater of operations.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

That's interesting! Do you have a source for those consumptions??

[@CruelDwarf]

@@TheImperatorKnight I do not have a published source. The numbers are from Russian military historian Alexander Tomzov via vif2ne.org military history forum.

[@BigSmartArmed]

If it was not for Mars commitment, 6th Army would have been reinforced and provided with logistical support needed to overtake Stalingrad, while Soviets were not able to reinforce Stalingrad without compromising other fronts. Mars was a meat grinder to lock down and drain German resources. Stalin and Soviet High Command knew it but could not politically disclose it or the morale would have collapsed. Instead Stalingrad was used to boost morale.

[@CruelDwarf]

@@BigSmartArmed It is a typical conspiracy theory.

[@RussianThunderrr]

@@TheImperatorKnight - A. Isaev have emphasized that point a lot, but its also well known fact about shortages of ammunition for Soviets while Germans spending ammunition almost without restriction, which was a root cause of not been able to mount a successful offensive without ammo and good artillery support at Rhzev. Ammunition shortages for Red Army was going well into 1943, in that 4 month quite period in preparation of operation Citadel, Red Army stockpiled considerable amount of ammo. Also, once ammunition supply was cut off for F. Paulus at Stalingrad, then things turn nasty for 6th Army.

[@christopherbrown4182]

I'm new to your channel, so I don't know if you have addressed this in another video. But in your comments about when is the "turning point" after which Germany could not have won the war, I believe Rommel had some thoughts on the subject that might be worth pondering: Now, it's been almost 4 decades since I read this (1982 or 1983), and I do not have a copy to hand (I read a copy from the library), but someone published an edition of Rommel's notebooks (I seem to recall it was called "Rommel Papers" and I think the editor was Anthony Beevor). Rommel is not necessarily right about everything, but his thoughts have the advantage of not being self-serving in the way that most postwar German memoir materials were. Rommel felt that the war was lost as of December 8, 1941, when Hitler declared war on America to fulfill his Axis obligations to Japan (or whatever his real motivation was). The way he articulated it in his diaries was, "you cannot take on the whole world and win." He was at least hinting at concepts like logistical capacity and industrial capacity, which he found lacking in Germany. If I remember correctly, he also thought Hitler was deeply underestimating the American Army's fighting capabilities, because even though they were inexperienced, untrained, and had very few generals who knew what they were doing. If I remember right, he predicted that the Americans would learn from their mistakes and eventually outfight the Germans (but it's possible I'm mixing this up with other German generals who said things like this postwar). I don't recall him specifically making an issue of oil (and as a division commander, even as a new Corps Commander once AfrikaKorps was formed), such concerns may have been "above his pay grade," although in France he had experienced first hand the operational difficulties that came when there was insufficient oil.

[@remusandromulus7482]

I see "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, i click Like! Also "The Vampire Economy" is crucial to understand why Germany lost from the start as an example for all the governments playing with regulations, inflation, price controls, trade interference, national economic planning, and attacks on private property.

[@RasmusDyhrFrederiksen]

Adam Tooze - The Wages of Destruction is a really, really excellent book. Highly recommended.

[@leighrussell6083]

According to Anthony Beevor, during Fall Blau the Soviets had put out peace feelers, asking the Nazis, 'well what would you require for peace'? or something to that effect. If that was a serious inquiry by the Soviets the Nazis could have have won in the East . Though as TiK says Fall Blau was the last strategic offensive. Also as a Dr. Robert Citino, Barbarossa was a full front Offensive, Fall Blau only half the front was on the Offensive, by the time we get to 1943 the offensive capability had been reduced to just an Army scale.

[@thevillaaston7811]

'According to Anthony Beevor, during Fall Blau the Soviets had put out peace feelers, asking the Nazis, 'well what would you require for peace'?' What evidence does he cite?

[@leighrussell6083]

@@thevillaaston7811 not having the book at my finger tips, I believe he was citing declassified Soviet intelligence reports, the Fall Blau example isnt the only instance of contact between Soviet and Nazis for a potential cease fire or peace during TGPW.

[@rafopderand8524]

The Soviets tried to negotiate with the Germans as soon as late summer 1941 - via Swedish contacts. Indeed, any peace treaty with the USSR would change everything.

[@thevillaaston7811]

@@rafopderand8524 Where is that documented?

[@lenineapornic7275]

that can't no such document exists, anglo american propaganda

[@TedSCSI]

16:10 Most of big factories were evacuated from Moscow, only small one worked, their share in a weapon production rised from 25% to 94% at the end of November. On 8 of November Stalin and GKO (State Defense Committee) ordered preparation for destruction of all the industrial infrastructure in Moscow and redistribution of all the goods (food etc.) amongst the citizens. During the meeting in Stalin offices on 15 of November: all the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union and government members, diplomats had to be evacuated to Kuybyshev (Samara), General staff to Arzamas. Stalin had to leave the town next day but after few hours he changed his mind and decided to stay in Moscow but anyway Soviets prepared special bunker for Stalin in Kuybyshev (it was never used). Evacuation of a Moscow ended at the beginning of December, 2 millions of people fled the city, over 500 factories were dismantled and evacuated. Source "Moscow 1941. A City and its People at War" by Rodric Braithwaite So Soviets began preparation to give up on Moscow ensuring that Germans will gain minimum by conquering the city. Scorched earth politics at it's best.

[@davethompson3326]

Losing the hub of the centralised rail network would have crippled and isolated what was left of the country

[@direct1177]

Taking Moscow in mid September/early October, instead of dividing armor pincers to the North and to the South due to the infamous Hitler's Directive No 33, would have projected a really different story with the 'evacuation case'. Most of these 500 factories in and around Moscow space would be lost to the advancing Germans. Without going for this objective, during Barbarossa campaign, Germans have captured regions responsible for nearly 40% of Soviet pre war industrial capacity. Talking about Moscow significance, it is a duty to highlight its role as a crucial supply and mobilisiation base for the Red Army, hub of Western Soviet railway net, headquarters of the communist regime and the army, as well as a vital heavy industrial region (as above mentioned). Moscow was the center of Soviet state gravity. This union of republics was immensely centralized. I suppose, denying Kremlin's role in Soviet further resistance is an example of high lack of understanding a thing that Stalin and his minions have realized perfectly. If it was no important at all, why have they thrown everything they could to stop the Germans before the capital? 9 (!) newly formed armies were sent to form a Moscow defensive line (8 of them destroyed afterwards, just in two weeks of October). All the efforts were made to stop the Wehrmacht in the central part of the front. And finally, why Stalin hasn't left? He could have done it easily as you mentioned, moving in to Kuybyshev. I tell you why. Because it was the point of 'be or not to be' for the system he single handely created, on millions of enslaved Soviet people corpses.

[@YTPoljo]

@@direct1177 >stalin and his minions lmao

[@direct1177]

What's funny? Minion is a follower or underling of a powerful person. Stalin was omnipotent to any one in his surroundings.

[@TedSCSI]

@@direct1177 Oh, I am perfectly aware of this, I am a Pole, most of us know to the heart Stalin regime modus operandi. I was referring to TIK stating that he is unsure if Stalin will fled Moscow. I personally think that he eventually will if situation will become more desperate having in mind his mental breakdown after the outbreak of a German - Soviet war. I am however not so sure if it will lead to total Soviet Union collapse at least at this moment in time (Typhoon operation). Of course timing factor will play huge role here as you pointed out, if it will be earlier maybe, but remember that best Soviet divisions stationed in Kiev Military District. Will they fight effectively is another question because morale of a Soviet soldiers was already low and such a blow as loosing Moscow could undermine it further.

[@user-qf6yt3id3w]

Adam Tooze in 'The Wages of Destruction' makes a pretty good case that Germany had lost the war by the time it invaded France. If they didn't invade the USSR they'd run out of resources and lose. And if they did invade they lose to the Russians militarily. All of which makes me think that Nazi foreign policy was inherently flawed from the start - it only looked like it was working around the invasion of Poland and Dunkirk but it was doomed in the long regardless of what Hitler did. And as Tooze said, people like Hjalmar Schact pointed out very early on that Hitler's money printing to finance rearmament would be inflationary if it were done in peacetime. I.e. Hitler could only do it because he believed that Germany would conquer a vast empire and essentially abolish capitalism inflation could be finagled in some way - a sort of leveraged buy out of your neighbouring country's assets. www.amazon.co.uk/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0141003480

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Exactly.

[@edwardjohnston6286]

not really, there have been many historians who have criticized Tooze's analysis. and also its highly hindsight based that defeat was inevitable in Russia. The wehrmacht ran literal circles around the red army troop concentrations. There are many historians who claim that a few tactical and strategic changes and Germany could have had the treaty/victory they desired. Honestly 1941 is so catastrophic it really baffles the imagination how bad the red army was at counter attacking and manuevering. Also please remember that America's involvement in the European Theater was critical to victory in Europe, and that DID NOT need to happen. Again, be very careful with hindsight. People have a way of shooting arrows and drawing the target around it.

[@dondajulah4168]

Also from Tooze's book you get a picture of the economic bind that Germany was in that created the scenario where Hitler could emerge as the leader of the country. Especially so when the US turned its back on Germany by shutting out its exports to the Western Hemisphere as a result of The Great Depression. The irony is that while Germany had no viable path to attaining economic prosperity while saddled with The Versailles Treaty where France, and to a lesser extent GB, that path did present itself to Germany in defeat. Tooze book is a great read which shatters a lot of myths and offers coherent, rational explanations (within the context of Nazi ideology) for the actions taken by Hitler and the Nazi government. Reading that book really is a prerequisite to discussing any of the decisions taken by the German government under Nazi rule with any authority.

[@edwardjohnston6286]

@@dondajulah4168 Tooze presents some truths, but he infers way to far into them. Like for instance some people calculate the destruction of the soviet union during world war 2 and infer how it had been inevitable that Soviet union would be defeated and fall at some point like it did 1991. Therefore they claim 1991 fall was something bound to happen because WWII Happen. Fascists came to power in Central Europe partly because of communist scare. Therefore communists coming to power ensured that they would be defeated. I hate that kind of logic which doesn't give any thought to the fact that none of it was inevitable. Things could have taken a different path. There is many paths things could have taken for Germany after the treaty of versailles, they happen to embark on the path that caused a nazi takeover. Many different paths could have been taken once Nazis came to power, they took the path of mobilization. Many paths could have been taken after mobilization. Many different paths could have been taken in so many places in campaigns.

[@dondajulah4168]

@@edwardjohnston6286 I didnt really find Tooze taking any position as to a pre-determined path for German pre-Hitler policy or even after Hitler came to power for that matter. The book points out how various events influenced the choices that were made during that period. On the other hand, I dont see how you can say that there were many paths for Hitler unless you assume that he abandons his ideology. For the most part, Hitler made choices that were not only rational but, for the most part correct within the context of an irrational ideology. What the book does do is very clearly is point out the extremely disadvantageous position which Germany found itself with France being existentially dependent on keeping Germany weak. Even the one factor (Soviet Communism) that had the potential to bring the major European powers closer together was negated by the existence of a strongly anti-Communist, anti-Russian Poland serving as a buffer. I dont even know that alternate paths are really even relevant to the book as its purpose is to explain the factors behind the actual outcome rather than to claim that path was unalterable.

[@georgeikram9695]

I never really read the list of patreons but this time I did and it’s great and funny to see potential history on the list.

[@edgargarred4319]

to reduce a 40 minute video to just 1 word, The answer is:YES

[@zzzkoszzz]

I'll stick with the old school Moscow 1941. Which I've always taken as being as you basically described: centered around the collapse of the regime more than the rail net or simply Moscow itself. The October 16, 1941 “Great Panic.” ..shows how close the regime was to losing control and why "You only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down." was not as off as some believe. The psychological effects often account for more than the material in war...as Darius III learned the hard way. Mid-late 1942..everyone is digging in to the death. The Axis are no longer "always winning". Japan loses at Midway etc... it hard to see the Axis winning post late 1942 without developing atomic bombs of their own...and even then the odds are high everyone would have just added atomics to their arsenals and fought on.

[@richardstokes1290]

Yes, how the Soviet forces held their discipline in 1941 despite the massive losses is a key consideration - and there was nothing inevitable about this.

[@googsey101]

I don't agree that Moscow was overly significant, and generally support the analysis in the video, but I do agree with both above comments in that Soviet regime failure was the only avenue to German success and that we cannot really know how close that may have been historically. I think the key to the regime's ability to survive the military disasters of 1941 was the fact that they had planned for defense in depth, and had reserves sufficient to restore their losses. So long as they were able to keep replacing and growing their army they would remain hopeful. Keeping Stalin in place had the convenience of ensuring, in the meantime, that he would solely be to blame for the poor results...

moscow fall -> army rebels + stalin assasinated -> total victory for germoney

[@VunderGuy]

@Lics Norgi Take the oil. German army fueled. Soviet Army unfueled. German army keeps going forward. Soviet Army rebels. Stalin assassinated. Total victory for germany. Seriously, you take Moscow idiots are so stupid that you probably think all the would be needed to make the US capitulate in a war is taking DC... DC, which even 40's American politicians admitted had no real value of anything except just being the head of government in the country.

[@louisvilleuav5794]

When Stalin did not leave Moscow by train to the Urals at the end of Barbarossa Hitler completely lost the war.

[@williestyle35]

Yep

[@zidan1hao917]

reddy eyes... TIK don't push too much on youself please!!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Oh don't worry, I'm pushing! Exhausted today though if I'm honest. I should be working right now, but I'm actually going to give myself half an hour or so to respond to comments.

[@CBielski87]

@@TheImperatorKnight hit dat tree and carry on

[@davidsault9698]

I read somewhere that during the 1930s the United States produced 70% of the world's oil - that's why cutting off oil to Japan in August of 1941 was so provoking. I doubt that we needed much of anything from Germany in trade, certainly not enough to allow them to stockpile huge amounts of American oil. The Russians probably didn't need much from Germany at that time also. There is also the logistics of oil production and transport. Just because you WANT large amounts of oil suddenly, it doesn't mean all the means of GETTING that oil can be produced quickly - like oil rigs, ships, pipes, storage facilities etc.

[@lemonprofit5147]

I think you left a vital part out. If the Army group north and finns were able to overcome lenningrad there would have been better logistics through sea routes streight from Germany.

[@leonpaelinck]

can't the royal navy easily block the sea access?

[@scottwillie6389]

Simple answer to this question is yes, defeat was inevitable. Soviets were simply nowhere near as weak as the Germans anticipated. Barbarossa was intended to force a general collapse of the Soviet Army and Government. The Germans achieved probably 90%-95% of their goals in Barbarossa and they didn't come anywhere close to causing the intended collapse. At that point, the war was over. Germany had put everything in to Barbarossa and there was no Plan B as Germans simply lacked the resources to fight a war of attrition with the Soviet Union. That Germany lasted as long as they did after their effective strategic defeat in the Winter of 1941 is a testament to the greatness of the German Army.

[@CastelDawn]

indeed

[@jeffmoore9487]

WW2 was so big (people and resources) and dynamic that the mind isn't quick to take it in and see how the parts influence each other, and the whole. However the Germans were at their numerical peak in Barbarossa. The Russians had taken one body blow after another yet Adolf couldn't take Moscow even before the Russians have begun to get Lend Lease. Oil, money, food and the economic strength of Britain and the US are all factors in WW2, but after Moscow Adolf will never have as big and confident a force again.

[@scottwillie6389]

The real point is that even taking Moscow wouldn't have made a difference. Winter counteroffensive still coming. Soviets simply had vastly more stuff than Germans anticipated. There was no path to victory for Germany and the West. The Great Brother War had left West weakened and divided and pretty much ensured Soviet domination.

[@googsey101]

The West did not lose WWII. I cannot fathom by what measure that could be said. The peace and the shape of the international order in the decades that followed were largely defined by the West. The Soviets resisted, but ultimately fell into line like everyone else.

[@jeffmoore9487]

@@googsey101 ? Don't see anyone saying the West lost.

[@christopherkhill3213]

Turning point was when they prioritized taking Moscow over securing oil. 'Love my BMW, but synthetic can only take one so far.

[@WJack97224]

@Christopher K Hill, Demographics, logistics, insecure communications and failure to follow Sun Tzu's and Carl von Clausewitz's advice doomed the Nazis and the Japanese from the beginning. And then war is simply immoral. Politics is violence and political governments of all makes, models and flavors are the bane of humanity; they are not Christian. Yes, even Amerikan politicians imposed all 10 Planks of the Commie Manifesto on We The People. Lincoln, Wilson and FDR provoked those with whom they disagreed and that lead to the slaughter of over a million Americans and the wounding and maiming of perhaps 6 times that number and then there were the broken hearts of those left to carry on, maybe 100 million?

[@robertneal4244]

Archangel and Astrakhan. An unrealistic goal due to logistics.

[@Alexandroslav]

it's Arkhangelsk. anyone who know's Russian has an ear bleeding every time you say archangel.

[@robertneal4244]

@@Alexandroslav I apologize. My sources are written in English and apparently not that accurate. I have also heard it pronounced without the "sk" far more often than with, even in educational videos, so I am afraid there are a LOT of bleeding ears out there. I hope I got the second city correct.

[@Alexandroslav]

@@robertneal4244 yeah i know, every english documentary does say archangel, probably because they fail to pronounce it (lack of trying i think due to the butchering of many easier names), the other city's name is fine. tip : the G(e) in Arkhangelsk is read like the G in 'Give' (including the i). thanks for replying.

[@jamestheotherone742]

​@@Alexandroslav But "Archangel" sounds better and "prettier" in English than "Arkhangelsk", which frankly sounds like gibberish to their ears. ;0

[@Alexandroslav]

@@jamestheotherone742 it translates to "of archangels (location)" so yeah.

[@Miniaturelimo]

From what it seems the true turning point of the war was when Britain refused to surrender after the fall of France, once Britain decided to stay in the war, the clock started ticking for the Reich.

[@gumdeo]

Even a temporary armistice would have been a huge boost to Germany.

[@leonpaelinck]

I once heard that even Hitler himself knew they could only win if Britain joined them.

[@rudolfkraffzick642]

The lost Battle for Britain was a major setback for Germany not a decisive defeat. There was none. But the summary of lost campaigns in North Africa, at Stalingrad and in the northern Atlantic Ocean made defeat certain. Yet, nobody knows what would have been the outcome of the war, if the invasion of France in 1944 had failed and Germany had enough oil and raw materials to produce more jet airplanes and thousands of rockets before the atomic bombs were ready to use.

[@OlegMilitaryHistory]

I feel this is probably already addressed somewhere in the comments, but as far as Russian historiography is concerned, the Battle of Kursk does not just involve the couple of weeks of Operation Zitadelle - it also encompasses Operation Kutuzov and Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev, the period of time from July 5 to August 23, 1943. Thus, it is simultaneously the first large-scale battle where the Germans were stopped and pushed back and lost territory in the middle of summer, and with the reconquest of Kharkov and Orel, it was very much a major victory - which many Russian historians consider to be the true turning point, since afterwards, the Germans were no longer able to mount a major strategic offensive that saw comparable success to their victories earlier in WW2. Russian historiography presents the Germans at Kursk as still fully capable of mounting a major offensive, as large in scale as the offensive against Stalingrad and the Caucasus in the preceding year, so at the time of the assault at Kursk Salient, at least as far as Russian high command was concerned, the war was anything but turned decisively in Russia's favor.

[@ardalla535]

The problems with turning points is they are often seen that way only in hindsight AND only if certain events turned out the way they did. Example: Some say Barbarossa as a plan itself was the turning point. But that is contingent upon the dubious assertion that Germany could NOT have defeated the USSR in any case. Of course, turning points are always seen in retrospect by historians. People at the time -- as events are unfolding -- quite often proclaim with raised fingers, "THIS is the turning point. Rally around, boys. This is it!" It was widely thought at the time that Gettysburg was the turning point of the war (still today there are plenty who assert that, for sure). But the actual turning point of the war was at Antietam because the results of that battle convinced the British not to get involved. The Brits could have easily broken the blockade and sent a couple of divisions to aid the South, and also flooded the country with supplies that were desperately needed at the time. I think one has to be very careful when discussing such things. Another example: Some have taken it to extreme levels by arguing that the turning point in WW2 was the stand of the women's 1077th anti-aircraft unit at Stalingrad. The women were all killed, but they held on just long enough to allow the Red Army to bring up reinforcements and hold the city. The problem with this -- there are many problems, but pick one -- is what event are you choosing in that engagement as being the turning point? Maybe all the women but one wanted to surrender. And that one woman ran around encouraging everyone to hold on. So then, we have the "one woman" hypothesis to defend. But what caused that woman to behave that way? Maybe the NKVD was holding her husband in the rear with a gun to his head and she knew that if she ran he would be shot. Then THAT would have been the real event. It goes on and on in a rapid descent into absurdity. For me, I don't pick events. I choose to emphasize time periods. December, 1941 is as good a time period as any for talking about the turning point of the war. The Germans were knocked back from Moscow, and Stalin did not run away to the Volga. He stayed in the city; so a political crisis was avoided. And the Red Army came through for him. If Moscow had fallen and Stalin killed, there would not have even been a Battle of Stalingrad. But, if the battles around Moscow had the result we know today, even if Stalingrad had fallen, the Soviets still would have held the east bank of the Volga, and a positive outcome could perhaps have been achieved. Those who assert that, if Stalingrad had fallen, the collapse of the USSR would have inevitably ensued, are operating on very thin ice. "Look at the name of this city! It is STALINGRAD! STALIN! STALIN! IF it falls, the nation falls with it!!!" Rubbish. Oratory does not make events certain.

[@georgefitzhugh5408]

The turning point was Hitler's refusal to make peace on reasonable terms in Summer 1940. It meant it was inevitable the USA would enter the war. We began the Manhattan Project shortly after France fell, as well as the B-32 superbomber program. By November 1945 we were producing enough plutonium to make two Nagasaki style implosion bombs per week. Even if Germany by a miracle defeated the USSR, it would have taken at least until 1945 to bring the Soviet oil to their economy. The USSR would have torched the oil and Germany needed huge pipelines to bring it to Germany, As the French writer L.F. Celine said in October 1940, "The Bosch have lost." Unlike Hitler, Celine had lived and worked in the USA and knew American might and the American mind,

[@florinivan6907]

The best that Germany could hope for was a stalemate. Basically conquer Europe knock the UK out of the war and build the Bomb. These would not have won against the US(technically Canada Australia too) but it would have prevented complete defeat. We can argue about whether the war would have continued. But once both the US and Germany had nukes and used them its quite likely cooler heads would have said the obvious. No one can win the war without damaging the biosphere in ways that are unpredictable. Granted this is 1940 such knowledge was limited at the time but eventually someone would have realised the basic fact that turning entire continents into wastelands is self defeating. So a ceasefire would go into effect. Even here the germans had only slim odds. But this is the most they could have hoped for. Complete victory with the nazis in the US was never realistic. Of all the alternate history stories out there the one in Fatherland is probably the only one with slim chances of having come true.

[@georgefitzhugh5408]

@@florinivan6907 Our fanatical leaders, if necessary, would have carpet bombed Western Europe with nukes to beat Germany. It would have been the end of Western Europe as a civilization. Germany did not even begin a nuke program.

[@BlackMan614]

You need to do to Smolensk w/ what you did w/ Stalingrad. And of course, read the Glantz trilogy on Smolensk. After reading it I am more convinced than ever that this was the definitive battle in Russia.

[@kiowhatta1]

The difference people often forget between Napoleons capture of Moscow and its importance in 1941 is in 1812 St Petersburg was the capital of Tsarist Russia. Moscow was a capital of sorts, but it wasn’t where the government was located. If Napoleon had attacked St Petersburg and captured it as well ( which he seriously considered ) then the outcome may have been different. The Soviets in 1941 were ready to evacuate to Kazan if the Germans did enter the city. There are far too many what if’s to contemplate had this happened, but I also believe had Leningrad fallen too, then only one objective remained ( apart from Arkhangelsk ), which was the Ukraine and Caucasus. Let’s not forget that the Soviets sent out peace feelers up until 1944, so if Hitler had been removed or saw sense and concluded a separate peace with Russia then that really makes things interesting. Plus, the A-A line was reachable given the proper planning, prudence and management of resources. Between the fall of France and Barbarossa Germany could have done a great deal more to produce larger quantities of aircraft, tanks and U-boats, not to mention improving their overall efficiency.

[@namelesscurmudgeon9794]

Germany lost the war in 1936, when the decision was taken to build dreadnaughts, rather than the submarines for which Doenitz had asked. The war was lost again when the British Expeditionary Force was allowed to escape Dunkirk. The war was lost again, during the Battle of Britain, when the Luftwaffe was ordered to change from bombing RAF fighter airfields to bombing cities. The war was lost again when Germany attacked the Soviet Union. The war was lost again when Germany declared war on the United States. What did all those poor decisions have in common? The decisions were made by an Austrian corporal who was operating well above his level of training and competence.

[@rfp313]

My argument was that the Battle of Britain was the turning point. Germany's failure there permitted England to stay alive and gave the US a place to come and help build up a counter attack. If England had fallen, a highly unlikely prospect regardless, the US would have remained unprepared for war. Allowing England to stay alive permitted the Allies to make a comeback and gave us a base to build up from. That, combined with Russia's resurgence led to their downfall. If the UK had fallen they could have focused all their resources against Russia, wouldn't have had their industry destroyed by bombing, etc.

[@johnnydavis5896]

I remember Guderian wanted to do a double pincer early in 41 but can't find anything about what he was he proposed. Do you know about this?

[@Waterflux]

Another very interesting video ... :) My quick thoughts: 1. German defeat is 'inevitable' with the benefit of hindsight. 2. However, back then, things looked pretty good until 1941. That is, German campaigns up to Operation Barbarossa more or less conformed to Prussian/German way of war. From the annexation of Austria to the conquest of the Balkans, Germany was able to neutralize or knock out one state at a time. 3. Once Operation Barbarossa failed (i.e., the Soviet Union did not collapse), Prussian/German quickly-smash-one-state-at-a-time gameplan reached its expiration date. To make life more agonizing, the Germans did not have different gameplans to draw from. 4.. Operation Barbarossa was the first time the Germans stumbled upon a war of attrition, contrary to their expectations. Due to high level of attrition, the German qualitative edge started to erode. In particular, the loss of trained and experienced officers and NCOs was detrimental. 5. The Prussians suffered similarly in the Seven Year's War. At first, Prussia was able to use its superior maneuverability to smash one enemy army after another. However, once the ranks and files of trained and experienced soldiers became depleted, things went downhill pretty quickly. 6. You can say that the latter half of 1941 would be 'the turning point' based on how the character of the war changed. The German 'war of movement' was no longer effective in knocking out an opponent under a single campaign.

[@historicalbiblicalresearch8440]

Point 4 nails it

[@johnnydavis5896]

Have you talked about the alternative plans for Barbarossa? Hitler had a point about making the Southern thrust the main one, the second to the North, and the center third. The Soviets had the largest armies in the south, and putting the most potent forces in the south might have increased the losses they inflicted early. If they cut off Leninigrad quickly - Stalin might send big armies to try to save it, and those could be destroyed. Hitler was thinking about economics, but his strategy might have the best chance to inflict the greatest loss on the Soviets quickly, which was essential for the Germans to have any chance.

[@donreed2609]

Like one of your commentators, I see the beginning of the end for Hitler after his greatest triumph, the defeat of France. Churchill's refusal to make peace with Germany, even before Dunkirk, stunned Hitler. He might have offered generous terms, but the English would not see reason. Letting the English and French go from Dunkirk was his first terrible decision, the beginning of the end.. All of this triggered his old fantasy that Germany should move eastward for "living space." Also, he had the same idea as Napoleon, i.e., that the only way to get the English to stop fighting was to knock Russia out of the war. He believed that Russia, along with America, was the last hope that kept England in the war. Thus Hitler was in a way manipulated by Churchill into repeating Napoleon's epic mistake: the invasion of Russia. I find this amazing. Hitler knew the history of Napoleon's great folly. Still, he thought that the risk was worth taking . He might win. He might even have thought that an epic defeat would attest to his greatness. It might even be worthy of Wagner's music. Who can say for sure?

[@donreed2609]

Forgive me, in my longer comment I meant to say that Churchill hoped that Russia would eventually come to England's rescue. Russia, of course, was not yet in the war. Also, "Russia" is just short for Soviet Union.

[@gelraldoldo5152]

I am very depressed at the moment, Ur videos help. Thanks.

[@alwoo5645]

14:55 could have the Gerd von Rundstedt option he apparently said this:- This war with Russia is an absurd idea that will have a disastrous outcome for sure. But if for political reasons the conflict is unavoidable, then we must be convinced that we will not gain victory in one simple summary campaign. Thoughts on the distances to cover. We cannot absolutely defeat the enemy and occupy entire western Russia, from the Baltic Sea to the Black, in mere months. We would have to prepare ourselves for one long war and to proceed with shrewdness. First of all, a strong army group towards the North would have to conquer Leningrad and its surrounding territories. This would allow us to join the Finnish, in order to eliminate the red fleet from the Baltic Sea and to increase our infuence on Scandinavia. For the moment the armys of the center-south would have to only be left over until a line that connects Odessa-Kiev-Orsa-Lago Ilmen. Then, if sufficient time remains, the Armed North group could be left over for south-east from Leningrad towards Moscow, while the army group Center moves to the east. All the upcoming operations would have to be held back until 1942, when we would have to elaborate new plans based on the situation which will arise from that moment. Speaking with General Blumentritt about the attack on Russia, May 1941. This is unsourced I heard it in a doc "battlefield" and its in wiki quotes could be bs maybe you know? Not saying that would of worked of course because like you say oil and material is a massive factor. But come 1942 the Germans might of been in a stronger position with fewer losses better logistics shipped to Leningrad.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

Rundstedt was entirely mistaken. The Red fleet was entirely a nonentity from start to finish. The war in the east should always have been about the oilfields. Rundstedt, just like all of the generals, was completely ignorant of Germany's economic plight.

[@manybuckets969]

Your bookcase gets my army all encircled. Lol

[@kiowhatta1]

For Germany to retain the status of a superpower on continental Europe, the following would need to have been achieved: 1. A significantly larger U-boat fleet in the early war period, as well as construction of aircraft carriers, sorely needed to protect Germany‘s capital war ships. 2. the capture of the B.E.F. And other allied troops at Dunkirk - leaving the U.K very vulnerable with a manpower crisis. Additionally, don’t deviate from targeting military installations during the Battle of Britain. Although this would not be enough alone to defeat England it would have caused her to take far longer to recover and possibly delayed the air war over Germany. 3. Germany would need to have realised her intelligence network was compromised and rectify. 4. Implement an industrial mass production system of war materiel utilising women, and also retaining workers in the Western occupied territories treating them well. ( the Renault factory in France is a good example of a counterproductive policy). 5. Assaulting the Mediterranean theatre in full force, at the least capturing Malta in 1941, perhaps Gibraltar as well, though not entirely necessary-Gibraltar would be rendered of less value if the Suez Canal was captured, forcing Britain to sail far further in order to trade and supply herself-along with the U-boat blockade, this would have had disastrous consequences on the British ability to wage war. 6. Invest more resources and support in countries like Iraq and Iran to become Axis allies or at least be able to resist British hegemony as well as making it difficult for lend lease to be able to operate in Northern Iran. 7. Only after the Mediterranean is secured should the attack on Russia commence, following good Prussian military doctrine. 8. Greater intelligence gathering prior to Barbarossa ( anticipating winter weather and delivering the requisite supplies) as well as building panzers equipped with long barrel 50mm and 75mm. Greater effort and emphasis on bringing Turkey on side. 9. Greater exploitation of nationalist sentiment against Stalin in European Russia-signing treaties recognising ethnic minorities and semiautonomous states once the war is concluded. Greater use of anti-communist forces such as the RLA, RONA, etc by 1942. This would have reduced partisan activity significantly. 9. Greater standardisation of AFV‘s, tanks, etc. Greater effort to build twin rail systems and produce significantly more trains for logistics than relying on trucks and horses. This also includes setting up franchise factories within co-belligerent states so they can produce the same or similar German vehicles and weapons increasing ease of repair, replacement, and military cooperation. 10. Expansion of the Luftwaffe into separate branches: close air support for the army. Fighter squadrons for air interdiction. Transport aircraft for supply. Most importantly, a branch focused on strategic bombing of enemy manufacturing, logistics etc. 11. If the war in Russia follows a similar course with a Fall Blau situation arising, then all available forces ( which would be greater if there is no fighting in North Africa ) are again to follow Prussian military doctrine: maximum force directed at one single objective: Voronezh-Don bend, Stalingrad, Astrakhan. Then and only then are at least 3-4 armies including the Italian Alpine corps strikes towards the Caucasus, cut off from lend lease and mainland Russia meaning Russian forces their are most likely weak. Maikop and Grozny are the first objectives with seizure of the Georgian and Ossetian military roads crucial. Almost certainly the Turks will join the fight if they sense little risk for great reward, squeezing all Soviet forces until they surrender, retreat into the mountains or perish. Turkey’s armies would likely be mostly infantry which was what was needed most to conquer the area. 12. Once and if the Caucasus is secured and sufficient troops garrison the very long front line, then bridgeheads such as Oranienbaum in the North and those on the Don must ruthlessly be reduced. The Baltic fleet at Krondstadt destroyed, as well as the Black Sea fleet. 13. The A-A line must be reached, and if the Soviets offer terms for an armistice then this demarcation line must be imposed. Attempting to strike towards or beyond the Urals is unnecessary. Additionally, the German sphere of influence should also contain semi-autonomous states under the direction of Germany which defuses and prevents ( at least for a time ) any coordination between the Soviet state and those under German occupation. 14. Shelving and cancellation of the entire Tiger tank program. Regardless of the situation these vehicles are superfluous, expensive, difficult to maintain and use up too many resources. The panther was a more than adequate basis for which to refine and quite capable of mounting the 88mm. Instead of a Tiger about 2 panthers, or 3 Pz mk III‘s and IV‘s could be built. The Stug’s would continue to be produced similar to the SU series of Russian tanks, with the panther, and jagdpanther being sufficient enough. Far greater numbers could have been produced earlier. The Mk III and IV could have been used until sufficient quantities of panthers were available or the me III‘s and IV‘s could have been shipped to allies. Many of these requirements are not part of the luck of war, but simply part of what ought to have been an emphasis on a grand strategy with an emphasis on war winning policies rather than ideologically fuelled ones. Perhaps even if Hitler stepped back from making detailed decisions for the army and allowed the professional officers to carry out the war, these points could have been implemented. Finally, it could be argued that the various branches of the armed forces could have functioned more efficiently had each theatre been assigned a commander-in-chief, only obligated to report to Hitler and allowed to act with greater autonomy; for example a C-C Ost Front, Scandinavia, Mediterranean etc. I believe the most crucial of all was the decision not to seize Malta, not to send a full strength German army to North Africa which would have likely defeated the British before 1942. This, and the failure to capture the main French fleets left the Africa corps dangerously exposed and vulnerable-and ultimately lead to further disasters in Tunisia and Italy.

[@titisuteu]

You know, before Barbarossa the Soviet Union had 170 million people, Germany 80 million plus allies. By the end of 1941 Germany occupied Soviet territories that had half of the Soviet Union's population, so Stalin could not use that man pool for recruitment in his Army until late 1943. So things were more complicated than usually assumed. Yes, I think lack of oil might explain better Hitler's loss. I grew up in a communist country and their economy was bad, imbecilically led (if there is such word in English) so I still cannot understand how the asinine Soviet economy could outproduce the Germans. I suspect that Lend and Lease had a bigger role than the Soviets are willing to recognize. When Russia opened archives in 1990 to Western historians, were the historians sure they got genuine information and not manufactured data? I do not trust communist documents. In communist governments, even internal documents got embellished to make the middle level apparatchik look better in the eyes of his boss. So even more, Russian pride and deception is a good motivator for presenting false documents to western historians, after all genuine information might allow analysts to make inferences about current economic demographic and military potential of Russia, not only about their potential in 1941-1945.

[@stevep5408]

every drop of aviation gas came from the US. 400,000 vehicles including 90,000 heavy trucks that let the Soviets could supply their offensives from the closest railhead. The percentage of American, British and Canadian goods across a huge array of critical products was very high. Planes, tanks, locomotives, aircraft fuel, lubricants, explosives, ammunition, uniforms, boots and an amazing array allowed the Soviets to end the war much sooner. I think they would have won in the end but much, much later!

[@landser0936]

Hey TIK, love your videos and really appreciate what you’re doing! I have a question. In this video you state that Göring (spelling may be off) failed to meet his oil stockpiles objective by half. What do you suspect the implications on WWII would have been had he met that objective?

[@PeterWolfe2012]

Re: Partisans Particularly "Life Over the Abyss" by Ilya Grigo Starinov is a great book I read years ago when it was new; and still in print. He fought in the Civil War and the Spanish Civil War, survived the Purges, trained and commanded the partisans. He talks about pre-war preparations for partisan warfare on a massive scale, the deadly purges when Stalin changed his mind about it, and the lack of support, preparation and leadership throughout the war. For instance, the partisans didn't have a headquarters until 1943 when their headquarters was established, disestablished and later re-established under another command structure somewhere else. It's an amazing story of gross incompetence on a grand scale.

[@DmitriPolkovnik]

Yeah TIK dw you're correct in the way you pronounce Rzhev. In Russian the letter ж is hard to replicate in English, it's kind of like a jh sound. So Zhukov is pronounced like the zh in Rzhev.

[@sandhopper99]

There were several points when the Germans lost the war. The first was not eliminating Britain in 1940. The second was the failure of Barbarossa. But the final nail was the USA entering the war in December 1941 . The USA armed Russia enough to allow the Russian war effort to recover in 1942 and 1943.

[@Anthony-jo7up]

Exactly, when the USA joined it was over because no matter what the Germans did to the Soviets, the USA would make up for the losses. Say the Germans took the Caucasus, the USA would just supply the Soviets with oil just as with everything else.

[@jaimedermody9303]

Hi TIK, (1.) You are correct that Germany had to lose WWII on the day Britain declared war on Germany: 3 September 1939. (2.) What everyone misses is the following. Suppose Germany in October 1941 had costlessly captured all the Caucuses oilfields and refineries, including those in Baku, and that the Caucuses workers were happy to continue pumping and refining oil. Germany had no practical way to get the oil from the refineries to Germany or even to its deployed units anywhere. There was none of the following resources: pipelines; port facilities and fleet of tanker ships; and rail network and fleet of tanker cars. There was not even a road network and fleet of tanker trucks, but if there were, a truck would use more than it load of oil in moving that load to were is was needed. Furthermore, there was no way to create such resources in time to make a difference. Recall Germany did not have a fleet of trucks in its infantry division. They used horses. Horse were not going to pull much oil from Baku to Leningrad or to Berlin. All this was beyond obvious to the casual observer. (3.) But both suppositions in (2.) were impossible, as the oil assets were too far away for Germany to reach, and furthermore, if not, they would have been comprehensively destroyed by the time Germany got to them. Germany did not have significant resources available, in any of the required categories, to reconstruct the oil fields and refineries and move the refined product. In summary, they required each of A thru D, and they had no hope of obtaining any of A thru D in time to make a difference. (4.) A great video would be how German and Japan did not calculate, that they had about 0 probability of succeeding. I would bet that the most important factor was the substitution of culture, and it prejudices, for logic. Another question to answer: what does not everyone already know all this today? Sinceremente, Jaime

[@kingorange7739]

U realize even in our timeline Germany successfully extracted oil in the Caucasus in the brief time they controlled it in late 1942-early 1943.

Good point

[@danielw.8356]

16:17 if Moscow was taken that would cut of Leningrad, which would more than likely allow the city to be taken, then free up two German Armies. The other major thing about Moscow, I feel you are mentioning is that Stalingrad was mainly supplied, and most of the troops moved to stalingrad were moved from Moscow. The movement of the Soviet Troops were a huge thing on the eastern front, that constantly shifted them, slowing that would have been a huge strategic win. It probably would have been much easier to take Stalingrad, and the oil fields after Moscow was taken as well, rather than the other way around.It also would have allowed the Germans to push North, and cut off the British Supplies being sent to the soviets.

[@gavnonadoroge3092]

british were supplying hail marrys

[@Dan-Martin]

Germany failed miserably to take Stalingrad but suddenly would have taken Moscow? which is 10x the size and garrison... lol just weird thinking that the Germans ever stood a chance in Moscow.

[@danielw.8356]

@@Dan-Martin 10x...my man if you are claiming that you are clueless. The biggest reason Moscow was not taken, was because of logistical strain, and burning through stockpiled OIL which led to operational changes. I mean lets just put it this way. If the USA had aided Germany instead of the Soviets. The Soviets would of been crushed.

[@Dan-Martin]

@@danielw.8356 I've been to both Volgograd and Moscow and the difference in size is very noticeable. I love how you play the what if game. What if this, what if that, i think facts truly hurt your feelings. Germany didn't even enter Moscow, but were stopped at the outskirts... they failed miserably in Stalingrad and Leningrad which are considerably smaller cities than Moscow, but somehow could have taken Moscow if they magically didn't fail at operation including logistics? oh oh oh but in your crazy alternate universe if the US backed Germany they would have won... lmao i'm talking abut history mate not what if dream fantasy kiddo.

[@danielw.8356]

@@Dan-Martin I never said Germany could have taken Moscow. I said IF. And you visiting modern day Volgograd and Moscow HAS NOTHING to do with WW2. It has nothing to do with the supply lines, state of the armies, geographical hurdles, or anything at all. You have some fucking ridiculous ideas and assumptions. I mentioned America supporting Germany as a clear way Moscow could have taken Germany. Which never happened. WHICH MEANS Germany never had the oil supply or logistical capability to take it as long as they stuck with their strategies and plans.

[@yingyang1008]

The enigma codes were cracked at the start of the war - we knew everything the Germans were doing and saying

[@iDeathMaximuMII]

That's a bit false. They only cracked the Luftwaffe codes & not the Army codes. It wasn't until May 1941, that the British captured an entire enigma machine from a German U-boat that had all the codes with them

[@yingyang1008]

@@iDeathMaximuMII most the war then

[@rohiths3554]

They actually put everything they were doing into the engima?

[@yingyang1008]

@@rohiths3554 so I heard, lots of info out there on it

[@pentiofotal]

12:46 You rightfully take apart the Wehrmacht constantly, but good old Adolf still supports you on Patreon.

[@edkonstantellis9094]

The turning point for the Wehrmacht was when they were finally put o n the back foot The answer to that back foot is a front extending from Leningrad to the Caucasus Just imagine, a month + after Normandy, Eisenhower's logistics were "stretched"

[@DotepenecPL]

If I may add something to the topic of the Soviet partisans, some of them were quite well organised on the low, tactical level (and equipped, and trained) as for the resistance early on - they were simply remnants of the RKKA forces. On the other hand, later they often resembled bandits - in the way they behaved, gathered supplies etc. This former applies to other partisan movements, too.

[@TheHydra-qt5ug]

Really apreciate the q and a's, keep it up. Also I love the videos about Crusader. You helped me understand a lot about the Eastern Front and North Africa. Ty again and much love.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Great to hear! And will keep them coming, don't worry :)

[@watermalone3841]

1:08 So " *The Angry Video Game Nerd* " is also a WW II Expert? ...I did Nazi that Coming!😎😮🤯

[@barsukascool]

wtf😂

[@sindridah7203]

Germany was lost when Italy became their military ally

[@kaletovhangar]

@Majestic Satire If general of 10th army in Libya Graciany motorized few infantry divisions,he could have already overrun British 2 divisions in Egypt already in fall of 1940,but supply situation was terrible.

[@jduff59]

another front that Germany had to fight on, and the loss of too many troops when they had to surrender the Afrika Korp - tragic loss of a fine fighting force. bailing out Mussolini and Losing at Stalingrad

[@Betux2407]

@The Truth Nor italians nor Mussolini were "absolute idiots". He thought, correctly, that Germany was going to win, and if Hitler won the war without the contribution of italy, his country would have been treated like a subjugate. He did the right thing under a political point of view, but not under a military point of view, but he was almost forced to join the war.

[@mikereger1186]

Z Klaric - I seem to recall at least one Italian unit fought superbly at Alamein...

[@Betux2407]

@@mikereger1186 not only there. Read about the battle of cheren and the second battle of amba lagi. Or the battle of nikolajewka.

[@stephenleblanc4677]

I'm really enjoying your videos overall. Thank you.

[@karaaslan7402]

I am watching documentaries about WW2 since I was young but newly I understand what really happened thanks to your awesome channel

[@RDR12344]

Are you ever going to discuss the clean Wehrmacht myth in any upcoming videos?

[@John77Doe]

Jack smith Clean, like soap and water, bodily hygiene clean???

[@RDR12344]

@@John77Doe en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Wehrmacht

[@bobsjepanzerkampfwagen4150]

He should make a video about the clean allies myth to then.

[@CruelDwarf]

@@bobsjepanzerkampfwagen4150 no such myth actually exist.

[@berndbrakel1956]

Is he ever going to discuss the clean allied armies (or the armed forces in general) myth? or the red army? Not trying to be an asshole but fewer people know about the allied war crimes (and if personal experience serves me well) also the soviets war crimes. So it might be better to talk about these things.

[@painfan476]

If Germany could defeat Britian in the Air War, then they would've been in a far superior position against the Soviets.

[@painfan476]

Pretty sure Spain and Turkey would've joined the Axis at that point. @John Cornell

[@Lemonidas75]

The German's would have better chances winning in Caucasus if they could have taken Turkey on their side and attacked with their army south of Rostov / Stalingrad together with the Germans. Not a guaranteed victory, but there is chance that if the Turks could tie down Soviet forces in the mountains, the Germans would fare better. That's my view on the subject of the drive towards the Caucasus oil fields.

[@rpm1796]

Good Plan GL....here's my two Pesos......Focus on a larger Afrika Korps first, with....2 Pz/2 Pz Gr.divs &1FJ Bde🌴 ... [21Pz &15 PzGr... 10Pz & 90 PzGr + Ramcke FJ Bde] The whole campaign starts with other forces in December 41' using The Sp. Blue Div,The Sp Legion & German FJ's, to take and hold 'Spanish' Gibraltar, That brings in a most grateful Spain..Malta falls ...You control the Med............... Then starting in January, 41' with Rommel... Make the drive with your larger assets re:4 Pz divs & take Alex, Suez, Cairo... drive on to.. and ''crown'' The Grand Mufti & the New 'Pan Arabian Capital', Jerusalem (The Arab Legion is created)...........Then Vichy Syria (oil) ......Then Bring in Turkey...they get Crete and Cyprus (Sorry)... Jordan, Iraq & Saudi Arabia are liberated,more Arab Legions are formed in a massive uprising against Britain. Then.... with reinforcements (HGPz,Mountain troops ,Motor Inf & Assault gun Bde) and supplies through Turkey and on your new 'Axis Lake'....Do the big drive up to the Caucasus from the South in conjunction with the Turks & Cossack's,Chechen's etc. for Barbarossa in June 41'....''Operation Saladin'' Oh yeah, one on the side....Blow up & Blockade the Panama Canal locks with several false neutral Swedish flagged freighters and 5th column Spanish Foreign legion with (German)combat engineers the night before you declare war on America.December, 11th,1941...Prost..🍻💦 & Stin ygeia sas!🍾

[@cdnsk12]

@@rpm1796 I suspect the Russians would have stabbed the Germans in the side ... due to the long strung out supply chain from Germany to the Caucusus. It wportion of Russia.ould be very tempting. By this time Stalin was advised by the British that the Germans intended to conquer a significant

[@ianwhitchurch864]

@@rpm1796 So. Once you piss off the RN and have the blockade going from loose (Navicert system) to hard ... where are the Germans finding 500 000 tons of grain to feed Spain with ?

[@todo9633]

Personally for some turning points were when Britain developed Sonar and better air based anti-submarine capabilities and convoy tactics, also when the Japanese chose to ignore US shipping to the USSR.

[@OkurkaBinLadin]

LOL

[@1theDDM]

I have war gamed this out many times and found a general push towards Moscow with a slightly re enforced Army Group North (AGN). AGN races, as in history, for L-grad and takes it; rather than surrounding it and shelling it 'off the map'. That would than free up a panzer group , two inf. crops and opens up a whole new, poorly defended northern front of Moscow. No matter which path I took, I NEVER knocked the Soviets out in '41. All paths lost 35 to 40 % of beginning troops before winter.

[@GSXK4]

The turning point when Germany is defeated was December 10, 1941 when Hitler decides to declare war on the United States. From this moment forward Germany striking in any direction can end only in defeat, the difference being only a question of what year and whether Germany would be subject to nuclear obliteration.

[@GSXK4]

Probably so. However, the U.S. was the only German foe that had the atomic bomb to guarantee Germany's defeat.

[@Chirality452]

I can't see that Germany would have won against just the UK and the USSR. But, declaring war the US made the likely certain. In addition there was no good reason to invite the strongest economy in the world to join the contest. Disavowing Japan would a no cost gambit to avoid a second front and a lot of bombing.

[@petersmythe6462]

"I'm not sure what they have in Venezuela" As accurate a statement about Venezuelan trade now is it was then lol. (though for quite different reasons).

[@MemeMaster-bg4mf]

Lol

[@Vlad_-_-_]

Thank you for all your hard work and great content ! Really a pleasure to watch these videos.

[@haegger666]

In my opinion the WW2 on the german perspective had been lost as soon as America joined the war. They forced Britain back to it's island destroying most of it's economy, took nearly whole Europe and parts of Africa and all of a sudden they had to face a way bigger army they could handle. The numbers were since they stepped on Stalin in favor of their enemies but including America they just stood no chance at all, no army in the entire world could win against a 1:15 disadvantage (or was it higher? I mismemorized the exact numbers).

[@rowancoggins9638]

And by the way mate, you are stunningly good at your job... stunningly

[@coolbob5781]

For me I do think that Kursk was the turning point, not just about the battle being a failure but the ramifications of that battle

[@michaeldunagan8268]

Kursk may have been the battle that signaled the end of the German initiative on the Eastern front for the rest of the war, but I don't see how you can look past Stalingrad at the psychological impact on belligerents. For three months German radio said that things was going swell it's down grad and then the next news cast two months later is everybody's gone. It's the first time in the war that the Germans on European soil were soundly defeated at Stalingrad.

[@homuraakemi1684]

I don't think capturing the caucuses would've really helped Germany's oil situation, just cause issues for the Soviets. When the Germans captured Maikop, the Soviets left it completely devastated, and the Germans weren't able to extract much from it, so I assume similar would happen if they captured the Baku oil fields.

[@direct1177]

And what about Soviet oil situation then?

[@FuckGoogle2]

It would've helped since then the USSR would've been in terrible shape too as far as fuel went.

[@homuraakemi1684]

Probably would've extended the war by a bit, but considering that the British and Americans would be coming, that the Soviet Union was unlikely to just give up, Germany was probably still doomed, especially if the US decided to send oil to the Soviet Union, but it definitely would've changed the postwar situation.

[@direct1177]

US deliveries would not have matched the Soviet demanding. Red Army would be useless with masses of vehicles grounded due to the chronic lack of oil products. Probable scenario for the Soviets would be a highly occupied in losses and slowly crawl towards Dnepr. At best, they could have reached a pre war borders as the Western Front should have deprived Germans of its best units and taken on the burden of fighting and invading the German soil. The possibility of capturing the Eastern Europe would be a distant desire for Stalin.

[@homuraakemi1684]

But the key thing is that the Soviet Union remains in the war, which it probably would've. The extended German lines would've made it harder to mount any more large scale offensives, and worst case scenario the Soviets fall back to the Ural Mountains. While this would've extended the watt, I don't see it changing the outcome for Germany

[@Seven_FM]

Interesting Isaev said that Smolensk was a time when Blitzkrieg failed.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

Yes, there seems to be a consensus among historians. But as I discussed, it could be argued that, economically at least, the turning point was earlier. Militarily, they could be right though about ~August 1941.

[@Seven_FM]

At some point I thought you will go back to the 1918 in your search for earliest turning point!

[@sergeontheloose]

The Potapov's 5th army of the South-Western front. It retreated from the border only when given orders to and held Zhytomyr and Korosten as late as middle of August scrambling all german plans for Blitzkrieg. Too bad that commander Potapov died in the Kyiv pocket, he proved to be one of the best Soviet generals on defense.

[@riebenzahl-524]

@ _"if dday pushed back allies would need probably a year to try it again, by that time the soviets could be defeated"_ yeah .....how? You know that during summer time operation Bagration was wolling over the german central forces of the eastern front?

[@riebenzahl-524]

@ Bagration would still be running at the time of d-day and at this time it was already a sucess. The complete Army Corps Center was smashed. Stalingrad was a Joke against that and German Border was open after that. So even If they could free some devisions in the West it would Not Change much. Also the allies alredy pushed trough italy and Not all Army Units in the West could ne freed to prevent another Invasion A Victory in the West would have bought some time (maybe), but nothing more

[@maincoon6602]

I enjoy your videos. You go into details 👍🏻.

[@impaugjuldivmax]

In his WW2 book Churchill said that he was surprised when in 1942 Stalin told him the USSR is not going to give up lands in Poland. Churchill said that germans are staying near Moscow and you are talking about Poland now? So when Hitler lost the Battle of Moscow and the US entered the war, after this Germany was doomed. All what Russia needed was time to mobilize all its people and resources.

[@kingnevermore25]

Can you do more videos talking strictly about the economical aspect of the war. Industry, resources etc?

[@TheImperatorKnight]

I'm planning to in the future, yes. Although I can't say when exactly they'll be. I definitely will cover Lend Lease in more detail than I have done though, and the German economy as a whole.

[@kingnevermore25]

TIK Thanks!

[@timsherman1245]

@@TheImperatorKnight i always curious about the german economic capacity to wage these war . do they enough financial resourses to fund their war ? how long can they sustain their deficit spending ( just my guess of course that they do ). its just my gut feeling that if they prolonge these wars for another 5+ years ,it would be unsustainable economicaly for them . maybe i'm wrong . it would be great if you make a video about this hahaha xD

[@NoName-xv4sg]

The turning point for me was when the spartans and thebens delayed the persains at the hot gates

[@Gmac86.]

Have you read David Irvings ‘Hitlers War’? Absolutely fantastic book

[@brucenorman8904]

David Irving cannot be trusted what so ever he has been completely discreditted.

[@jessel3621]

I don't know of 1 specific point, but the general failings of Germany and Italy to hold North Africa and capture Egypt, Germany and Finland to capture Murmansk, and Germany to capture the Caucasus are probably the 3 most influencial theaters in Germany losing WWII. Winning those 3 theaters would have secured oil and cut off most lend lease from the Soviet Union.

[@korbell1089]

Wars can be decided on individual decisions or actions of minutes or days, or even by a single bullet, and the longer a war goes on the opportunities there are for people to pick out their favorite "ah ha" moments of when it happened. My personal favorite is 24Aug1940 when the Germans accidently bombed London and England retaliated. The RAF at this point was on the ropes with most of their southern airfields being pounded into craters, but when Hitler ordered full scale attacks on the cities it gave the RAF time to catch its breath and rebuild enough to keep in the fight and ultimately defend their shores against invasion.

[@charlesmaeger9962]

In hindsight, leaving Britain in the hands of the U - Boats to bottle up and, then decide to declare war on the U.S. in December 1941 were big factors in their loss of the war. Their failure to capture the Russian oil fields and Stalingrad were equally decisive in their eventual loss.

[@leonpaelinck]

TIK already explained that the war declaration in 1941 was basically just a formality

[@liordagan9342]

Their Luftwaffe was already grinded. Without air support, they would be crushed.

[@liordagan9342]

Their Luftwaffe was already grinded. Without air support, they would be crushed.

[@TheConfederate1863]

For me the turning point was the moment Fegelein went missing

[@alexhayden2303]

An angle I haven't seen suggested: SPAIN wobbled but if it had fully joined Germany early on, I don't think the UK would have made it! No Gibraltar; no Malta!!!

[@ninjasheep7492]

The UK would have still had the Suez and therefore Malta as well. Plus now the Germans would need to help garrison Spain and even export food to them. They were after all just in a major civil war with their agriculture and industry damaged and anarchist rebels running around the country. The UK had the US as a trading partner so a longer ship journey to get to the med wouldnt have mattered. The axis would have had to capture Gibraltar *and* the suez to make it worth the effort of including Spain.

[@atzuras]

The deal was Spain to join the axis only if Germany supplied food and weapons. Spain was importing a long share of the food to keep the population alive and not revolting, mainly from overseas, so a British blockade would starve the country. Hitler was not to divert resources at that point (before Barbarossa) so there was no deal. Franco would later offer the same deal to the allies to be on the winning side but they also refused because they already had a grip on North Africa. Later on it was also discovered some British agents were bribing Spanish army generals to persuade Franco to stay neutral and don't do any silly thing, too many players already in the game. Regardless, it was not to expect any Spanish action to be a game changer in any side, due to the huge escalation of WWII at that point and Spain was only able to provide an small infantry army with no fleet, no planes and no oil to dream to make any kind of mechanized corps. So again to the oil problem..

[@stephenjantscher4116]

The war was lost for the Axis during the week that starts with the Soviet counteroffensive outside Moscow (Dec. 5th ?) and ends on Dec 12 when Hitler declares war on the USA. Oh, and there was that December 7th thing in Hawaii that doomed the Japanese in that same week. When the Soviets stopped further advance of Barbarossa and would go on to break the back of the Wehrmacht, and American productivity fully entered the war, the only hope that the Axis would not completely lose the war was dependent on Allied political will, and not on Axis military capability.

[@schreckpmc]

Your argument is better than the others presented in this set of comments.

[@colder5465]

As for Kursk: the main goal for German military leadership was not winning the war (they more or less understood then that that was unreachable). But to deny strategic initiative to the Soviets. For transforming the war on the Eastern Front into a stalemate. And then hope for some negotiated settlement

[@gerhardmitteregger3849]

Dear TIK, I enjoy your videos and contributions a lot. I am working on and off since 30 years in this research area and would like to add a few comments: 1. Oil is very important. No doubt. But Germany was very good in producing gasoline out of coal. Although this is very expensive, the price does not really matter. All coal mines in France, Belgium, Poland and Ukraine were available to the Germans in 1941. Germany could easily have supplied 10000 tanks, 50000 trucks with gasoline out of coal, and 10000 planes with the oil from Romania and Austria (plane needed higher octane gasoline). In contrary they started Barbarossa with 3000 tanks. 2. You might ask why did they do that ? Because they totally underestimated the Soviet Union. The industrial capabilities, the engineering capabilities, the combat capabilities and the organisational capabilities and the motivation of the average citizen of the soviet union. It was racism/nationalism to the maximum extend. And it was based on the combat experience in world war 1. During which the german military was superior to the russian military. 3. Even after the german supreme command realized that the war against the soviet union does take much longer as 8 weeks, the losses are massive and the soviet union did not collapse, they did not ramp up the production of weapons, gas from coal or even for winter clothes. They did not build a reserve of 1 million man either although they lost almost 1 million till October 1941. They just kept waiting for the collapse of the soviet union (!). 4. Would have Halder and the " Oberkommando of the Wehrmacht " provided 6000 tanks instead of 3000, and built a reserve of 1 million men, as well as, provided winter clothes (!) , the german armies would have taken Moscow in B/ November1941 and would have reached the line Astrakhan and Arkhangelsk in spring/summer 1942. The soviet union would have had to accept a truce. 5. In this case northern Africa, Suez and Iran would have been controlled by the Germans and their proxies, respectively. Plenty of oil anyways and a perfect strategic position would have been established. 6. The Nazi's would have built their Nazi super power, committed even much more horrific crimes and a cold war would have begun between the USA, UK and a Nazi dominated Europe. 7. Hitler would have become a builder and architect and enjoyed his cakes and Wagner. Surprisingly the germans could have won the war. This is very disturbing. The reason was the Blitzkrieg concept developed more by accident by younger officers and generals and supported by a unique change in warfare - tanks and planes. Fortunately the Nazi ideology and the way how Nazis looked down on the soviet people lead to a totally flawed plan for Barbarossa. The Nazi's themselves provided the main reason for defeat. Racism and nationalism to an extend which made them even ignore the feedback of reality in the first months of the war. It took unfortunately enormous resources and sacrifices to finally end this horror in May 1945. I would love if you would be interested in making a video about the potential of gas from coal, prices and taking into account that the Nazis had all coal in Europe.

[@davidbrisbane7206]

Perhaps Germany's defeat in WWII was inevitably due to its defeat in WWI due to the industrial and resource restrictions placed on Gemany at Versailles in 1918. So, you could say that going to war in WWI was the ultimate cause of the lose of WWII.

[@noahfuller4128]

Which means it is all Serbia's Fault!

[@davidbrisbane7206]

@@noahfuller4128 So the history books tell us 😂🤣😊🤣.

[@Ayadxxify]

My Grandfather knew Hitler well, and he told my family in the early sixties before his death, Hitler knew the war was over by the end Taifun.

[@leroyhovatter7051]

Ayad Gharbawi seriously?

[@renemaier5197]

Thats crazy man, rip to your grandfather

[@mahe8838]

Who was your grandfather? It's unlikely the fuhrer would have disclosed military logistics and such unless he was an high ranking officer.

[@Ayadxxify]

@@mahe8838 He was Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, and you can only find him Wikipedia Arabic.

[@mahe8838]

@@Ayadxxify oh, ok, thanks m8

[@meenki347]

December 9th 1941. Hitler declares war against the United States. He was worried that Japan was going to conquer the US before Germany would have a chance.

[@nco_gets_it]

I have always believed that the turning point was in September 1940. the failure to knock the UK out of the war meant that Germany could not win any war that lasted past 1941.