Why Didn't America Nuke the USSR in 1945?

[@SideQuestYT]

Many thanks to MagellanTV for supporting our channel! Claim your SPECIAL OFFER for MagellanTV here: sponsr.is/magellantv_sidequest and start your free trial TODAY so you can watch 1945: The Year that Changed History about the end of WW2: www.magellantv.com/video/1945-the-year-that-changed-history?

[@rippoking8297]

You have a very nice mustache :)

[@philosotree5876]

How the hell did the USSR have such a strong numerical advantage after the sheer millions that died in WWII?

[@mikhailthetenor3387]

My family ancestors might have not been able to further exist if that happened, my parents and I might have never been born as well as countless millions of others like me.

[@henriquealmeida348]

Attacking USSR would be like in Civilization game where you win a war and right away start another one as you still have lots of troops

[@stargazer-elite]

I mean, that’s literally what Churchill’s operation unthinkable was lol

[@Eatmydbzballs]

HOI4 anyone... Can't even enjoy my new conquests (Iran) before the Italians/Nazis start generating a *Caucus Belli*

[@Inetman]

​@@stargazer-elitemoreover, they kept a dozen surrendered Wermacht division fully equipped and ready to fight for a few months after V-Day just for this unthinkable case.

[@jonahshevtchenko7356]

​@@stargazer-elite I think they forgot USSR had a lot more troops after WW2 then the Allies

[@weirdguylol]

@@jonahshevtchenko7356 I think you forgot america could have just dropped some nuke here and there

[@girl1213]

"The man in the field, his family at home, they couldn't even tell you the reasons why their lives were being destroyed." - JFK, Thirteen Days, 2000

[@alphaomega938]

“The Germans are really too good - that’s why people conspire against them - they do it to protect themselves”

[@alphaomega938]

I can’t even post JFK’s actual thoughts on Germany because they get instantly banned

[@alphaomega938]

TLDR JFK’s father and trips to Germany redpilled him and he was killed for going against the federal reserve at the height of its power

[@SiPakRubah]

​@@alphaomega938 Never ask a woman her age A man and his salary And what JFK thought about Hitler when he visited Germany in summer 1945 in his diary

[@DutchGuyMike]

Because the "powers that be" needed the USSR to exist so they could divert insane funding to the CIA and such under the guise of "protecting the nation" and to satisfy over the decades the Military Industrial Complex. The Red Scare was setup with intent, as was Hitler's rise and downfall so they could crush Nationalism in Europe and make the (forced) European Union possible per example. The end goal is a New World Order (which Gorbatsjev stated "we must work towards a New World Order" just before he "resigned"). George Bush Sr said it as well a few years before it. The soldiers that died in the Cold War were pawns, worthless in the eyes of the higher ups.

[@iap7597]

Meanwhile, people playing Civ: haha, what if…

[@burgerking2783]

hoi4 reference

[@jlvfr]

Hate nukes in Civ. (at least in 3) they are far too easy to have... and then they fly by the dozen.

[@frangotino]

people in Hoi4 past 1944: you get a nuke, you get a nuke, y-

[@water9097]

Civ 6

[@datboib3432]

Eu4 players: “what if russia was a danish colony”

[@Dmitrisnikioff]

It's bizarre not mentioning how popular support for the USSR was extremely high in the post war period and how many socialists were involved in various parts of government and military affairs.

[@alphaomega938]

I wonder what religion 7/10 of those international rootless Bolshevik intellectuals worshiped

[@Dmitrisnikioff]

@EducatedBrute Helped make the US the failed state it is today. Better hope your obvious mental inferiority doesn't lead to an accident or illness that makes you medically bankrupt bud!

[@williamhenning4700]

@@Dmitrisnikioff Don’t jerk yourself too hard to the thought of it commie.

[@zersky495]

@EducatedBruteMcCarthy’s anti-communism comes from his defense of Nazism, which is what current day le 56% Amerimutts support today

[@Noneofyourbusiness_.I._]

Not really surprising considering the wrong side won WW2

[@stevencooper4422]

One note: the Manhattan Project team reckoned they could produce 7 nuclear bombs per month by the end of 1945 if Japan had not surrendered. If my math is correct, that would mean that by the end of 1948 at that rate they would have enough nukes to carry out the Russian strike mentioned in this video, which is why during the Korean war General MacArthur advocated to use nukes on China to force their retreat.

[@flavius5722]

This channel really had degrated

[@-AxisA-]

Wait I don't understand how does Japan surrendering affect the rate on how many Nukes US can build?

[@gaborrajnai6213]

Not likely since the previous took them 3 years to manufacture.

[@cadenibz]

@@-AxisA-are you like actually slow or something

[@-AxisA-]

@@cadenibz Apparently, so in this context😂🤷‍♂️ I hope you can elaborate with your fast brain. Of course I can guess why that is, but I wanted to make sure, so I ask questions:D It's way better to ask a "stupid"/"slow" question than to think you got something and when the time comes to put it in practice, you realize you didn't get it.

[@ОлегКозлов-ю9т]

Also USSR and socialism was on the pinnacle of their popularity. Such a treacherous attack on Soviet Union would have caused an explosion of support inside european countries and even between americans. It may have even ended in communist revolutions

[@Crashed131963]

The US alone had a much larger air force than Russia in every category . Then you add the RAF and France. Nukes could hit large army formation on open ground as well as cities . 80% of Russia's trucks were supplied by the allies how would Russia supply their armies deep in west Europe?

[@ChatGPT_ChatbotTest]

​@@Crashed131963 this has no relation to the comment lol

[@1mol831]

@@Crashed131963that is true. But it sounds like a huge betrayal to have an ally take most of your enemy’s punches, only to backstab them later on.

[@dabo5078]

@@Crashed131963By shattering western armies which would have shit morale after being told they could go home only to be forced on an imperialist adventure like the Germans did. Did you really think allied troops would fight when the propaganda told them that the Soviets were their brother in arms?

[@mappingshaman5280]

@@Crashed131963 They already had those trucks in 1945, them instantly going to war with the allies isnt going to cause those trucks to evaporate

[@bigburd875]

At some point, you just get sick of war

[@LalitaLunaYogini]

Yes but a hundred years have passed since the second last one, so enough generations have passed to forget that

[@nczioox1116]

​@@LalitaLunaYogini we switched to proxy wars

[@FICUSULXD189]

@@nczioox1116 Huh?

[@math05m86]

Always a good day when SideQuest posts

[@prw56]

We really, really, really lucked out that the bomb was perfected at a time when it was only to be used against 1 enemy nation, who was then reforged into a stable ally. Imagine if their usage was more regular before the effects of nuclear fallout were understood, or if they were used against a nation that wasn't fully defeated and built back up with a chip on their shoulder (like 1930s Germany), except a precedent for wide scale use of nuclear weapons already in place. An eye for an eye makes the world blind, but a nuke for a nuke makes it dead.

[@erdood3235]

Just for clarification: an eye for an eye doesn't make to world blind. It was: 1. Put in place in mesopotamia to put a limit on how much revenge one can seek. 2. In the tanakh, an interpation by rabies is that the saying mean paying damages. *financial* compensation.

[@prw56]

@@erdood3235 The quote I was thinking of was (I think) made by ghandi, which I've always understood to mean revenge begets revenge endlessly unless 1 side stops the cycle.

[@erdood3235]

@@prw56 It's misattributed to him, And it's a wrong interpretation of the sentence anyway.

[@ForOne814]

@@erdood3235 an eye for an eye only makes the world blind if people are completely ineducable, and we can clearly see that it's not the case. It's such an idiotic quote.

[@nonegone7170]

@@erdood3235 Of course your interpretation is the *right* one.

[@thefrenchbaguette919]

Few points that need to be said 1. Allied division were ~ 50% bigger than Russia division 2. The US had around 3 millions soldier the UK 3 million + 1.25 million from France The USSR has around 12 million 3. The US and UK captured ~1 million Germans soldiers and 50k-80k piece of equipments (tank artillery aircraft trucks etc) these could be used against the russian as the Germans would probably volunteer quicky to fight the russian in addition they were already trained and could be easily and quickly equipped 4. The US and UK could produce more supplies and get them quicker to the front lines 5. The US could you use it nukes to target major Russian assembly area 6. The USSR simply couldn't launch an offensive that far into western Europe with getting bogged down and out of supply and vice versa 7. The US and UK produced double the amount of aircraft and tank the USSR produced Point is in this hypothetical war in all likelihood it end up in stalemate that would kill millions for nothing If you want a video that goes into more detail look at binkov battleground video in operation unthinkable

[@perceivedvelocity9914]

Napoleon thought that invading Russia was a great idea. I'm sure he made a list just like that.

[@matheusexpedito4577]

​@@perceivedvelocity9914indeed, but as we all know, 600k men were a tasty snack for the winter and summer of russia

[@Peter.S616]

​@@perceivedvelocity9914 Napoleon and Hitler was fighting multiple opponents before and during invading Russia. Here this is a allied invasion against Russia including the USA and the UK, both of whom are experts in invasions

[@thefrenchbaguette919]

@@perceivedvelocity9914 what does that have to do with anything I said

[@tishafeed8085]

@@thefrenchbaguette919 nothing, feller just had a neuron activation from consuming too much russian agitprop

[@puckered6036]

coulda woulda shoulda

[@abrahamgn3614]

* video were to make the point that the U.S would've won * "Yup, totally agree." - you

[@aa-tx7th]

still can and will have to eventually. ruzzia wants us dead. theyll never stop. but most of their nukes cant even launch and if you dont think we, the richest and most capable country in history, dont got secret iron dome tech x1000 to stop the worst weapons ever made youre crazy. if ruzzia destabilizes, even of we dont get nuked, those nukes are gonna scatter to the four corners. then humanity is as good as f@%ked.

[@andremacedo8463]

Maybe try to not get wrecked by rice farmers first eh

[@dasamont8274]

- Buddha

[@abrahamgn3614]

@@andremacedo8463 france

[@all_time_Jelly_Fish]

2 videos in just over a week? Side quest is putting in some work!

[@Africarespecter]

A big thing to remember as well is in France and Italy in particular had big Communist parties and Partisan movements that would defiantly aid the Soviet Union in a defensive war against the Western Allies, especially right after they just defeated the Fascist menace. This would be Pre Opperation Gladio, so the italian and french communist parties would still have alot of influence and popular support.

[@danielbickford3458]

This reminds me, Ran across a alternate history story once that I had dropped can't remember what the point of Divergence was, but it was an analogous World War II and Germany had gotten nukes well before America and started nuking the us's cities to get them to withdraw from the war. What the author had their version of Germany do was not just bomber one city or even two, but dozens one after another. After that I dropped it. There's no way a burgeoning nuclear power would have had that many bombs.

[@_Mr.Tuvok_]

Us nuking the Soviets-That woulda been just plain evil. ‘Stupid’ is subjective… but definitely evil.

[@existentialcrisisactor]

The USSR's "vast arsenal of anti-aircraft weaponry" and "working aircraft" didn't take the nonoperational part of that inventory when they gave the numbers.

[@Crashed131963]

The US alone had a much larger air force than Russia in every category . Then you add the RAF and France. Nukes could hit large army formation on open ground as well as cities . 80% of Russia's trucks were supplied by the allies how would Russia supply their armies deep in west Europe?

[@abrahamgn3614]

​@Crashed131963 you've got that backwards. Lend lease only accounted for 10% of the Soviets' total armament, especially by the end of the war when Soviet production was up and running since being relocated behind the Urals back in 1942.

[@Crashed131963]

@@abrahamgn3614 True, but look it up the one thing the Russian never produced much of right to the end of the war was trucks . Without spare parts the Russians in 1945 would have felt the effects quick . The side with the longer supply line is at a disadvantage .

[@abrahamgn3614]

@@Crashed131963 they produced twice the amount of their GAZ trucks than they were given by the U.S 🥸

[@cmdrgarbage1895]

​@@abrahamgn3614It's not the total lend lease he's talking about, just the trucks

[@OnlyCatzz]

So, why would the US even consider this in 1945 again?

[@thalastianjorus]

Easy. Those in power, and even the citizenry, were absolutely horrified by the first two bombs. They, then, chose to avoid them ever being used again. Far too often we, when looking at history, forget that those taking part in the events are humans just like us. We have a tendency to shrink people in history down to their pre-prepared speeches and quotes. From there we decide that they _were_ those quotes, and that they had no other human traits beyond their actions and quotes. We forget that they, too, had a voice in their head that no one else was privy to. That they allowed themselves to be pushed into actions that they would have rather not done - by peer pressure, monetary needs, and other external pressures. That people will say things they do not truly believe because they fear losing their power or life. Again - we never ascribe truly human motives to those in history, and when they write down their own thoughts? If what they write disagrees with how we have decided that they were... evil or good... we proclaim that the writings are a fake, or that the individual is lying in the text in order to better how history looks at them. This is why we have lost most of human history. We, always, assume we know what happened better than those who lived it.

[@theEWDSDS]

Isn't this a myth?

[@gaborrajnai6213]

Oppenheimer torped the production of the Super in 1949 based on the assumption that the US doesnt have enough plutonium production capacity to build a strong enough deterrence against Russia, and any test of hydrogen weapons would just drain essential resources from building more small scale atomic weapons. So we can safely assume, they couldnt do it even at that time.

[@tomasnovo5532]

I love all the armchair generals in the comments that think they know better then the british and us planners who had just won ww2.

[@southcoastinventors6583]

Most Generals are armchair ones since they are not the ones in mist of battle so false narrative. US would win but the point is Roosevelt died in 1945 and Truman was a vice president so he was unelected president.

[@scyhntergientzil4956]

Exactly, they think the soviets would have the upper hand when they were literally suffering because of everything that has happened to the countries especially from the first and 2nd world war.

[@MisterPeckingOrder]

@@scyhntergientzil4956Yeah, pretty sure Russia had lost a stupid percentage of their male population between 1900 and 1945. Something like 40% at least, and they STILL haven’t recovered. It’s going to be affecting future generations for a while. Russia only has 160 million people when they should be much closer to US numbers. War sucks.

[@alphaomega938]

“We destroyed the wrong enemy” - General Patton

[@samusaran13372]

@@MisterPeckingOrder what? you're comparing the population to soviets. those included populations from ukraine, the baltics, kazakhstan, etc. etc.... it doesnt make sense to 1:1 compare the population with russia now.

[@spamuraigranatabru1149]

This seems a very disengenuous representation of what could have happened. Like, we're assuming the Soviets are still actively being supplied by the very people they are fighting? What happened to lend lease, the entire part where the Soviet production capability had been shattered, the sheer volume of explosive, equipment and food being sent which freed up manpower for the Soviet command? The reliance on trucks from the United States? This is all ignoring the fact that the west, you know, also have large militaries and a lot of recent experience and logistical backing for it all? What about events in the pacific? The Soviets had sent some serious quantities of forces to the East, Japan wasn't just surrounded by the USMC and British Commonwealth, what would be happening over there?! Then theres even more questions, what about the Soviet vs Allied navies?! What about a conventional bombing campaign to destroy Soviet military formations, the British and Americans having jets in service VS the Soviets not having an interceptor for something like the B-29, *which they themselves have access to and had copies of so what about them trying to reach back?!* This just has the energy of just saying "And the Soviets have a bigger military, therefore they'd develop mechs first and invade the continental united states from space in a matter of months." Come on, a war between the Allies and Soviets would have been extremely hard for all sides!

[@baguette2117]

Add in the fact the the Soviets were utterly exhausted and were already having trouble replenishing their reserves while the US war machine was no where near maximum output. 9 times out of 10 the Western allies would of at minmum thrown the Soviets out of poland by 1950.

[@abrahamgn3614]

​@@baguette2117 as if Britain wasn't more exhausted lol. The U.S fought weaker German forces and still had to slog through to the end, while the Soviets annihilated everything in front of them from 1943 onwards. They were a better military, plain and simple

[@Jan-rq8mo]

@@baguette2117 That is ridiculous. Britain was so badly destroyed that they had to continue rationing food until 1954. France was even worse, Germany was outright apocalyptic.

[@WeirdMagnus]

@@baguette2117so at bare minimum more then 5 extra years of warfare?

[@TheIllusiveMan11]

@@baguette2117 The US & the UK were just as if not more exhausted. The UK was suffering a manpower shortage in 1945, and American soldiers in occupation duties in Japan were literally going on strike because they wanted to go home. The difference is that the Soviets could have made such voices of dissent 'disappear', at least for a while.

[@SolFireYT]

I feel like this is ignoring the fact that the USSR was dependent on support from the rest of the Allie’s to prevent it from collapsing. IF the world turned on the USSR then the Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Turks, Germans, every single country in Eastern Europe, the Scandinavians, France (maybe), Britain, and the USA would be able to defeat the Soviets. It’s important to note that their financial success post war was on the backs of nations that were forcibly subjugated. If war were to break out it would’ve been impossible to maintain production in these eastern bloc nations. They wouldve been fighting a three front war alone. Out numbered, out gunned, and dwindling logistics to the USSR would not have survived for long

[@theotherohlourdespadua1131]

You have to ask the question whether or not the soldiers and the citizens of the Allied countries wanted to continue the fight. Fight the USSR in 1945 is easy, it's how you would sell the idea to the public is the hard part because they are sick of the war already...

[@SolFireYT]

@@theotherohlourdespadua1131 realistically it’d be a mixed bag. Most Western European countries wouldn’t be in for it due to being depleted and exhausted but some will participate. However, plenty of Asian nations would happily participate. Beyond the bad blood Japan and China could gain territory and India could use their participation as a major bargaining chip for independence. Eastern Europe obviously exhausted and depleted would fight to the bitter end as to them the fight was for their independence

[@gaborrajnai6213]

Objectively Lend Lease contributed 5% of the Soviet war effort. It wasnt sgnificant by its sheer volume, but by certain things, which the US produced for them like trucks and radio equipment.

[@popebryanii7224]

I'm glad these videos are back, I watched all of them over the course of a week and was real sad when there wasn't any new content. Love your vids brother.

[@unknownperson-ts1bu]

02:32 this is misleading. Back in 1940's there was no highly effective way to down an aircraft without an air force of your own. This is how U.S.A. managed to bomb japanese cities to the ground (not due to lack of 'anti aircraft' weapons, but due to lack of capable air force). As a matter of fact, traditional carpet bombings of Tokyo (≈100K) incurred more casualties than the nuclear attack on Hiroshima (≈60K). The air attacks were brutally effective in the era without effective heat seeking missiles. They would have been just as effective against soviets had Germany not lost a great deal of their fleet in the war against Britain.

[@nobodyherepal3292]

TLDR: we didn’t have enough bombs, not enough range on our bombers, and we wernt interested starting another World war against a then-ally after just ending one.

[@williamhenning4700]

They weren't an ally. They were Hitler's ally at the beginning and worked together to split Poland between each other. Hitler just viewed the Russians as subhumans like the Jews and Stalin was stupid enough not to realize that when everybody in his inner circle told him which is how they got taken off guard and slaughtered at the start.

[@magellantv]

This was so fun and informative. Thank you for such an awesome video!

[@jackcarraway4707]

I like how Side Quest doesn't even mention France lol

[@abrahamgn3614]

as they shouldn't

[@williamhenning4700]

The French were part of the Axis powers. Free France was just a propaganda strategy.

[@mappingshaman5280]

Because in 1945 they were a non factor

[@greatwolf5372]

A lot of the elites in US government were sympathetic to the Soviet Union and Communism in general throughout World War 2.

[@Heike--]

The Manhattan Project and State Department were full of Communist spies who were determined that the USA must never win. Harry Dexter White, for example.

[@Klovaneer]

FDR's New Deal was straight up commie heresy. And it worked.

[@gaborrajnai6213]

Well, not by the time Harry Trumann took over.

[@Bobywan75]

"Why Didn't America Nuke the USSR in 1945?" Maybe because USA and USSR were allied in 1945...

[@theo1216]

Watch the video & you'll understand why that question isn't as ridiculous as it sounds

[@1mol831]

@@theo1216it’s still a betrayal. The Russians bled for the allies to win.

[@kereckelizabeth3625]

And the favorable terrain of the West is EXACTLY the reason France got its own nuclear arsenal. They realized that if the soviets invaded the West WITHOUT using nuclear bombs, the US would not use hers, and the soviets were unstoppable in a conventional war. So French doctrine dictated using nuclear weapons as soon as the soviets approached the French borders, irrespective of whether the Soviets were using nuclear or not.

[@Siberiancatsrule]

People often forget that a big part about why the western powers didn't invade USSR in the late 1940s was because the solders simply wouldn't fight their yesterday's allies. Those soldiers have been taught for over four years that the Soviets were allies of the free world and their friends. So to suddenly turn around and aim their weapons at who those soldiers though where their allies and fighter them along side german remnants would be unthinkable for the majority of armed forces.

[@zlamanit]

While they were fighting against common enemy, they did not fight anywhere near each other so the feelings they might had were based on media. While the western media celebrated successes of Red Army, it was designed to boost morale by showing the defeats of Germans. However; there were still ideological differences and mistrusts, and it wouldn’t take much to change state sponsored propaganda. However; a choice to extend the war just as it was about to end would add to the problem you’ve described. And it gets even more complicated if we look at nations like Poland, whose citizens fought on both fronts. While the continued war might have been seen as an opportunity to fight soviet oppression in Poland, it would involve fighting against own countrymen. Furthermore, while majority of allies ideologically opposed communism, there are examples of groups that supported it which might lead to breakdown of the alliance.

[@markojojic6223]

Idea for a next video: (ancient) Stoics (?)

[@lanej5828]

0:40 It’s the opposite of what Sam O’Nella did in the Willy D. Porter video

[@DAethrys]

Another good question is why America didn't let the Soviets Nuke China during the Sino- Soviet split. All the benefit, none of the guilt.

[@emermage]

"US is good and soviets are bad" Meanwhile US:

[@MacAnters]

Are... Are you pretending the Soviets never had such a plan?

[@emermage]

@@MacAnters Honestly, i've never heard about one

[@MacAnters]

@@emermage every single nation has a contingency plan, doesn't mean that they'll act upon it

[@emermage]

@@MacAnters yeah, but I feel like there's a difference between defensive plan in case of a war breaking out and an unprovoked first strike plan, as far as I got it from the video

[@MacAnters]

@@emermage If your plan is defensive, you will lose the initiative. Your people and resources will be lost and the "enemy" will have the upper hand, in case something happens. In no way am I defending this behavior, but I understand that as a government, you need to be prepared for the worst. Again, planning something does not mean actually committing to it, but we sure got close to that sometimes and that's scary to think about. But yeah, you can count on the fact that all parties involved had some sort of plan ready in case things escalated

[@dawiddowbusz]

Great explanation 👌 I was always wondering about this, and now i know some answers and numbers 👍 Thank You for that 😉

[@self-transforming_machine-elf]

Well, nobody's perfect.

[@theAEDan]

After having crippled the Empire and thrown away Britains future, Churchill wanted to continue fighting. Truly the worst Briton to ever exist.

[@PlutoTheSynth]

summary of the video q:why not nuke the ussr? a:why would you do that

[@georgeofhamilton]

That would have been frickin’ diabolical.

[@TheBearInTheChair]

I'm glad we didn't, I wouldn't be able to write this today

[@TTOS69]

Thanks Side Questy. Much love my English brethren.

[@kevinmahoque5608]

Haven't been here in a while.. I'm enjoying the new animation

[@iamdigory]

If the cold war had gone hot, we'd all be saying that the us should of destroyed the ussr when we had a chance. We lucked out (so far)

[@jonathanwebster7091]

Thank God.

[@TheFlyingDogFish]

The chance was never there. Didn't you watch the video?

[@williamhenning4700]

@@TheFlyingDogFish The video is just Soviet cocksucking focusing on hypotheticals and bunk statistics the Soviets themselves provided ( and lied about ). Nearly the entirety of the Soviet’s modern equipment was provided to them by the U.S. because they weren’t even effective as cannon fodder without it.

[@PapiYaourt]

And now Putin is threatening everyone with nuclear weapon 😅

[@dylanroemer4277]

Your Wrong the U.S. had one more nuke after the 2 we dropped on Japan and uou are semi correct it would take around a month or 2 to make each nuke after that but the fourth was already in production when the first and second was dropped.

[@AironSmieciowy-di3qy]

Great video!

[@corneliusmaze-eye2459]

Capitalism is a political system, not an economic one. You can have market economies and not be capitalist. Its about who gets the legislative and judicial privilege. i.e. judges always siding with owners of property and wealth regardless of the context and profession of the opposing plaintiff.

[@RepublicaSindicalista_doBrasil]

I literally searched for this question a few hours ago and didn't find it. Thanks for this video.

[@savagepro9060]

winston churchill: We were busy fighting while you were building amusement parks

[@prettyawesomeperson2188]

I don't know... Maybe because they were allies just up to the end of WW2...

[@strixking1197]

Been a subscriber since 30k 🔥

[@RedLogicYT]

Glad you guys are still pushing strong

[@citrus1225]

Loving the “new” thumbnails they look nice

[@hominemsinenominea_man_has6067]

You re talking about mass genocide of civilians with such eagerness

[@RepublicaSindicalista_doBrasil]

When we're about geopolitics, that's the most appropriate tone, unfortunately.

[@walterfijn3586]

To speak of 47' incident in a small town New Mexico.

[@colincassidymedia]

Love this narrator 😎✊👏

[@BrammBass]

What about the USSR point of view? Didn't they have similar plans? To take on all of Europe?

[@LukaSchoone-sd1wn]

I would say that any war between the allies and the soviets would have resulted in the allies taking up defensive positions on the rhine, while allied forces might have been smaller, they were mainly comprised of commonwealth and american forces. They could have probably mobilized additional troops in the newly liberated nations (besides west germany). The soviets probably wouldnt have fully pushed the allies out of europe.

[@sirtitanic7882]

Sounds like a good idea 🙂

[@1funnygame]

They really dropped the ball there, by not dropping the bomb there

[@sharkronical]

Ain’t I right?

[@SteveInLava]

In 1945, the western allies were still on good terms with the ussr (even if the u.s was suspicious of ussr), so it never happened.

[@williamhenning4700]

@@SteveInLavaWe were merciful* We were under no illusions about the Soviets being our “allies” and were aware of the threat they posed.

[@1funnygame]

@@SteveInLava Churchill absolutely realised the horrors of the Soviet Union, but he was too late. They had already stationed their military all over eastern Europe and weren't planning to leave

[@user-nt5fu7no4k]

Seeing all the stupid arguements imma just interject my own opinion as well and sah "Nah"

[@wesestep2523]

I can appreciate the ö joke in bömb 😂

[@Woody_Florida]

It is now more necessary than ever for the anglosphere to stick together and support each other.

[@Heike--]

Why? The USA just passed a law making it illegal to quote entire sections of the Gospel, and saying "Christ is king" now carries jail time.

[@johnv4994]

@@Heike-- What's the number of the bill or whatever? I find it hard to believe that the republican-majority congress wouldn't say anything about this

[@williamhenning4700]

@@johnv4994Republicans are bought and paid for sadly. At least they’re not America hating commies like the Dems ( very small “silver lining” if you can call it that ).

[@annabellethepitty]

The us had and still has the worlds strongest navy as well as the worlds strongest and second strongest air force (the US NAVY is the worlds strongest airforce)

[@Marcianito100PorCientoReal]

For some reason I clearly heard “the serbians” each time he said “the soviets”

[@omeka8842]

fin this channel with rng algoritim. the chacter give me Not starve vibe

[@justgames4420]

It's was much better if you said America was not evil

[@a.m.5581]

Did you even watch the video

[@stevebradley8862]

This video assumes U.S. would have if they had military capacity and capability. We just worked with USSR to defeat Axis powers and signed a peace and rebuilding treaty. Also, the general U.S. sentiment was isolationist after getting dragged into a very unnecessary WWI and we were struggling w Great Depression economy. U.S. citizens would not have supported extending the conflict even if we already realized USSR would be our biggest threat going forward. Contrary to the stereotype, the U.S. has done very little empire building by acquiring territory and colonies like European countries. The U.S. started from founding w democratic ideals and rights. Conquering other nations also requires dealing w local populations and challenge of changing ingrained beliefs about government. Russia went from Czar and serfs to Communism. Both systems did not allow property rights or individual freedom and open elections.

[@rhettshanley8712]

This is so crack pipe its crazy I couldn’t fathom doing something so terrible for no reason. Sure reasons were iffy after the war but they weren’t cause for war at any time for any reason

[@williamhenning4700]

"For no reason." Lmao.

[@mikebauer6917]

But we also had tons of hyper toxic waste from making those bombs… package it up and drop in water sources and food production areas. Easy.

[@jonathanwebster7091]

Well, apart from the fact it would have probably sent the Earth back into the stone age. If we were lucky. A nuclear assault big enough to destroy the USSR would have destroyed the species in the most likely scenario.

[@mikebauer6917]

@@jonathanwebster7091 yes. You want to kill everyone? Okay, then set off those nukes in stratosphere to destroy the ozone layer. Easy again. Note that I don’t think we should have done these things of course.

[@mappingshaman5280]

so your plan is to effectively commit biological warfare and genocide and kill far more than the nazis in order to win?

[@Kakarot64.]

​@@jonathanwebster7091 Since WW2 there have been nearly 2,500 nuclear devices detonated the world is still here. Most of these detonation were dick measuring contests between the US and the USSR so arguably if a few hundred were dropped on the USSR early before they had the means to retaliate we may have actually seen less detonations overall..... The US probably would have had a revolution or something toppling its own government as a result of public outrage to genocide though as a result.

[@alexdetrojan4534]

Short answer...the fallout.

[@jlvfr]

Vault-Tek was not yet developed. Only after could the US go "okey dokey".

[@MagnePorsild]

Me reading the the titler and gettimg so exiteted i pause every thing i was doing

[@k.constantine]

Didn't Churchill want to nuke the USSR?

[@noirekuroraigami2270]

But Churchill didn't have nukes 😂

[@k.constantine]

@@noirekuroraigami2270 didn't stop him one bit

[@tousenoart]

great beatles gag

[@abba-Flammenfresser]

There’s a reason it’s only in 1945, but everyone ignores the other 4 years they also held a monopoly on them…and the latter years they had thousands😅Soviets lucked out

[@Kreatorisbackyt]

2:19 i think that's a mistake

[@TRASH78246]

-Why Didn't America Nuke the USSR in 1945? The answer is very simple. It's because they couldn't. For military and political reasons. The political reasons are that in 1945 they were still allies with the Soviets, and the American people still considered them friends. Friends who sacrificed 25,000,000 people to defeat the common enemy. Propaganda took time to work. Then the US would lose all international prestige if it attacked its main ally, immediately after the end of the war. All the neutral nations in the world would turn against them (several of them turned against the US, even with the "Cold War" shortly after). And then there are the military reasons, There weren't enough atomic bombs to bring the vast USSR to its knees, nor the means to transport them. And then, at that time the red army was the strongest and most experienced warfighter in the world. If the USSR didn't collapse immediately (which it couldn't as we said), the Americans wouldn't be able to stop them if they attempted an advance into western Europe. And we are talking about a Western Europe full of powerful Communist Parties and war-experienced communist partisans, who until a few months ago were facing the Nazis. It would therefore be a matter of time before Zhukov arrived in Gibraltar. Consequently, for the USA to attack the USSR with nukes in 1945 would be politically unprofitable (at home and abroad) and militarily disastrous.

[@deadchannelxd4910]

Kinda unhinged doing that ngl

[@haoguo2056]

I think it would be a strategically important to invade USSR, while the U.S. held the nuclear bomb monopoly. USSR army was not nearly as effective or disciplined as the Americans, which was also at the same time technologically superior. However, the president needed the approval of the congress, and starting another war right after WWII would be unpopular among war-wary troops and civilians.

[@DrRitterstein]

Especially if it was an offensive war against the ally that just helped you win the last one.

[@gymnasiast90]

I hope you can move away from the Second World War and the Cold War again - those two have been covered to death, which doesn’t exactly make them sidequest material IMO. The strength of this channel is coming up with topics you didn’t even know you wanted - stuff like the Victorian arms dealer, stealing a bank or wearing the first watch.

[@DerDoMeN]

This begs the question why USSR didn't plow over the Europe in 1945? Were they less aggressive than UK and US or were they also forced to not attack? (Would be a bit funny if the whole cold war was to begin with cooked up by US and UK since now Russia is an extreme aggressor as the side effect :) )

[@mattbuchanan4330]

People like simplistic solutions...too bad reality isn't simple.

[@clydemarshall8095]

Lost opportunity.

[@stichen100]

What could have been….

[@Desocupad0]

On top of being a diplomatic blunder, usa weapons' industry really appreciated the cold war.

[@louvendran7273]

This is Proper UK Truth to Power in honour of Attlee & other Labour Heroes, Socialists, Activists, such as Orwell, Marx, Engels, Dickens, Emily Hobhouse, William Wilberforce among others. For our current heroes like, Mike Lynch & the forever controversial George Galloway. 👊👌🇬🇧

[@Heike--]

Galloway had better not enter the USA, there is jail time now for people who speak his words.

[@TrentonR]

3:34 that’s the reason. Western preferences wouldn’t have allowed it

[@Stiiin]

2:19 why do you say that allied forces had an advantage in tactical aircraft while showing us a graphic that the USSR had almost 3x more of them?

[@Kakarot64.]

A huge chunk of those USSR aircraft were western built in the first place 15,000 aircraft were supplied to the USSR by the USA alone this means the USSR was dependent on the USA supplies to keep most of its Airforce maintained at the time and these aircraft weren't even the most advanced aircraft available. Not to mention the USA could out manufacture the USSR at the time if needed to so the equipment numbers shown aren't an accurate representation of how potent the USSR military on its own is.

[@Stiiin]

@@Kakarot64. WOW you got ALL THAT just from: "Allied tactical aircraft - 960 Soviet tactical aircraft - 2750" WOW WOW! I need to work on my reading skills. I had no idea there was so much info in so little text

[@sylvainduret9880]

Mac Arthur is it you 😄 ?

[@NotCoolSnowball]

before i click on historical videos that explain questions i like to speculate about the awesnser. my speculation before watching: the soviets could put a fight which would make the nuking a suicide mission since self prepeled nuclear missiles weren't invented yet. also usser and usa were still kind of friends

[@NotCoolSnowball]

after watching: i was kind of right in some points

[@randomguy6152]

because they would nuke us back, also nukes werent shot like modern missiles so the Soviet's would have steamrolled Europe according to NATO generals

[@thefrenchbaguette919]

They didn't have nukes in 1945 also they probably wouldn't have steamrolled for two reasons the west could produce more and better stuff but in addition to that you have the millions of Germans soldiers and ten of thousands of tanks plans and artillery that was captured that could be used against the russian and I doubt it will be hard convincing the German to fight for the west against the Germans

[@williamhenning4700]

Soviets didn’t have nukes till 1949 and only because they nabbed the Nazi scientists we didn’t get during Operation Paperclip.

[@jwalker3813]

truman dont even dare to drop it on china not to mention soviet

[@BlitzKanec]

because it would have been rude

[@MatthewCaunsfield]

Aha, the true enemy is maths! 😁

[@williamhenning4700]

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

[@tfd7915]

So you're saying the United States didn't do It out of pure altruism? Thinking it would be unfair to nuke the Soviet Union before they had nuclear weapons themselves? I guess that beg's the next question. I wonder what the US government of that time would have done if they had the capability to drop 400 plus bombs on the Soviet Union and perhaps destroy most of their industrial capability In a day or two. I don't think Truman would have done that. But you never know I guess

[@Ginger_Guy]

Alr guys let’s be honest Ireland came out on top

[@Oliver-vx7ls]

so basically.. if the USA had 400 nukes in 1946, they would have used them...

[@nostro1940]

Low lQ conclusion

[@aleksandarm4489]

Intelligents yes but I'm not sure it was British.