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.

[@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”

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@math05m86]

Always a good day when SideQuest posts

[@bigburd875]

At some point, you just get sick of war

[@Lalita_Luna]

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

[@nczioox1116]

​@@Lalita_Luna we switched to proxy wars

[@FICUSULXD189]

@@nczioox1116 Huh?

[@shubhnamdeo2865]

@@Lalita_Luna no it didn't take much. In 1950 they went to Korea and then in 1955 to Vietnam But yeah immediately it was bad decision, everyone was tired of the war and having more war and especially fighting a formerly crucial ally is like asking to be dragged onto the streets by your own people.

[@WHOKAY25]

Good topic. Here’s my suggestion for a future video: How were Britain’s railways built and paid for in the 19th century?

[@adrianhaller9887]

That’s quite the boring topic you’ve chosen…

[@WHOKAY25]

@@adrianhaller9887 I respect your point there, but mind you Dan Snow has covered that topic in one of his shows; and he did so in quite a dramatic fashion.

[@Tarn-e8h]

You might like map men

[@YatzeeWillWearAGreenHat]

I I wouldn't say it's boring but more too specific.

[@Zaftrabuda]

That’s very specific…

[@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.

[@brokenbridge6316]

In 1945 the Allies were also war weary and that also helped to contribute to them not wanting to go to war with the USSR.

[@thomaskalbfus2005]

The Soviets were worn a lot more that the Americans, in fact the Russians lost more men in the present day Ukraine War than America lost in World War II.

[@noirekuroraigami2270]

​@@thomaskalbfus2005no they didn't, bro stop listening to the Ukrainians who lied about the war since day one The un does track these things

[@shubhnamdeo2865]

@@thomaskalbfus2005 Yeah but they definitely could tank a lot more damage before falling. A war with the USSR in 1945 is like total collapse on both sides, the USSR due to logistical issues, and the West due to both logistical issues and collapse of support of the governments (Stalinist USSR ensured even joking about Stalin could get lead to a death sentence in a gulag, hence public criticism isn't worth the mention) The USSR was on the verge of being broke, the UK was completely broke and had exceptional internal unrest in its colonies, especially India, and the US population as it is was not interested in another war anytime soon so Truman didn't go for it and the economy was also declining and also nobody in the American government or AmericanHigh Command wanted any bit of more war and fighting a war with the USSR means victory at the cost of everything or no victory at all, 50/50 chance.

[@shubhnamdeo2865]

@@thomaskalbfus2005 and while yes the Russians have had MASSIVE casualties in Ukraine it certainly didn't exceed American casualties in World War II.

[@thomaskalbfus2005]

@@shubhnamdeo2865 610,000 causalities is what I heard versus 250,000 American causalities in World War II. The main difference is that the US in World War II didn't use meatgrinder tactics to take positions like the Russians are doing now. You see FDR was not a dictator, so he could not afford to disregard the lives of his soldiers in the same manner that Putin disregards the lives of Russian soldiers, especially in a War on the part of Russia that is not defensive but aggressive. Putin wants to take some land from a neighboring country, he is not trying to defend Mother Russia the way Stalin was when the Germans invaded in World War II. Conquering Ukraine is Putin's wish list, and massive numbers of Russian troops are sacrificing their lives in mass assaults to fulfil Putin's wish!

[@all_time_Jelly_Fish]

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

[@TheFrenchBaguettes]

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

[@TheFrenchBaguettes]

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

[@tishafeed8085]

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

[@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.

[@bubbledoubletrouble]

2:20 Are the numbers flipped?

[@DaCouchWarrior]

I think so.

[@TurtleSauceGaming]

It amazes me how many videos this channel puts out. The scripting and voice acting is awesome. The animation and character design is simplistic but fun. Great channel.

[@joost00555]

I'm glad that your videos are coming out a bit more frequently again, I find them utterly entertaining and interesting.

[@blackwhissh]

While talking about USSR army, you forgot to mention Lend Lease, so statistics are way different to use in this context, right?

[@dijital4801]

If the Americans started a conflict with the USSR i doubt they would give the equipment back to the Americans so it may as well be theirs in this context i think? (Idk loads about how lend lease actually worked though)

[@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.

[@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?

[@magellantv]

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

[@axialcompressorturbojet]

I would have loved to see Super-Earth from Helldivers 2 in real life, way back in the late 1940's.

[@Vlashr]

Not sure about cosmic programs without Cold war

[@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

[@alphaomega938]

Everyone getting the ‘We fought the wrong enemy’ moment I see

[@Heike--]

Sidequest conveniently left out that under Churchill's Operation Unthinkable, US/UK forces would join with the Wehrmacht to fight the Soviets.

[@KolyaUrtz]

Why are Russians "the real enemy"?

[@dijital4801]

@@Heike-- Guess it's where the name came from

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@IonorRea]

Moscow was a major railway hub connecting different parts of Russia which was necessary to connect resources with factories and soldiers with food, ammunition, and fuel. The West could likely win by decimating the logistics infrastructure of the opposition, so the Soviets would end like the Germans before Moscow, out of will and resources. However, destroying major cities full of people because of the decisions of a few was morally wrong anyway. The West already committed more war crimes than most of the people before WW2 ever imagined was even possible in such a short time due to technological development within few years even though some of it like atom bomb and bomber spams were already predicted in Sci-Fi literature, so there was little will among leadership to commit into continuing this disaster just for a few small nations when both the US and UK were running out of budget, you can hardly can imagine that many people under a mental strain of war for years wanted more of it. The only lucky thing was that Hitler did not put his nerve agents of later variety (Sarin, Soman) into action because that would definitely make the opposition think twice about unrestricted warfare against the civilian population which the Allies thought could win conventionally. Hitler according to some people feared a similar response from the Allies which while not having such potent chemical agents were likely able to come up with something that would with their superior fleet of large bombers done similar carnage, so it's good that Hitler never tested Germany's most potent terror weapons for example in a combination with unstoppable V2 rockets in a way that could end in a state where no side could claim a victory as happened later in Vietnam due to heavy jet bomber carpet bombing, Agent Orange and other latest developments in spreading misery which US leadership approved in their desperation to save their face...

[@dawiddowbusz]

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

[@kevinmahoque5608]

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

[@AironSmieciowy-di3qy]

Great video!

[@NOGRIZZGUY]

I think the assumption the Soviet union would just sweep over Europe in 1946 for example, is a bit generous. A divided germany was able to push them back at the start and inflicted heavy loses even when retreating. The thought a joined US/UK/French etc would fare WORSE than Germany is... a stretch.

[@Peter.S616]

The USSR would also face the rare to occasional nukes dropping on them, especially with an inferior airforce and logistics

[@mittensfastpaw]

Ya, this video reminds me of Soviet Reddit worship posts. That ignore all the Soviet troops without food, gear, proper clothes, etc. The lack of tactics as well as they just threw men at everything without a plan.

[@dirtysniper3434]

​@mittensfastpaw no their was a clear plan in their tactics and down to the infantry squads and platoons, you can literally read and look up about soviet www squad tactics so don't even try with that bs

[@bootleg8720]

@@dirtysniper3434 prove it commie

[@paulsheldon8838]

@@mittensfastpaw At the beginning of the war - yes, at the end of the war red army just vaporized japanese 1 million men army due to superb logistics, good tactics and rigorous preparation which are all sterotypically the opposite of what soviets did.

[@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.

[@citrus1225]

Loving the “new” thumbnails they look nice

[@markojojic6223]

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

[@RepublicaSindicalista_doBrasil]

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

[@strixking1197]

Been a subscriber since 30k 🔥

[@TTOS69]

Thanks Side Questy. Much love my English brethren.

[@amentia]

I missed these videos so much :')

[@georgeofhamilton]

That would have been frickin’ diabolical.

[@TheBearInTheChair]

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

[@RedLogicYT]

Glad you guys are still pushing strong

[@lanej5828]

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

[@PlutoTheSynth]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@self-transforming_machine-elf]

Well, nobody's perfect.

[@_Mr.Tuvok_]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@polkagatos]

Could you possibly please make a video about the French & Indian war? l love your videos! Thank you for posting them 😊

[@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.

[@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

[@colincassidymedia]

Love this narrator 😎✊👏

[@omeka8842]

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

[@Oliver-vx7ls]

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

[@nostro1940]

Low lQ conclusion

[@zelwinters1981]

Thanks, just signed up to Magellen.

[@Collectorfirearms]

Well I think you forgot the Soviets relied heavily on lend lease goods so to do things like keep their planes in the air. It would it not be easy for them to just simply roll over the Allies

[@py8554]

And the next video will be “Why didn’t America nuke China in 1950?”. Stay tuned.

[@williamhenning4700]

Because we had a heart and were stupid.

[@theotherohlourdespadua1131]

​@@williamhenning4700Because who want to see the Cuban Missile Crisis escalate into nuclear war?

[@ComicGladiator]

@@theotherohlourdespadua1131 Your dates are a little off.

[@deleted-something]

Truly the moment

[@williamhenning4700]

8:18 - That’s assuming Russia would’ve been able to produce nukes themselves by 1949 if the U.S. had committed to early strikes or simply targeted the Nazi scientists the Soviet’s had managed to nab. Also, far more than 400 would’ve been produced if the U.S. had genuinely intended to carry out early strikes.

[@Klovaneer]

The best german source on nuclear weapons soviets had was a fellow working in Manhattan Project, Klaus Fuchs. Actual nazi nuclear program was a trainwreck. Furthermore the soviet nuclear program was started way back in 1942 but didn't get required resources until after the japan bombings, that is one reason for the four year lag.

[@noirekuroraigami2270]

Nazis were known for their aerospace and missile technology, not Nuclear jew science Not all science is the same

[@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

[@baguette2117]

6:30 Ural factories were very much in range of b-29s. Bases could of been built in the UAE a British colony until 1966. Add in bases in Norway and Hokadio and the entirty of the USSR is in range of B-29s

[@TheIllusiveMan11]

Those would have needed to be built, which the Soviets could have seen with their actually pretty decent spy network. Which means the Soviets would have had some warning to what was going to happen and could have prepared

[@Dmitrisnikioff]

Norway would fucking never have accepted American bases in a land war with Russia. What the fuck.

[@jonathanwebster7091]

The Trucial States (what is now the UAE) were British protectorates, not colonies (meaning Britain had control of defence and foreign policy, but they were in all other internal matters independent). And they federated and achieved independence from Britain in 1971, not 1966.

[@baguette2117]

@@Dmitrisnikioff There is no land threat to Norway. Soviets are not going to march across the Norwegian mountains in the Arctic circle under Allied air and naval supremacy especially when they start getting slapped around in Germany

[@Dmitrisnikioff]

@@baguette2117 Buddy, the Norwegian people would not have accepted war with the Soviets, their neighbours, because of politics. The vast majority of the freedom fighters and swathes of the Norwegian military would have rebelled.

[@Amantducafe]

It's all interesting but this video only focuses on the military aspect not on the socio-economical-political factors that were present. Just a few out of the top of my head: War is not cheap, the US was still under the gold standard and war bonds were not going to be enough to keep taxes and tariffs low plus inflation was starting to creep in. Soldiers were in high morale and there is no doubt that American casualties were only a fraction of soviet casualties but if the two were pressed to war the American casualties would have definitely increased and that would have impacted the morale of troops. Plus we arn't talking about the civilian population of these nations, we are only seeing the military bases of the soviets, the supply lines and not the civilians still trying to survive against the famines, disease and just the elements. All Europeans were tired of war, their lives destroyed, their land ravaged, their families gone. Bombers are not snipers, these nukes were not going to discriminate between military and civilian targets. Nuke a city that would kill some few dispersed soviet soldiers at the price of thousands of civilians. The political implications behind all of this would be the hatred of all the Europeans specially the communist and socialists in allied nations. The USA presented a new challenger to the ideologies in Europe and being this charitable force convinced many people that "Hey, maybe Capitalism isn't that bad". Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still a collective scar within the human history that is a stark reminder of the destructive power of nukes, to make a scar you first have to cut deep and bleed, so more scars would mean more blood and even death.

[@LaurensPP]

I was literally just thinking about this.

[@theAEDan]

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

[@jackmeoff6380]

me in my hoi4 game:

[@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.

[@wesestep2523]

I can appreciate the ö joke in bömb 😂

[@walterfijn3586]

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

[@LycorisRaidata]

I did operation unthinkable in hoi4 historical. Total casualties for America were in the millions.

[@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.

[@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.

[@prettyawesomeperson2188]

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

[@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

[@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.

[@tousenoart]

great beatles gag

[@Desocupad0]

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

[@CliffCardi]

“We defeated the wrong enemy.” -Gen. George S. Patton

[@KolyaUrtz]

Patron was mentally ill and deranged.

[@flavius5722]

You defetead him in 1992 😁

[@CliffCardi]

@@flavius5722 1991, and we could’ve stopped them earlier than that.

[@AstralLice83]

He was xenophobe

[@KolyaUrtz]

@@CliffCardi whos "them"?

[@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.

[@kylehankins5988]

This is a pretty twisted definition of capitalism. I’m not sure anyone really uses the word this way in less they want to criticize capitalism.

[@alexdetrojan4534]

Short answer...the fallout.

[@Suea-b8g]

Best grumpy characters here.)))

[@BrammBass]

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

[@MagnePorsild]

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

[@kylehankins5988]

Yeah the government really had no mandate to do this. People wanted an end to war and at that time the Soviets were seen as allies. I reckon leadership also would have had ethical qualms with it. Truman used the first bomb with a heavy heart.

[@priyanshusolon8924]

Commonwealth forces watching usa Britain taking all credits of winning ww2

[@constantincristianandrei859]

great video! can you please mention the hymn from the soundtrack?

[@Dalekssupreme]

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.

[@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.

[@SecretSquirrelFun]

Cake walk or Keg walk? You choose ❤

[@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.

[@exorevbivoevturque]

The video is about alternativ history. Beginning of the video: LETTUCE! (0:00)

[@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.

[@jlvfr]

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

[@GarrettFrechette]

Don't be hasty!

[@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.

[@PapiYaourt]

And now Putin is threatening everyone with nuclear weapon 😅

[@justgames4420]

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

[@a.m.5581]

Did you even watch the video