World War III, 1989: NATO vs Warsaw Pact

Video explores Cold war going hot in 1989. Warsaw Pact clashes with NATO pact on worldwide fronts. This third and final video in the series focuses on the ground war. It explores both sides starting positions, forces and military hardware. It also talks about various mobilization, economic and geographical issues facing each side. Ultimately, a hypothetical course of war is presented, exploring both sides' advantages and disadvantages as well as difference in doctrine and strategy to be used.
Install Vikings: War of Clans now and get 200 gold!
iOS - bit.ly/2tsGaoZ
Android - bit.ly/2DbZx5p
Music by Matija Malatestinic
www.malatestinic.com
If you like our videos, help us out and become our patron. Every dollar helps.
www.patreon.com/user?u=3606614
Vote for country pairs you'd like to see in future videos in the poll, over at our website:
www.binkov.com
You can also browse for a Binkov T-Shirt or other Binkov merch, via the store at our website, using the aforementioned link.
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos!
kzbin.info...
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook!
binkovsbattl...

[@kipter]

Spoiler: Luxembourg beats both of them and Andorra conquers the entire world.

[@sgtmayhem7567]

Did Luxembourg find a way to reanimate General Patton? Cool.

[@stronkblyat6435]

Don't forget that Andorra is blessed by Vatican

[@rocksorstones6176]

What ever happened to Switzerland?

[@atf7923]

No Liechtenstein won the war

[@soroosh_abd2589]

Ooof

[@trickydick2909]

I think the best chance of Soviet success would be in about 1970. Not so much of a technological gap at this point, nuclear forces were about equal, still huge numerical advantage for the Warsaw Pact, US still has nearly half a million troops tied down in Vietnam, domestic situation in US is still quite volatile, Prague Uprising had been firmly suppressed, and Soviet morale, training, and discipline would be much better than in 1989.

[@ferrarisuper]

Tricky Dick i think the best chances for the Soviets were from 1960-1964, because in that period of time they enjoyed a larger nuclear arsenal, a little technological advantage, crazy numbers and a bigger PPA economy

[@terminalius]

Ferrari Super Wrong. The US nuclear arsenal in the early 60s outnumbered the Soviets’ by a factor of 3-5 times as much. Additionally, the Soviets have very few missiles and bombers that could’ve penetrated US airspace, while US Strategic Air Command was prepared and ready to level every Soviet industrial center and military base. Now, if this were conventional, I may be inclined to agree with you, but in a straight up nuclear war, the US would suffer at most tens of million casualties while the USSR would likely suffer upwards of hundreds of millions. NATO/WP countries in Europe would suffer the most, though.

[@ferrarisuper]

lightning dude that’s true, but consider that the Soviets could have produced more missiles and could intercept US ones thanks to their massive air defense systems. Most importantly they would have got air superiority over europe, because it’s fighters where on par (sometimes a little bit better) with the US ones, but the US is an Ocean far from Europe. Also the soviet tanks were better than the US ones.

[@Braycali]

I mean realistically the best time period is 1945, after all the soldiers settle down back home soviets can just steamroll through

[@cjcanton9121]

Best chance was in 1945, there's no way the US and Britain could have possibly stopped the Soviets at that point. It's still quite a mystery why Stalin didn't go for it.

[@kevinsullivan7831]

I was stationed in Germany, our lifespan if the soviets ever attacked was very short. We were supposed to slow them down so Reforger could reinforce West Germany

[@davidhudson5452]

Kevin dont Scare Them They Dont Know What Reforger Is Charge You Know What Would Happen

[@patvanquish4586]

I was at Gatow and the only person I knew with a shorter estimated survival time was a cousin. RMP at Checkpoint Bravo. I used to call him 'the nominated target of the first shot'

[@soapy3500]

Reforger. Good lord I haven’t heard that one in decades. Baumholder here. We would’ve held.

[@soapy3500]

I was stationed in baumholder. 90-93. 3-12 infantry and 2-29 FA. 8th ID then 1 AD. Iron chicken.

[@johnpappone8610]

I was at sea on a destroyer... wasn't looking forward to fighting off swarms of anti ship missiles or swimming in the North Atlantic

[@Abensberg]

dont even want to imagine the wasteland germany is going to be in this scenario :S

[@morecopemorerope4372]

Imagine the huge civilian loss

[@jakehayes1998]

@@morecopemorerope4372 Especially if we only considered tactical nukes. Yet alone city killer nukes.

[@morecopemorerope4372]

Jake Hayes there probably wouldnt even be a germany anymore

[@haowoon8213]

Let alone a intact Europe.

[@tommygun5038]

Only if just contained to Germany.

[@george-hi1fp]

I think the only scenario in which turkey and Greece will work together is this one greetings from Greece

[@UnablEEE]

Turks and Greeks dont hate each other. We are just everyday people. I am a Turk and i love Greek culture and history.

[@eminemishh]

george Χαριτος Once Turks and Greeks leave their countries they end up being friends.

[@sirbader1]

We all bleed red, boys.

[@dernierergenekon5234]

Basil II, The Bulgar Slayer we had many conflicts in Aegean too, dogfights at 90s, Imia/Kardak crisis 1996, Greek defence minister wanted to bomb Turkish Sat commandos which landed on West Kardak islets, there are also crisis at 80s about airspace and waters, also since 1964 conflict about Cyprus. If there wasnt Nato Turkey and Greece would declare war to each other 4 5 times.

[@user-br7fv8co8h]

@Basil II, The Bulgar Slayer of course

[@amEricaneurOstar]

I live in Germany. I feel uncomfortable.

[@tf2anti963]

why

[@davep5227]

You should be,due to the Muslim immigration and Angelia Merkel! I will never go there!

[@mememaster9393]

David Paul you do realize this all planned out for the eventual ww3. Thank the US for creating isis and causing those ppl to go elsewhere

[@richardroberts4355]

@@mememaster9393 the US made many many mistakes in the middle east, no doubt about that. But implying that Germany and eastern Europe's immigration problems are the US fault is ridiculous. Most of them are coming from north Africa. They aren't war refugees either, they want the welfare programs. Merkel and the EU are the ones that want chaos. Poland Finland and Norway are the only counties there that have leaders with balls. Blame the liberal politics on the problem. Not the US.

[@MrDonut-ch8dr]

David Paul uhmmm, ok...

[@scottrichards8540]

Interesting presentation. I was a serving NATO Military personal in the 1980’s. One thing you didn’t discuss was the possibility of a soviet satellite countries mutiny. There was a strong belief on the NATO side, that given a chance, several of the smaller Warsaw Pact countries would change sides.

[@FDNY101202]

Exactly.

[@Meanfromeindhoven]

Czechoslovakia and Poland maybe.

[@FDNY101202]

@@Meanfromeindhoven Hungary

[@Meanfromeindhoven]

FDNY yeah,thats true. Poles hated Soviet Union,Czechs always wanted to be truly Western style country,Slovaks knew that this act of mutiny will help them to have own country and Hungarians will hopefully never forget Soviet Invasion.

[@fetusofetuso2122]

they probablywouyld have. But the Red Army had strong presence in many of them, and in case of war with Nato the amount of soviet military personnel would have been even greater.

[@aboner2551]

You didn't consider me and my Leopard II being stationed on the in northern Germany most of 1989. As long as you didn't attack in the evening, early morning or weekend I was quite prepared to put up a stiff fight.

[@pinksheep406]

Your battle is scheduled for Saturday, thanks for the valuable intel!

[@soapy3500]

Best comment!!!😂😂😂

[@Joshua-fq9tm]

sir the soviets knew you were there so in their battle plans, they decided to bypass you and your tank on day and weekdays

[@mostdefinitelynotadurian1043]

The image of a boner is putting up a stiff fight in his Leopard II, in Northern Germany against the entire Warsaw Pact, is glorious

[@jc.1191]

🤣

[@DragonHunter24]

So basically Austria was forced to be neutral and they would still be invaded by both? Thats a very big middlefinger to us if u ask me.

[@lardinal2413]

I mean thats just strange tbh

[@llamallama1509]

It's what ended up happening to Belgium in WW2

[@lardinal2413]

@@llamallama1509 and ww1

[@williamfurlong9786]

@@lardinal2413 austria is very mountainous and easy to defend

[@yesyesyesyes1600]

Austria was fucked back then. They would have nuked us from both sides just to make sure we won't help anybody and nobody would use our country to march through.

[@HaydenLau.]

Soviets invade Finland Simo Hayha: Breaks out sniper rifle Soviets: Sorry we bothered you, *goes home

[@boss_n_jeans]

Hayden Lau hahahaa true!🇫🇮

[@javierroldan6667]

Simo Hayha as arrived in moscow: Soviet Union has left the game,

[@ivanredskin]

and vassily Zaitev, stalingrad sniper?

[@zepter00]

very funny. between 1945 and 1989 finland was half satelite state for USSR. Soviets told them how many aircrafts, tanks and SPGs finns must buy from them. fins in war with soviet union were so much succesfull that they lostbig part of their country for USSR.

[@neitilinvandring]

Russia/Soviet was, are, and will be imperialistic.

[@kinglouiev9530]

Greece & Turkey working together. Wow that’s very likely.

[@ThisAlias]

That's illegal... Both of them would say to stay out of their ways and attack from their respective fronts...

[@mikael5938]

agree, tukey would have to push alone or just defend. bulgaria would not been invaded at all

[@fordprefect6150]

It would happen because they're both in NATO

[@kinglouiev9530]

Ford Prefect And they went to war over Cypress despite both countries being members of NATO.

[@mhmoeller]

@@fordprefect6150 iceland and UK had 3 wars despite both being in nato.

[@MrSonofsonof]

After the 1989 revolution, I talked to a Czechoslovak army officer about the WP's capabilities. He said that from the late sixties onwards, there was no realistic chance of an attack on western Europe because of the low level of loyalty of the Soviet Union's allies. i.e., there was a high risk of the Poles, Czechs, East Germans etc. either not fighting at all or switching sides.

[@masterofalltrades_]

You should've considered the war scenario in the 1960s.

[@ferrarisuper]

S S A WP total victory

[@alexalbrecht5768]

Ferrari Super total victory implies the US is defeated. Good luck with that

[@ferrarisuper]

Alex Albrecht I meant total victory over Europe

[@alexalbrecht5768]

Ferrari Super they’d get no further than France before US reinforcements turn their advance into a fighting retreat. With their supply lines stretched thin they would be easy prey to superior NATO airpower. Superior armor means nothing if they run out of fuel just ask the Germans

[@ferrarisuper]

Alex Albrecht the WP airpower was far ahead then the Nato one. Also that’s not WW2 lol, there were lots of roads and railways. Also even without roads to bring oil from Eurasia to France would be easier than bringing everything from the other side of the Atlantic

[@osedebame3522]

Even though you stated why you wouldn't in the past, I think it would be cool to do a 1950's or early 1960's WW3 scenario, before the Sino-Soviet split to see if the difference of China could turn the tide.

[@Sajotyn]

3:00 Turks and Greeks fighting together..., wow no wonder this didn't happen

[@Phoenix_The_HeroHater]

I mean in modern times they have an ok relationship with each other and with other nato members so it’s not that hard to imagine it Edit:Nevermind

[@aleksk4151]

I am Bulgarian.

[@yusuf3005]

Change everythings

[@SupremeLeaderyt]

@@Phoenix_The_HeroHater well that didnt age well

[@Phoenix_The_HeroHater]

Supreme Leader it aged like milk

[@michaelsnyder3871]

One of the many constraints on the Soviet Army was its system of conscription and its sheer size. The Soviet population could no longer sustain the size of military that Soviets had created over the '70s. More and more Central Asians were being conscripted, and where they used to be limited to the Construction Troops and other non-combat organizations, now they were flowing into the combat units. The Soviets had to re institute Russian language classes they had dropped when the conscription period dropped to two years. The KGB, MVD, airborne, spetnaz, air force and navy (where conscripts had to serve three years) soaked up most of the technically competent, literate and committed/loyal ethnic Russians, leaving the tank and motorized rifle troops with what was left. Soviet tactics and operations had to be simple because they simply didn't have the quality conscripts to train in more than a single task in the two years they were with the unit. Conscripts with limited mental abilities and criminal records were swept up to fill the ranks. When the Soviets went to two years, DODSAAF was supposed to provide basic training through schools and youth organizations, but this was pretty much a failure between unmotivated cadre and a lack of resources. So conscripts came to the units untrained. A new batch came every six months as the time-expired conscripts moved on (one of the warning signs was if the Soviets DIDN'T release these men). This meant that 25% of a Soviet unit was made up of untrained or barely trained troops who could barely use their personal weapon. 25% would be at least partly trained and 50% would be fully trained to the rather simple tasks and standards. But 25% would be in short-timer mode. Training for new troops was often interrupted by fatigue duties. The Soviets had no real NCO core to maintain discipline and daily admin and ops. NCOs were just conscripts with more training, often still in their first year. Officers had to do junior NCO work. But they also had their own jobs to do, so they relied on the 25%, the "old sweats" to get things done. The "old sweats" assigned all the fatigue duties to the "new fish". They also acquired any money, or other assets and assigned the "New fish" to do individual menial jobs like cleaning boots and clothes for the "old sweats". If the "new fish" protested, they were beaten. The officers looked the other way. As an example of standards, a Soviet tank crew in a T-54/55 or T-62 was expected to master an engagement cycle, firing from the halt at stationary targets, of two targets a minute (the US Army standard with the M60A1 was six rpm). They might fire 10-12 live rounds a year (a NATO crew fired 100-120). The drivers might get 120-160 hours a year, compared to NATO troops who got at least 480. A lot training was on props and rote memory and confined to a single task. Tank crew members were rarely cross-trained onto another position. Living conditions can only be described as "Third World". Food was monotonous and unhealthy, hygiene and living conditions fostered contagious diseases like hepatitis, typhus and diphtheria. Troops had better equipment in many ways than earlier, even being issued sleeping bags, though this equipment was often left behind on maneuvers for lack of space. Training accidents, murders, suicides and such reached 7-8% and more of the force by 1987. The Soviets had problems with health and physical readiness of conscripts. Reservists received little refesher or sustainment training which probably helped since the Category C and Mobilization divisions were armed with 20 year old equipment. But except in GOSFG and some other high priority units, even CAT A divisions needed 10-15% of their force in reservists to fill to war strength.

[@looinrims]

But somehow this was gonna be the force that took Europe in a week Amazing

[@somerandomboibackup6086]

@@looinrims the force that couldn't take Afghanistan in 10 years and lost 15000+ men?

[@looinrims]

@@somerandomboibackup6086 yup, if you believe all the soviet cocksuckers on Internet forums ‘ooooooh Soviets would’ve crushed nato they’d be at the Pyrenees in 11 days cuz the East Germans said so’

[@Eadric_The_Wild]

Very interesting. Good information. I've read about how awful it was for the "new fish" in the Red Army and in the Russian Army during the Chechen Wars.

[@rem4431]

Next Idea: NATO vs WARSAW PACT NUCLEAR WARFARE

[@kokofan50]

Everyone fires their missiles and then dies.

[@garygao6072]

Everyone Dies, The End

[@shoulderescape]

everyone dies™

[@deltoroperdedor3166]

MR. BLYAT "Reflex in the sky Warn you you're gonna die Storm coming, you'd better hide From the atomic tide Flashes in the sky Turns houses into sties Turns people into clay Radiation minds decay!"

[@rem4431]

Wht about hiding in nuclear bunker?

[@mitchellalexander9162]

Ahh I have been waiting so long for this Channel to cover things like Hypothetical Alternate History Conflicts and possibly even reenactments and illustrations of Legendary military campaigns Hiel to Commissar Binkov!

[@sinistranrepublic8682]

Outstanding work, again, you guys do excellent research.

[@fredlandry6170]

The picture of the M60 Patton tank was taken in my hometown of Lake Charles Louisiana. On the lakefront park area.

[@azynkron]

Want a medal for that?

[@StevioGaming1]

Finally been waiting so long!

[@kingnevermore25]

Stevio Gaming This is cancer and it doesnt represent anything

[@luigithegreat1331]

I have been waiting for this FOR WEEKS Yay

[@tomduggan51]

Binkov, Thanks for this deeply interesting video on Cold War scenario. Very good and original channel on Military matters-well done! I

[@Yzzo1]

I once knew an old Polish guy who lived under communist rule in Poland and was an officer, am not exactly sure in what, and he told me that if war ever broke out between the Warsaw Pact and NATO he was going to do everything he can to give away Soviet plans to NATO intelligence and he said that if he ever got desperate he would begin sabotaging Soviet supplies. He mentioned Soviet supplies specifically not necessarily Polish supplies because he sort of despised the Soviets but yet he was an officer, (Still not exactly an officer of what but oh well).

[@zrbbg9639]

Josue Yanez Well the Soviets were kind of rude to the Polish until the 70s so no wonder he hates them.

[@alexs.2727]

They have their reasons true, but they're to this day the salitiest people in europe

[@michaelw6277]

Alex S. Seems like they’ve earned the right to be.

[@Rus-bw2oq]

Without the Soviet union and its great sacrifice in the war, these Poles would now speak German and be slave to them.

[@heneraldodzz4978]

indian summer true

[@jak00bspyr72]

I think many countries of the Warsaw Pact would change sides if the war started in 1989.

[@anonymous9656]

Polski Ślachcic I believe that's why he assumes that morale is 100% and no allies involved. Including all these psychological factors would make the video very complicated and would require such a large amount of assumptions that might be affected by personal bias that the video just wouldn't be as accurate.

[@wasylwasylson7349]

That's why the author should have made the scenario for mid 1980s at the latest not for 1989. It's just silly for 1989. At least in mid 1980s eastern block was still more or less politically stable and it's economy although not in good condition by any stretch could have sustained a war effort for a short time (maybe not even then - not sure about that but certainly not by late 80s), but not in 1989. Also long term war (several years) is not even worth making scenario without taking into account political and morale factors. Again author should have concentrated on up to 1 year scenario at most. After that it all breaks down without taking into account more complex factors. It just becomes useless even as an intellectual exercise - it becomes too detached from any possible potential reality that could have existed.

[@jak00bspyr72]

Indeed. It would be more possible for war to start in time of Cuban Missle Crisis rather than last moments of USSR and Warsaw Pact.

[@swietoslaw]

The year 89 is weird, this is start in changing in Poland so they would not be fighting alongside soviets

[@brandonlyon730]

The Union probably wouldn't be the best in economic terms, the Chernobyl incident was only a few years ago in 1989, and that power planet has cost the Union a arm and leg just to repair the damages that it cost.

[@bobsink624]

Finally, I’ve been waiting for long!!!!

[@joeboyd8702]

Excellent analysis. Thanks.

[@traviszhang1686]

You missed some important points, in 1989 it would very questionable whether countries in eastern blocks would stick with Soviet Union. They are likely to remain neutral or even switch to NATO. (Poland, Hungary etc)

[@rajc2257]

Travis Zhang ye

[@SonBui-de6qx]

Do you even know Binkov’s rules? No nukes. No allies outside of the original combatants. Same morale.

[@rajc2257]

Son Bui u didn’t watch the video did u

[@jeffreykalb9752]

@@SonBui-de6qx Which means useless analysis.

[@Saeronor]

@@jeffreykalb9752 Sadly, in this particular case it is indeed useless. While one can imagine countries trying *everything* to resolve a local conflict without nukes, this sort of scenario suggests the opposite, with tactical warheads embedded in any large - scale planning from the day 1. Moreover, even if deploying nukes ends up less apocalyptic due to countermeasures, failures, human error, political pressure, that's still more than enough to affect another factor Binkov leaves out - morale. Not necessarily in a way people usually predict, though. Sure, population in WP was less than friendly to USSR in 1989. However... imagine you live in eg. Poland, which is most likely nuked into oblivion in the very beginning. Why? This is how NATO could ruin logistics of WP with one swift strike - the alternative routes to Germany were inferior and/or more exposed. Imagine you live there, secretly predisposed towards the West. Oh, wait, NATO just turned your major cities into irradiated wasteland. All available sources are saying they attacked first. All alternative sources are either jammed or too risky, because it's war, therefore listening to / disseminating foreign propaganda might already be a capital offense. Suddenly it's Soviet AA units who are defending your cities against conventional bombardments. The more it takes, the more it looks like "both sides are assholes", so rebellion makes no sense. So... rather than some top 10 Anime Betrayals I suspect Soviet puppets would turn into massive anti - war hubs, pressuring their communist governments about armistice - and they, in turn, would actually have something to pressure Moscow with: their remaining infrastructure. Sure, USSR can outright occupy one or two puppets to secure supply lines - but not without extremely costly drama that would spill over entire WP.

[@salokin3087]

Finally! There needs to be way more ww3 fiction, so many what ifs and decisiveness

[@kattegatcitychamberofcomme311]

Salokin , Team Yankee by Harold Coyle

[@throwaway4827]

Arc Light was an excellent book regarding World War 3.

[@gamerguy4476]

Go and play World in Conflict.

[@kokomo7032]

NotPoliticallyCorrect77 can we destory Palestine and Islam after?

[@nationalistfromcanada3497]

I read that as ww3 fanfiction, this is awkward...

[@maybefixfix6143]

Could you do the same. But for the 1950 to 1970

[@GAZAMAN93X]

maybe fix fix Look up Operation Unthinkable

[@nationalistfromcanada3497]

Operation Unthinkable was for summer 1945. We're talking about going up against the Soviets at their absolute height of power in the 1960s.

[@yaz2928]

Definite win for Soviets. Soviet Union in 1989 was very weak and almost broken due to stagnation started under Brezhnev. No surprise 2 years later it broke. Still got a minor victory. However Soviets in 1960 were at their strongest and could've easily taken all of Europe.

[@l0necroc]

Lone Wolf "taken" but not won

[@yaz2928]

Dildo Faggins Lol, the US and all it's allies struggled against a minor Nazi force at Normandy, while the Soviets were facing over 80% of German soldiers alone. Once Europe was taken by Soviets it would be impossible for either the US or the UK to regain control. US naval superiority might save the UK from an invasion but that's it.

[@Joris13T]

West Germany by area. 32% forst, 53% agricultural, 25% urban = 110% :)

[@yigitalpalakoc]

Upgrades people, upgrades

[@ChazCharlie1]

Now that's what I call German efficiency!

[@kralle-uw9mc]

What amazed me about this video, is that both sides had so many soldiers fully mobilized and ready within a day. Thats an amazing achievement. tbh. See 1:50

[@andrewl258]

The things I'd do to that puppet....

[@andrewl258]

CAT: Lmao. I'm not sure what I meant tbh, but yeah, that sounds close.

[@Madplanetguy]

Andrew L uhhhhh... if that puppet turns you on, theres something seriously wrong with you...

[@zacharymoskovits5530]

Madplanetguy so true

[@noneshere]

Its made from China

[@ZachAttack-tp7eo]

Thats called muppet necking

[@algerian4480]

Impressive like always.

[@HeavyStorm4]

i wish he had looked into the cooperation difficulties NATO could have faced, like one i have read was that NATO had divided the European theater into several air defense zones which ran longitudinal along Europe and these zones had been assigned to different countries, it was argued that the borders along these zones could have made severe weak points

[@ZacksYT]

sWechkom rejela 7ata entom tetfarjou binkovv

[@algerian4480]

Yeah.

[@algerian4480]

+Mid ary Hello brother

[@algerian4480]

+Zacki BoI yeah brother.

[@michaelsommers2356]

You're forgetting that by 1989 the USSR and the Pact were both dissolving. The Soviets could not longer keep up the arms race, and the Pact countries were of dubious loyalty. The Soviets would have had to spend considerable resources to just ensure that the Pact did not rebel.

[@johanlassen6448]

Bro Binkov is a known Soviet shill. By 1989 the USSR had 0 chance to win a conventional war against NATO even if all Pact countries stuck with them. NATO troops simply maintained a much higher training and technological standard to the completely overrated Soviet crap.

[@sonajrilhav]

This is poor speculation.I was a soldier in one of Warso Pack army, where accents and priority were different and variation made in many way!

[@AudieHolland]

Morale and combat quality of NATO troops differed greatly too. American troops were more known for their drug and drinking habits. What's more, while their NATO allied troops would get out in the dirt, Americans preferred to remain in their vehicles, which were warm and comfy compared to slugging in the mud. And I cannot imagine that either side would be prepared to lose 100,000s of men in atrocious fighting conditions. Napalm was a much used weapon to 'chase enemy infantry from buildings,' so they could be bombed and machinegunned in the open. In my opinion, after only a few weeks, both sides would reach an agreement to stop advancing and to stop shooting at each other. NATO ammunition stores are also greatly inflated because it had to deal with quite a number of different calibers. France's position within NATO has always been up for debate. They were outside of the NATO military organization but cooperated on the political level. This would have decreased fighting capability and efficiency within NATO to a significant degree. Meaning it could mean the difference between holding the line or having to fall back because of lack of supporting troops. British General Sir John Hackett wrote two books, with two very varying scenarios of how WWIII would be fought in Western Europe. He had great insight into the political instability of the Warsaw Pact forces. A protracted, costly war would probably have seen one or two sattelite states rebel which would mean more forces would have to be diverted to fight the rebels. Then again, NATO's main supply route across the Northern Atlantic would have been its achilles heel. The Soviet Northern Fleet was not designed to fight a long war but to launch an enormous amount of anti shipping missiles at the start of hostilities which would have decimated NATO naval forces in the Atlantic. Also, as the military strategic minds in WWI could not keep up with the attrition rate of infantry in the endless trench warfare (which is a misnomer because if the men had remained inside their trenches, it wouldn't have been all that bad). Strategic minds theorizing about WWIII would have been baffled by the fact that after one or two weeks, there would be no airfields operational anymore and precious few combat planes and pilots left after the initial slaughter (AAA missiles and 'Shilka' type AA vehicles would have reduced the average survival time of pilots on either side to minutes instead of hours).

[@nxshuu]

pakika tetiso I mean,war really is unpredictable. I’m glad none of this happened in real life tho.

[@drakashrakenburgproduction5369]

@@AudieHolland let the actual experts and military professionals talk

[@AudieHolland]

@menckencynic Thank you, glad you found it very funny. Which is not what people can say about you.

[@AudieHolland]

@menckencynic Sure man. Have a good life!

[@Jaxymann]

This is very similar to Tom Clancy's works like "Red Storm Rising" - even with greater numbers, the Soviets could not push through Germany because of a lack of air superiority, insufficient supplies and NATO's technological edge. Great work as ever Commissar!

[@Cyime]

You should do do China vs Soviet Union during sino-soviet split.

[@hwg5039]

Nato would catch this chance and defeat both countries

[@orangeboss896]

Cyime China probably stood no chance

[@jurisprudens]

China had numbers though. Soviet military was preparing to repel "human waves" by building fortified areas. :)

[@chrispanca1590]

7:43 Those percentages don't add up to 100. They add up to 110

[@dominiksoukal]

German efficiency

[@alanch90]

Such a good video to watch and rewatch. Could you make another simulation for the 60s?

[@predator931]

The actual video starts at 00:38

[@zrbbg9639]

Mr_Quality97 thanks

[@michaelbrown2300]

First,love ya,commissar.Always will be a subscriber

[@zacharymoskovits5530]

Why you want to boycott pepsi

[@michaelbrown2300]

Zachary Moskovits eh,it was a joke lol

[@zacharymoskovits5530]

Michael Brown k lol

[@michaelbrown2300]

Zachary Moskovits what?

[@zacharymoskovits5530]

Michael Brown ok, laugh out loud

[@Danail740]

I like how Bulgarian tank says "Bulgaria hits, Bulgaria crushes"

[@casbot71]

You missed one big factor, the US and NATO using laser guided bombs. That completely changed modern warfare and were an incredible shock to Soviet planners. Any Soviet ground forces without air cover would be decimated by precision strikes. And the F-117 stealth fighter would destroy Soviet air defense because it was an unknown quantity at the time and it's vulnerability to particular frequencies had not been discovered and developed. So it would be unopposed at night. In fact the general superiority that NATO forces had at night would be a big factor as well, as the American forces in Iraq said "we own the night". NATO could advance and counter attack at night and reinforce it's positions during the day.

[@keithmitchell6548]

As a former British Army soldier, I can say that we trained to do everything at night.

[@AC-hj9tv]

@@keithmitchell6548 hell yea

[@vejet]

Exactly. The Warsaw Pack was lucky the West didn't engage them in the late 80's early 90's, it wouldve been a blood bath right up to the boarders of current day Russia. What a dramatic change from the post war period until at least the mid 70's when the West would have had virtually no chance in stopping the Soviets from sweping across the continent. Oh how the times change.

[@Krzemieniewski1]

Polish army main target was Denmark. Greetings from Poland

[@Madplanetguy]

Michał Michał hello there! I assume you're quiet and a good construction worker as you're Polish (thats my polish stereotype)

[@Krzemieniewski1]

Madplanetguy Iam not construction worker. Iam yacht skipper...

[@1234femmarc]

Quite funny because Poles and Danish pilots when flying close to each other doing the Cold War often waved at each other and smiled, compared to Soviet pilots who just looked straight ahead.

[@jurisprudens]

I wonder how they could see each other in jet planes. Sounds like a legend

[@RoKoStudios]

+Marc1234fem Soviet bomber crews often waved that their NATO intercepts, theirs even a picture of one Soviet holding up a Pepsi showing it to the NATO pilot.

[@IC3XR]

Canada vs Australia. Now that would be quite an odd war

[@IC3XR]

I reckon it’d be a draw

[@silverhost9782]

No one wants to see their children fighting🇬🇧lol

[@IC3XR]

Amen

[@genericname5909]

Lemo n no with the United states helping Canada or Australia the person the the us is helping

[@malamuteaerospace6333]

Surfers vs Lumberjacks

[@manjushettar5866]

Great animation + narration. Just a reminder that by the 1990's the USSR was on the brink of collapse and the economy was near garbage.

[@t.a.n.o.b.5332]

Great video

[@nerdymidgetkid]

Although you've already given your probable conclusion, I'd love to see videos on World War III at other points in history - maybe one for every 10 - 15 years of the Cold War.

[@venelin9819]

Bulgaria had a big rocket arsenal capable of destroying most European Turkish and Greek bases, so a quick advance would have been unlikely.

[@akhsdenlew1861]

Pretty sure both sides would just keep defensive positions at both the balkans and the caucasus, unless if turkey starts mobilizing serious numbers.. which is unlikely. Those 2 fronts would be a stalemate for the vast majority of the war with little to no changes in the front lines. The battlefield was always going to be germany and both sides knew that.

[@nikolaigrudev8095]

Bulgarian army not defensive!

[@mint8648]

Proof?

[@jimatwood6915]

Now y'all need to do a World War III, 1968 NATO vs Warsaw Pact

[@AmericanRailfan-gb8oq]

Did you get influence for this video from World in Conflict: Soviet Assault

[@ninja-gaming8988]

What you are forgetting is the amount of unrest within Warsaw Pact member nations; we are right at the end of the Cold War here, and all member states were turning against communism: it wouldn’t be unlikely for larger member states, such as Poland, Hungary, Czechia and East Germany to revolt, not only reducing soviet numbers and increasing NATO numbers, but also many soviet divisions in East Germany could find themselves cut off from supplies

[@ryanjacques166]

Ninja-Gaming to be fair he said politics aside

[@ozzykulinski896]

Haha and you think unrest would do any good when soviet armies just ride the trains to Germany? You think unrest in Poland or Germany during wat time would mean a prison or hard labour sencence? No, you get shot in the head for treason same day.

[@piotrd.4850]

See Vietnam War unrest in US - how do you think it would be avoided in this scenario ?

[@johnadamski9913]

Poland would never fully fight for Soviet Union.

[@yeeterdeleter6306]

What about the problems nato has I know a lot of them and it should decreases the amont of enlisted

[@jacobgiaquinto1101]

Great video as usual. For future reference, the USMC uses the division model instead of the brigade model like the army does

[@WealthAndMoney]

The southern flank is an old story played in both WW1 and WW2. Neither worked for the Allies. The British ended up losing 2 divisions at Doiran and never attempted fighting the Bulgarians again. The Turkish border in 1989 was impenetrable fortress ex. nuclear weapons. In fact, that’s why the strategic rocket forces had intermediate ballistic warheads in the town of Sandanski on the Greek border. The Bulgarians had prepared for all kinetic scenarios hence they had stationed 3 armies (most of their available forces in the “star” formation (Elhovo, Topolovgrad, Sliven) there was 3 armored division in the town of Sliven designed to push back any initial Turkish advance. That was always perceived to be a stalemate with trench fighting unless the Alexander Lebed’s Soviet 14th army had engaged from Transnistria and pushed the Turks back across the Golden Horn.

[@quinlanal-aziz6155]

Yeah we really want to keep the Muslims out of Europe

[@The_sound_Of_Thunder]

Should have considered many of the Pact troops switching sides, hardly anyone there wanted to be a part of it, especially the population.

[@schadenfreude1061]

'Full Morale'.This rule is literally right at start of the video

[@HemlockRidge]

@@schadenfreude1061 Yeah. BUT... i n the real world, I seriously doubt that Germans would want to fight Germans, and the rest of the Soviet "Puppet States" would probably drag their feet, if not outright refuse. Thus; a significant portion of the Soviet army would be tied down trying to keep their thumb on the unwilling.

[@m1ckyg21]

@@schadenfreude1061 i think the whole point was that "rule" is a HUGE assumption and very very flawed

[@erersdgqhqerhqeh3372]

HemlockRidge same comment but change into US european puppet states

[@Moleoflands]

@@erersdgqhqerhqeh3372 but they are beimg invaded. A lot easier to convince the population to fight

[@muhammadzidanezainalbaihaq3376]

The notifications that i waited all this time 😁

[@jamesfraser1327]

China vs Taiwan with 2 scenarios 1: Taiwan alone 2: US helps Taiwan

[@fountainchristain]

James Fraser for 1 Taiwan uses it's land to cause deaths but would be pushed back but would cause damage for every mile For 2 it would be like how China vs USA but maybe the USA comes out a bit better cause they can use Taiwan to pull attention away and I am not sure of how big the Taiwanese airforce is but should be big enough to pull some of China's air power away so more towards the USA And Tawian forces

[@pablodelatorregalvez4260]

1: China invades Taiwan within a few days. 2: China invades Taiwan first but then USA recovers it.

[@mickeyg7219]

Pablo de la Torre Gálvez I have read the strategic analysis paper about what happen if China invades Taiwan, actually it will take more than a few days, months even.

[@hwg5039]

Mickey G lol, according to Taiwan's own defense minister, they can only fight for a week in the best scenario

[@thetraveler0386]

Taiwan's military is designed to defend itself until the US actually comes and intervenes.

[@justwhenyouthought6119]

I did Summer Sales in 1989, by day six we were supplying targeting information for NATO commanders en route to Berlin. Conventional would not have happened and the Soviets approach then was very much different to what most people imagined. Ever wondered why they placed so much emphasis on NBC capable vehicles ? They pre identified 106 targets in West Germany for tactical nuke strikes and they would simply drive their tanks through what was left.

[@emrysgeibhendach7572]

that would not have gone well given that NATO would have responded with there own nukes the world would have been a nuclear hell scape

[@genghisdon1]

would love to see these done again with an earlier timeframe

[@mainulakash3787]

Clicked this so damn fast.

[@9and7]

Yeah but only after you sank the Yamato!

[@beratceylan3882]

Azerbaijan vs Armenia pls

[@Michael-ys4rf]

Berat Ceylan No! RUSSIA ARMENIA VS TURKEY ASERBAIDJAN

[@TheBlessingOfTurnip]

Day 1: The Azerbaijani's Air Force Kite has attacked the Armenian Naval Raft without notable success Day 2: Both sides cure hangover Day 3: Monday

[@arle3685]

@@Michael-ys4rf umh Did you really fear Azerbaijan?

[@Michael-ys4rf]

@@arle3685 i m not armenian but i have to agree that azeri had a better army .

[@bubbasynklayr6965]

Interesting! But where did you find your number sources?

[@lucasmucas2807]

Cool! Would love to see one of the Allies v The Soviet Union 1945 after the fall of Germany. I think Churchill wanted the war to continue against the soviets, but roosevelt dissuaded him.

[@tanostrelok2323]

IT'S FINALLY HERE :DDDDD

[@davilimalol4612]

Vídeo starts at 0:33

[@Gillan1220]

This is the plot of World in Conflict. Love the mission where you control Norwegian Rangers. A bit of corrections though 1. Spain was in NATO as of 1989, they joined in 1982. 2. Albania was not part of WP in 1989, they chose to support China in 1968. 3. You forgot to mention Afghanistan, Vietnam, and the Philippines. The Soviets would have most likely redistributed their forces in Afghanistan to fight in Europe, while there will be most likely firefights from Soviet Naval forces in Cam Ranh Bay and US Navy ships from the Philippines.

[@ericwilson178]

I really enjoyed it. I spent two years with the US 2nd Cavalry (78-80) as a front line unit covering the Hof Gap. I was mostly an M60A1 RISE tank driver, but filled in as a loader for gunnery at Graf. It was accepted that we would cease to be a functioning unit at +1 hour after the Soviets crossed the frontier. That is why we had "escape and evasion" training.

[@michaelbrown2300]

Also,2nd ranger bat is in Seattle.Dad was a Ranger.Ther would be 2 major theaters

[@BagoPorkRinds]

2nd Ranger BN is at Ft. Lewis near Tacoma. Not Seattle!

[@michaelbrown2300]

BagoPorkRinds Seattle area.Near the area.

[@michaelbrown2300]

BagoPorkRinds always considered it a big area.my Dad lived out there

[@BagoPorkRinds]

Well I live in Western WA. No one says Ft. Lewis (JBLM) is near Seattle. It has always been associated with Tacoma.

[@theonefebo1089]

NATO VS Wakanda

[@plasmaphy2512]

the one febo10 Wakanda will win

[@gareththompson2708]

^ no contest

[@KawaiiCanadafreememes]

Going by the movie Just fuckin nuke 'em

[@annyoung7853]

Wakanda is pure fiction.

[@ausore9832]

Wakanda forever.

[@jessemounoury6065]

No way fighting would last that long. All ammo would be used within 4 to 6 weeks tops.

[@danielbenington4814]

There were so many parallels that could be drawn between this war and WW1

[@wetdog3664]

WORLD IN CONFLICT

[@nickc8773]

if this is 89 then shouldn’t the american tanks have a much larger edge of russian tanks- as seen in gulf war the m1 decimated the t-72s and the t84s (i think its t-84 somone correct me if i’m wrong)

[@hrpuff]

Nick C You might be combining the t-80 and t-64

[@nottoday3817]

T-72s used by Iraq were much inferior to the ones used by USSR, Also, different tactics and numbers. One of the biggest reasons why Iraq got so crushed was because the tanks were stripped bare of their advanced equipment(night fighting, range finders etc.) and were dug down in static positions. This allowed for US forces to take them out at range. Of course, the fact that Iraq also had no Airforce was a wellcome advantage.

[@danielhalachev4714]

Nick C Why do so many people compare WP strategies and equipment to the exported ones to somе middle eastern jokes who have never fought real war? Real Soviet equipment and tactics are far superior to that of Iran/Irac/[some country other than the Soviets]. Even WP equipment was inferior to the one of the USSR.

[@danielhalachev4714]

Blah b How can you even compare Soviet elite divisions to some cowards?

[@nickc8773]

daniel halachev that makes sense, thanks for the input.

[@locker1325]

Really excellent video. The late eighties scenario is interesting because this is the era of great technological breakthroughs in weaponry, air craft, tanks, ships and others. I think we would own the skies and seas. What would this mean in a mostly ground war is the question. Great work. Millions of lives lost? The Soviets just don't care which is hard to beat.

[@dean1039]

Just imagine the world without nuclear weapons. A protracted ww2 most likely ending in '47. And an all most immediate ww3 in the 1950's on the lines of this video. Einstein found the answer to global wars by discovering the means to develop weapons that can wipe out humanity.

[@youtubeuser1820]

Finally!!!

[@chase5220]

Japan vs China

[@kameronjones7139]

Fenris Wolf modern time setting?

[@chase5220]

Kameron Jones Yes

[@mickeyg7219]

In South Korea vs China, it's concluded that China couldn't take South Korea by amphibious force alone. Japan is over 3 times larger in both land area and population than South Korea, it has stronger industries, and is geographically isolated from the rest of Asia. I think this kind of war will be a draw, neither side could invade each other.

[@chase5220]

You're probably right. However, Japan will soon be revisiting its constitutional restrictions on its military (namely the purely defensive role of the Defense Forces). So, give Japan 15-20 years, and this stalemate hypothesis might not be the case anymore.

[@mickeyg7219]

Fenris Wolf At least for Binkov's scenario, a country must destroy a significant part of each other's forces or gain strategic piece of land in order to be a victor. In China vs USA video, China lost because its navy is wiped out, but it doesn't lose any land. And even that cost USA a lot, it's extremely unlikely Japan could build up their force large enough to pull off the same feat.

[@SkinnerNoah]

If this happened my dad would've probably fought in Europe. He was stationed in germany in 1990 in real life

[@CC-tl3zs]

How do you model this Binkov?

[@mrkotouoeji4267]

Thailand Vs Malaysia(next video) And Myanmar , Laos VS Thailand (if you want to do next)

[@TalesFromThailand]

Thailand would rather decisively crush Malaysia.

[@leekuntv6345]

MRKOTO UOEJI wow is very good idea ( Friends from China)GG thailand

[@mrkotouoeji4267]

Lee Kun TV haha thanks but I'm from Russia my friend XD

[@ZvZd]

Finally!

[@KirbyComicsVids]

There’s a really good alternate history book series called World War 1990 which is worth checking out

[@bluejazzsnaps1248]

What website or download do you use to make these videos???

[@Sceptre1]

Tom Clancy had the best breakdown of a possible war TBH

[@DMS-pq8]

Red Storm Rising is the best

[@AlexanderUnit-731]

Do you realize that Tom Clancy is a fantasy author just like John Tolkien.

[@Sceptre1]

you do realize red storm rising was his idea for how a hot war wouldve gone right? Not the Jack Ryan serious, the Red Storm Rising book smartass.

[@AlexanderUnit-731]

The entire idea of Red Storm Rising was to shout "MURICA!" louder than retarded Ronald Reagan could.

[@DMS-pq8]

Paid Russian bot

[@Omega172]

Your conclusion was exactly in line with what I thought it would be. For both the one year and multi year projections.

[@Verpal]

Same here, the only difference is that I think the actual war outcome will be determine by which side China support. If China support Soviet, Soviet can reach Paris and Pusan, If China support NATO, Soviet will be utterly decimated.

[@Omega172]

Verpal Wl, China would probably end up supporting NATO. China was opening relations with the rest of the world and didn't like the Soviets. But that's moot because if we are talking real world scenarios, then nukes would be accounted for and everyone would be fucked.

[@Omega172]

But I think China was still more pro west. They were in the process of integrating into the global economy, which mattered more than ideological similarities with the Soviet Union.

[@romanbuinyi]

Verpal I think it doesnt matter anyway: If China attacks Soviet Union it would be nuked, if China sides with Soviet Union it cant help SU reach Paris because of terrible logistics of SU eastern part.

[@Omega172]

Well yea. realistically if that war had broken out then, everyone would have been nuked and the world would have ended lol.

[@coasty8979]

Subbed looks good. Will be watching mre videos of yours

[@isf1984]

It would be interesting to see how things would be in the pacific arena if you factored in the ANZUS treaty as we into that scenario as well

[@PulpComic]

I think the impact of 'smart' weapons and the edge in training and tactics is missing. While there is no doubt that the first 60 days would see success in Germany and Denmark after 12mos the WP would be unable to move and be suffering from shortages of every kind.

[@MonMalthias]

PulpComic Back in 1989 smart weapons were rare and expensive. Stocks would not be expected to last beyond a few days of combined arms operations. We're talking tens of thousands of targets across hundreds of kilometers of front.

[@Loki1701e]

MonMalthias us had huge stockpile of cruise missle

[@fludblud]

Smart weapons were extremely rare in 1989, even in the 1991 Gulf War where the US could concentrate their best arsenal on Iraq, smart bombs made up less than 10% of all munitions dropped. If you watch the video Binkov did model training ratios which favoured active NATO units on an individual basis, its just that active WP troops outnumbered them by such an insane amount they wouldve still been pushed back regardless. Also remember that training quality only differs at the start of the war, combat experience will mean that tactics and the skill of individual troops will reach parity as the war drags on through natural selection. In the end it is NATO's powerful economies and the US's safe geographical isolation that will eventually outproduce WP and drive them back. But then again we all know the WP drove itself bankrupt trying to keep its initial combat edge anyway.

[@PulpComic]

I agree with everything below but even a few dozen devastating strikes by the F-117s on command and control, rail bridges and fuel stores could have put the armored columns into highway of death status. The training in combined arms and the better coordination of NATO forces would be able to counter the outright numbers advantage in artillery and armor. Much of which on the WP side could best be considered 50's and 60's surplus. Add in the low Soviet morale in '89 and this is a recipe for 'Red Storm Rising' levels of FUBAR.

[@nottoday3817]

I am not sure what you are talking about 'better coordination'. Actually, it would be a bit harder for NATO to coordinate. not only in this scenario where soviets do the push, so the chain of command has to be made in a hurry, but different nations in NATO had a different status. Like Greece and Turkey might not agree with US plans. France with the one of UK. Furthermore, bombings on railways, command and control centers etc. would be a problem for both sides. Soviets can do that as well, you know?

[@Turnet47]

This is no surprise. The soviet union under Gorbachov was at its weakest. But for most of the cold war their land army had the clear upper hand. It wasn't until the mid 70s that the US tried to challenge them conventionally

[@albertoamoruso7711]

noledareminombreaunamaquina Damn Gorbachov. He ruined everything.

[@mickeyg7219]

noledareminombreaunamaquina I think it's more relative than absolute, US doesn't have technological advantage in the 40s and 50s, they catch up much later, and much of Europe is still not fully recovered from WW2. It's not that USSR in the 80s is weaker, it's just that NATO outpaced it. 50s USSR isn't going to do any better against 80s NATO, it'll most likely do far worse.

[@sircastic959]

Yes, but this was coupled with the US having an Advantage in Nukes for about the same Timeframe. Soviets played catchup until then and the US would have "won" a nuclear War before the 70s. So the US would have gone nuclear had Russia started to overwhelm it militarily in Europe. They might even have gone nuclear as soon as Berlin was taken.

[@albertoamoruso7711]

Sir Castic Nuke the Soviets? I think anyone would have ordered the beginning of the apocalypse

[@sircastic959]

+ Nazi Vampire Eating Babies. You mean you DON`T think, right? Anyway, the USSR nuklear Arsenal was a lot weaker than the US Arsenal at the Beginning of the War (Later when it was larger the US Arsenal was still large enough and coupled with higher precision of rockets it denied the USSR any edge in that Field). If you look at the graph in 1962 you can see that the US would fare much better than the USSR. In Fact, they actually could have "won" a nuclear War, although that "Victory" would have come at the cost of Millions of their own citizens and constituted the largest Genocide in History. Still, had the Red Button been Pushed in 1962, America would have fared much better. In Fact, 1962 was maybe the "best" opportunity. The USSR would not have survived for sure. EDIT: I can´t fucking believe I forgot the Wiki-Page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race Here is just the picture: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg

[@Adam-hs9ft]

Well this kind of aged like milk- see u guys next month or something when we get drafted

[@dustinshadle732]

pretty good assessment. if I had been turkey, I'd have only fought a holding action. it's likely a few small naval groups would have been sent in to both assist turkey and keep an eye on surrounding countries. you can bet that the big battleships might make an appearance

[@SuperLusername]

Do Earth against Aliens for April 1st

[@gareththompson2708]

Aliens win. No contest. Exactly how they win depends a bit on their level of advancement and goal. It is reasonable to assume that they don't care about preserving the ecosystem as a sufficiently advanced civilization would mostly just see a planet as a raw materials for artificial habitats (they probably care about harvesting the rock and metal, not the animals or vegetation), in which case they would just sterilize the surface with an assortment of weapons. Some of the most fascinating weapons they might use to destroy us are the RKM (Relativistic Kill Missile, a solid object traveling at a substantial fraction of the speed of light so that it carries more power in raw kinetic energy than any chemical explosive warhead could ever provide, this thing is a continent killer. Side not: the technology for an RKM is available automatically upon developing ships capable of conducting interstellar travel in reasonable time-frames, as such it is one of the few weapons that we can absolutely guarantee every interstellar civilization will have available to them), a matter-antimatter bomb (releases 100% of the mass-energy of the reactants, is the most efficient bomb that is theoretically possible, also a continent killer), and last but certainly not least *drum-roll* the Nicoll Dyson Beam (this is essentially where you turn your entire sun into a giant Death Star with enough range and power to roast any planet in the galaxy from the comfort of your own solar system). Our own weapons would do little good against them. If they are taking pot shots from their home solar system then we have nothing that can reach them. If they have traveled here from a distant solar system then they automatically have incredible active defense technology (when you are traveling at 20% of light speed a single grain of interstellar dust packs as much punch as a small nuke, so you either develop active defense lasers that can detect and destroy targets the size of a grain of sand from light seconds away while they are approaching at 1/5th the speed of light, or you develop armor that can withstand the impact of a nuclear blast), meaning none of our nukes could even touch them. There are defensive countermeasures for all of their weapons of course (a planet sized shield to block out the Nicoll Dyson Beam for example). But those countermeasures require technology on par with the weapons being countered, and these scenarios usually assume modern humans against Aliens with interstellar travel. On the other hand maybe this scenario takes place a few hundred years in the future, and it is the humans who have developed interstellar travel and the aliens who are a low level industrial civilization defending their home world. In that case the humans would win, no contest.

[@jamiebigham9420]

Already been done by H.G. Wells. Viruses win.

[@adriankepler5254]

@@jamiebigham9420 loved the movie and the book lol

[@user-fr6qn9xl9e]

We got Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum. "Hiii, look at the earthlings!"

[@Nastgardaren]

Excellent anslysis and points! I completely agree. As you said, a Soviet union in the early 1970s might have steamrolled western Europe, which in turn would leave NATO to be left with the nuclear option.

[@JohnDoe-hs1jp]

Hey do you think that you have enough data to do a 1945 version of this?

[@Emilthehun]

Man how many weeks of data gathering did you have to do to make a 17:35 video bro?

[@Marylandbrony]

50 views, 50 likes. Never tell me the odds!

[@Alistana]

China vs India

[@Mohit-zn2rn]

Ali // A Squad already a video is there. China wins

[@nationalistfromcanada3497]

Bops and Vagene vs Noodle.

[@Mohit-zn2rn]

Nationalist From Canada hey your Prime Minister is gay, right?

[@anindyanarayansingh7896]

Mohit Kumar bro no videos yet on India va China.

[@hagalathekido]

its obvious which one would win though, china has slightly more manpower and better economy

[@TK-rd3yn]

Commissar, have you considered simulating Operation Unthinkable?

[@jacobwallergarrotelaxa7324]

i love how he forgot to color west berlin as blue