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

19 күн бұрын

You have a very nice mustache :)

@philosotree5876

19 күн бұрын

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

@mikhailthetenor3387

12 күн бұрын

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.

Meanwhile, people playing Civ: haha, what if…

@burgerking2783

19 күн бұрын

hoi4 reference

@jlvfr

19 күн бұрын

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

@frangotino

18 күн бұрын

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

@water9097

9 күн бұрын

Civ 6

"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

19 күн бұрын

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

@alphaomega938

19 күн бұрын

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

@alphaomega938

19 күн бұрын

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

19 күн бұрын

​@@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

19 күн бұрын

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.

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.

@EducatedBrute

19 күн бұрын

Thank goodness for Mccarthy

@alphaomega938

19 күн бұрын

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

@Dmitrisnikioff

19 күн бұрын

@@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

19 күн бұрын

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

@zersky495

19 күн бұрын

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

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

19 күн бұрын

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

@Eatmydbzballs

19 күн бұрын

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

@Inetman

19 күн бұрын

​@@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

18 күн бұрын

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

@weirdguylol

18 күн бұрын

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

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

19 күн бұрын

This channel really had degrated

@-AxisA-

19 күн бұрын

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

@gaborrajnai6213

19 күн бұрын

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

@cadenibz

19 күн бұрын

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

@-AxisA-

19 күн бұрын

@@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.

Polemic opinion: the british didn't win WW2. Why? The british entered the war to protect Poland, at the end of the war Poland was handed over to the USSR. The british entered the war as the biggest navy in the world, a global super power, at the end of the war they became irrelevant compared to USA and USSR.

@TheWaynester101

19 күн бұрын

Its basically "we defeated germany" "What did it cost you?" "Everything."

@philosotree5876

19 күн бұрын

They survived Nazi aggression. That's a win.

@philosotree5876

19 күн бұрын

@@TheWaynester101 It really didn't.

@luminescentlion

19 күн бұрын

objectives achieved: 0 supremacy: lost war: won

@mrbisshie

19 күн бұрын

@@philosotree5876 Yea it did. They lost their entire empire.

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

19 күн бұрын

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

19 күн бұрын

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

@1mol831

19 күн бұрын

@@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

19 күн бұрын

@@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

18 күн бұрын

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

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

19 күн бұрын

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

19 күн бұрын

@@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

19 күн бұрын

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

@ForOne814

19 күн бұрын

@@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

19 күн бұрын

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

Always a good day when SideQuest posts

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.

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

@adrianhaller9887

19 күн бұрын

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

@WHOKAY25

19 күн бұрын

@@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.

@user-gc6dx4tr3k

19 күн бұрын

You might like map men

@verbugterherrderdunkelheit6086

19 күн бұрын

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

@user-yh1nm1vy3i

19 күн бұрын

That’s very specific…

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

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.

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

At some point, you just get sick of war

@LalitaLunaYogini

2 күн бұрын

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

2:20 Are the numbers flipped?

@DaCouchWarrior

19 күн бұрын

I think so.

@danielhalachev4714

18 күн бұрын

Yes. But it doesn't matter, as the Soviet air force doctrine emphasised tactical missions, while Allied doctrines emphasised strategic missions, i.e. all of those planes would be used for other purposes, they weren't all "free" and dispatchable for nuking.

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.

coulda woulda shoulda

@abrahamgn3614

19 күн бұрын

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

@aa-tx7th

19 күн бұрын

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

19 күн бұрын

Maybe try to not get wrecked by rice farmers first eh

@dasamont8274

19 күн бұрын

- Buddha

@abrahamgn3614

19 күн бұрын

@@andremacedo8463 france

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

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

18 күн бұрын

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.

Been a subscriber since 30k 🔥

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

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

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.

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

@theo1216

19 күн бұрын

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

@1mol831

19 күн бұрын

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

I missed these videos so much :')

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

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

19 күн бұрын

Isn't this a myth?

Glad you guys are still pushing strong

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

@Vlashr

18 күн бұрын

Not sure about cosmic programs without Cold war

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

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.

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

19 күн бұрын

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

@matheusexpedito4577

19 күн бұрын

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

@Peter.S616

19 күн бұрын

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

@thefrenchbaguette919

19 күн бұрын

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

@tishafeed8085

19 күн бұрын

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

Thanks, just signed up to Magellen.

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

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

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

@MacAnters

15 күн бұрын

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

@emermage

15 күн бұрын

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

@MacAnters

15 күн бұрын

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

@emermage

15 күн бұрын

@@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

15 күн бұрын

@@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

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

Truly the moment

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

18 күн бұрын

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

17 күн бұрын

@@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

That would have been frickin’ diabolical.

Thanks Side Questy. Much love my English brethren.

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

19 күн бұрын

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

@mittensfastpaw

19 күн бұрын

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

19 күн бұрын

​@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

19 күн бұрын

@@dirtysniper3434 prove it commie

@paulsheldon8838

19 күн бұрын

@@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.

I was literally just thinking about this.

Truman knew the wisdom of restraint and not needless slaughter WW2 is the first and last time Nukes should be used in combat

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.

great beatles gag

me in my hoi4 game:

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

@Heike--

19 күн бұрын

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

19 күн бұрын

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

@gaborrajnai6213

19 күн бұрын

Well, not by the time Harry Trumann took over.

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

19 күн бұрын

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

19 күн бұрын

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

19 күн бұрын

@@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

19 күн бұрын

“We destroyed the wrong enemy” - General Patton

@samusaran13372

19 күн бұрын

@@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.

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

@abrahamgn3614

19 күн бұрын

as they shouldn't

@williamhenning4700

19 күн бұрын

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

@mappingshaman5280

18 күн бұрын

Because in 1945 they were a non factor

what is the song list?

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

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

Don't be hasty!

Best grumpy characters here.)))

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.

Well, nobody's perfect.

Short answer...the fallout.

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

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

@Heike--

19 күн бұрын

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

@Schizofre

19 күн бұрын

Why are Russians "the real enemy"?

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

19 күн бұрын

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

19 күн бұрын

​@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

19 күн бұрын

@@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

19 күн бұрын

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

@cmdrgarbage1895

19 күн бұрын

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

I can appreciate the ö joke in bömb 😂

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.

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

@williamhenning4700

19 күн бұрын

Because we had a heart and were stupid.

@theotherohlourdespadua1131

19 күн бұрын

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

@ComicGladiator

19 күн бұрын

@@theotherohlourdespadua1131 Your dates are a little off.

2:19 i think that's a mistake

Here within Under 10 mins of posting🎉

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

Cake walk or Keg walk? You choose ❤

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

19 күн бұрын

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

19 күн бұрын

​@@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

19 күн бұрын

@@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

19 күн бұрын

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

@TheIllusiveMan11

19 күн бұрын

@@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.

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.

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

19 күн бұрын

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

19 күн бұрын

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

@jonathanwebster7091

19 күн бұрын

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

19 күн бұрын

@@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

19 күн бұрын

@@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.

Berlin gave me the blues

Push the button!

*winston churchill has entered the chat

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

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

Didn't Churchill want to nuke the USSR?

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

19 күн бұрын

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

19 күн бұрын

@@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

18 күн бұрын

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

@Kakarot64.

18 күн бұрын

​@@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.

Because we would have got our ass kicked fact.

@williamhenning4700

18 күн бұрын

Lmao.

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

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

19 күн бұрын

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.

9:01 / 9:01

Commonwealth forces watching usa Britain taking all credits of winning ww2

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

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

haha i clicked on this when it saed uploaded 13 seconds ago

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

@NotCoolSnowball

19 күн бұрын

after watching: i was kind of right in some points

because it would have been rude

Where did the stats come from at 2:10?

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

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

@Heike--

19 күн бұрын

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

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.

what a big lost ...