Nr. 1 clearly wrong. The Nazis did destroy Warsaw in the end, but in retaliation for the Warsaw Uprising in 1944. There was nothing left of the city and maybe 1500 inhabitants (from what was 1,5 million before the war) when the Soviets marched in. The capital had to be built from scratch with thought of abandoning it all together.
Germans killed practically all Jews in Warsaw in April 1943, Red Army were this time before Kurs battle deep in Russia. Stalin waited in summer 1944 till Germans cleaned up Warsaw from Poles.
they just waited for the city to be razed and the rebellion squashed. Jews or not jews, Stalin didn't care, the Polish just happened to be the enemy of the enemy, but still the enemy as well.
Mark's unintelligible reply demonstrates his intellect. Nevertheless, it was the pig stalin (I won't dignify this inhumane piece of garbage by capitalizing its name) who denied its forces from advancing across the Vistula so as to ensure the destruction of Warsaw by the retreating Germans thereby leaving the Polish resistance and general citizens without any hope of reclamation of their state.
That is true, but it's also worth mentioning that the uprising was started precisely in order to deny Stalin the city. Even though the chances it succeeding were grim.
Didn't Stalin stop outside of Warsaw tho? That why when he eventually went in the poles resistance would have already been crushed meaning he can setup his puppet government easier?
warspite1995 yep it's called the Warsaw uprising in which the Polish resistance was expecting the Soviets to help join in but instead they betrayed them and allowed Germans to destroy about 85% of the city after fighting took place for 2 months until they were defeated.
Yep...and if he didn't just let the Germans take care of the uprising, he probably would've had everyone involved in the uprising arrested and sent to gulags for the rest of their lives.
No, he stopped because his forces did not had any way to cross the Vistula in large numbers required to actually fight the germans. He did allowed for western allies bombers to drop in supplies for the poles for a while but he ended up changing that policy later on in the uprising due to the fact that about 3/4 of the supplies dropped actually ended up in german hands.
No, he stopped because his forces did not had any way to cross the Vistula in large numbers required to actually fight the germans. He did allowed for western allies bombers to drop in supplies for the poles for a while but he ended up changing that policy later on in the uprising due to the fact that about 3/4 of the supplies dropped actually ended up in german hands.
Agreed all of the major Vietnamese cities were under French control the Vietminh only controlled the countryside areas at the time. This wasn't like the American Vietnam War in which the communists had their own country and cities. I believe Operation Vulture would have involved smaller tactical nuclear weapons used against the fortified positions that surrounded Dien Bien Phu. Would it have made a difference? No it would have just gotten the United States' involved years earlier.
I agree. The 2nd Indochina War is much more complicated than usually depicted in western media. There were several factions in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Ho Chi Minh managed to unify enough of them to drive out colonial powers. Dropping nuclear weapons I think just would have caused perhaps even greater numbers to rally together. In Laos alone more munitions were dropped by the united states than all the bombs of World War II combined. That would total to quite a bit more than the destructive power of 3 atomic weapons, and The Pathet Lao still won.
Wisemankugel Memicus Of Kekistan no it didnt. The blitz was happening but sea lion never happened because goering switched from targeting the raf to the cities because the raf tricked them into thinking they were being ineffective at wiping them out when they were almost wiped out. with air superiority a sea invasion of Britain would have been possible
I did some research after this. The reason why Germany never invaded Switserland was that a. it is a land locked country and b. it coöperated very well. They sended Jews back to Germany and stored cash and other valuables. So there was no reason to invade it. The Netherlands on the other hand is a country with a very important harbour and it's well suited to attack Great Britain.
It would've entailed more losses to invade Switzerland because every household has a firearm and it would try to go for more attrition Style combat, door to door fighting weakening the invasion force. Switzerland is also a German country and it held German money in its banks and had many German speaking citizens. Many people wouldn't want to kill fellow Germans.
Blackwolf, I think big pumpkin is talking Alternate History Hub material here. Not actually calling for the impeachment of the president no longer in office.
I'd be skeptical of AHH. Cody doesn't do enough due diligence and research. When he talks about alternate history regarding something you know a lot about already, you'll find he's flat-out wrong. There's of course a suspension of disbelief when talking about something that could have (but didn't) happen. For instance, there's about 129,039,209 million different reasons the Axis Powers lost WWII, so it would be rather difficult to discuss a way they could have won without making some assumptions and ignoring some situations. However, AHH often will get things wrong about a specific topic outside of that to the point where it's hard to assume the video has any credibility. So for instance, there's "How would the Axis won WWII and what would life be like?" and then there's AHH's take "Securing Pegasus Bridge on D-Day would have halted the Allies and resulted in Germany holding France and thus an Axis victory and would have happened this way if Rommel wasn't at his wife's birthday party" (please note this isn't one of AHH's actual videos, just an example of what I'm talking about). Such a statement completely ignores the Soviets winning Stalingrad and launching a counteroffensive, along with the fact Japan was doomed to lose to the U.S. the moment they failed to sink every aircraft carrier at Pearl Harbor and Midway. Rommel wasn't the strategic genius everyone thinks he is (he was a great tactician, but horrible at logistics...you know the thing that actually wins wars). A single bridge is such a small drop in the bucket compared to the confusion caused by the rest of the 101st. Airborne. Stuff like this makes you question any of AHH's credibility when it comes to stuff you don't know about that you know it's likely those videos are also wrong.
1934: German general to Swiss general, "The German army out numbers the Swiss army 2 to 1." Swiss general to German general, "We will have to issue each Swiss soldier 2 bullets."
Nah, it was in WW1: In WW1, Switzerland had a tiny standing army but a population (250,000) of skilled riflemen. When asked what they would do if the Germans invaded with a force of 500,000, the Swiss answered "shoot twice and then go home"
Jac Lanle they also have a huge geographical advantage. The Alps would slow the advances made by the Axis Powers to the extent where Swiss soldiers could probably pick off soldiers one by one.
to piggie back on howard. Swiss have one of the best mountain troops ever. In there homefield it would take a very concentrate force to push them off tight corridors where german armor would have to travel.
As long as Switzerland was neutral and not at war with Germany, the Germans could send troops to Italy via Swiss trains that went through the Alrps. The Swiss threatened to destroy key railroads and tunnels if Germany invaded. I think that's a big reason why they didn't
Don't forget how a task force of two carriers,a troopship with two companies of Marinrs as well as some destroyers were dispatched from Pearl Harbor to Wake Island and was within 24 hours of arriving when suddenly the operation was cancelled. It could'vecchanged the early part of WW2 immensely.
1944 Polish fighters were waiting Soviet troops for help and relief. But Stalin told Zhukov Soviet army commander to wait and not to invade Warsaw. Stalin waited nazis to remove and kill all the Polish freedom fighters. Stalin wanted to make sure Poland didn't become a democratic independent country after the war with strong leadership.
Soviets at the time wore short of supplies and fresh troops to cross the Vistula. Do not forget that railways had to be rerailed after recent reconquest of Bielorussai and eastern Poland...
I remember the first time I played the campaign in "Napoleon: Total War". I looked at the map again and again, looked at the number of soldiers I had and how many I could recruit within a couple of months, and realized that the only logical move would be to take Britain immediately. After that was done, the rest of the world pretty much crumbled before me.
They're not a nation-sized force field. Axis forces, attacking from three sides, would have taken the cities, though slowed down by sabotage and the large Swiss militia. The Italians had specialized mountain units-they had lots of experience in that from the previous war-and though there'd be lots of partisan activity in the mountains, the Allies wouldn't be able to support it. It'd be a major sink of Axis resources, and basically a dumb thing to do, but I think it would have been possible. The Swiss-who hadn't fought a war in a long time by then-have a slightly inflated reputation, I say.
+Switzerland, up until today, is a country with among the highest rate of guns pro capita. WHY ? Their is a military compulsory militia, with most Swiss being soldiers and "callable" between 20 and 40 yrs old. (You go once for instruction on how to use weapons ... and annualy or every two years you go for 3 weeks to exercice with your batallion ... so for 5 mio inhabitants, you would have an army of around 800'000 ... which is huge !! for the size !! ) With every Swiss, owning a gun at home, you result into a pretty big army ... therefore the Tannenbaum operation wasn't executed because it would have costed too many soldiers to the German army ... and they planed doing it 3 times, each time, more troops were needed in Russia, therefore, they postponed taking care of Switzerland. Much has been said about Switzerland on the subject. A lot wasn't true. +Robert Miller ... Swiss allways had mountain regiments ... specialized in mountains which makes sense taking into account the surface mountains represent. Going against nature when you don't know how to deal with it ... The Russian winter took out more than expected. But not the Russians !!! The alps would have the same impact IMO. + fortifications in the mountains ... !! I won't argue on the "inflated reputation" aspect, which means, to me not knowing the Swiss. (not for nothing they are not EU !!) I thnking that Hitler did well , Swizerland would have been a swamp and would have drawn German negative popular opinion.
Carlos Barahona So I'm not the only one who caught this. Also the takedown of the Somali pirates was done by the Navy Seals. Dude needs to double check his facts.
Please remove the factual errors as to Warsaw (even your wiki source shows most of them): Warsaw was almost completly destroyed, especialy the town center, it was not saved. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943 was a gallant feat of desperation, but a minor unrest compared to the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, which lead to more then 200k dead and the complete depopulation of Warsaw. The order to destroy Warsaw was a direct result of the Warsaw Uprising. Stalin did not save Warsaw. He helped secure it's destruction. The soviets revoked the order to capture all of Warsaw as soon as possible, instead they stood at the east side of the Vistula in Warsaw and did nothing. They stopped all support of polish troops, including the soviet 1st Polish Army. That included stopping artillery fire and air raids on the Germans in the western part of Warsaw and around. They refused landing to allied planes, which wanted to deliver arms and supplies to the western part of Warsaw. They forced the units of the 1st Polish Army which defied orders and crossed over the Vistula, to return. They removed the leader of the 1st Polish Army. Stalin threatend to go to war against the western allies, if any armed forces should be air-dropped into Warsaw. That means the soviets not only refused to help Warsaw, they activly blocked others from doing so. There might be some debate to why they acted like this, but there is no debate about that they did it. Many especially young people died in the Warsaw uprising and many were send to gulags or prison by the soviets for beeing part of the polish home army after the war ended. Telling them that Stalin saved Warsaw from the Germans is more then offensive.
I think the reason why Switzerland wasn't invaded is Bc it has like a lot of money held there from countries including Germany. Correct me if I'm wrong
It was also WAY too difficult to invade. An armed population with military training, lots of mountains with very strong fortifications and few strategic reasons to do so.
You're not wrong. Switzerland served and Germany's banker and did it's money laundering. This Germany would have run out of money in months without the Swiss. It wasn't that the Swiss could have stopped the German military, Germany couldn't afford it. Don't buy the Swiss propaganda. There were also a number Nazi sympathizers in the Swiss govt.
Actually I seem to be the only one, but personally, I don't see how that would work as a deterrent. Switzerland holds German money, so Germany doesn't invade? The whole point of invasion is that you get to plunder the lands you take, including German money along with everybody else's. I think there are 3 far more likely reasons: 1) Switzerland is notoriously hard to invade because it entails trying to move a whole military through hundreds of miles of precarious mountain goat paths. Historically, foreign invaders always ended up having to fight the Swiss uphill, on narrow paths and throughout mountainous terrain that gives defenders a 10x advantage against attackers. With how crazily spread-out Hitler's forces were - trying to take too much at once already - investing military resources in the most grueling campaign ever would be fatally unaffordable. 2) The Swizz to this day have literally thousands of points along their mountain roads rigged with hidden explosives. Imagine trying to invade a country throughout mountains and every time you invest weeks traveling up long winding roads, they go and blow-out the path and force you to turn around. 3) Finally, they already had a good financial deal worked out with Switzerland, why mess with a good thing? By keeping funds in a neutral, well-defended country, it was assured that those funds remained protected without the prospect of your enemies taking it in lands they were at war with.
You forgot Bat Bombs. The alternative to using nukes in Japan. It was developed after the numbers for Operation Downfall were crunched. It was what gave us napalm. It was rumored that one of the reasons it was not used and the nukes were, was because the high estimate of deaths from nukes was right around the low estimate for the Bat Bombs.
If the US wanted to burn down more more Japanese cities it would probably have been easier and more reliable to use incendiary bombing that bats. The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombs.
The problem with incendiary bombing is you have to a) get the planes there loaded with lots of bombs, and b) hit enough targets that would start the fire. With the Bat Bombs you didn't have either problem. Each normal sized "bomb" would carry around 100 of the bats. And the bats would automatically fly to homes to escape the rising sun. One of the worlds first self-guiding munitions. I think they were right after the pigeon bombs.
The Great Unknown umm they nest in specific area and japan was all wood building it would have worked, there natural instinct would be to hang under the teracces and buildings
I feel like Sea Lion would've been a better addition then ones like Tannenbaum. Invading Switzerland would do little in regards to the entire war, whereas a naval landing in Great Britain would likely lead to British defeat drastically changing the war.
+Quantum Explosion, No way can the Germans win, the British had the most powerful and biggest navy in the world during that time. What made it worse was that the Axis lost the Battle of Britain, hoping to have an air advantage. So how can the Germans land in the UK if they can't defeat the navy, and how can the Germans defeat the navy if their air force was defeated by the Brits? The biggest problem the German's had was how they can land their troops in the island.
Inigo Villanueva I wish to point out he guns in normandy could bombard all the way across the channel from themselves andni bet some large guns would help protect a landing
I've heard it estimated that the German invasion would likely have ground to a halt after about two weeks, maximum. The Royal Navy would've made it more or less impossible for the Germans to keep their forces supplied... The British knew this, and counter invasion plans were designed to force invaders to waste massive quantities of fuel and ammunition for every inch of ground taken. The countryside is still littered with pillboxes, anti-tank ditches and dragon's teeth, especially near the south coast.
Two weeks? Germans would be lucky if they hadn't been defeated in a week! Fact is that Operation Sea Lion faced so many problems that without aid from alien space bats it wouldn't work. And defeating RAF wasn't a possibility either as if that was ever a danger the RAF would have simply retreated beyond German fighter range. That way the bombers would need to move unescorted if they wanted to bomb RAF and unescorted bombers were pretty much always shot down. So no chance of Luftwaffe destroying RAF. And as already said so what if Luftwaffe has the air superiority? Luftwaffe lacked proper anti-ship weapons and so they couldn't do much against the Royal Navy. And as long as the Germans cannot stop the Royal Navy there is no chance that the invasion would succeed. I suggest that you check out British War Academys wargame about the invasion. It was played with everything about the situation known and had German umpires who had fought during the war. The Germans lost it by day 3 and all the umpires agreed on it.
Communism didn't spread to more countries probably because of Stalin himself. With Socialism in One State, no other communists were helped. Pretty sure (correct me if wrong) the PRC won by themselves, and the German communists along with French and Spanish wern't reported. People who hate communism should count their blessings and thank Stalin, because if Trotsky had come to power, you might have seen more communist nations
So Eastern Europe just mysteriously turned communist after opponents of the USSR were either murdered or forced into exile? He gave Manchuria to the PRC which basically decided things. That and the Nationalists own incompetence. Spanish ones were crushed by Franco and the Marshall Plan kept Communism away from the rest of Western Europe.
+Simon Turner Franco's army was not the Nationalists. His army was named the Republicans, but they did not have the elephant as the symbol of the party. hee hee hee
Hitler knew not to attack Switzerland because of the terrain, lack of equipment and the weather 5 mins research told me that (a guy with no military background)
Very interesting... And chilling! Several other 'What if' historical scenarios come to mind, like what would the world look like, as a whole, if the U.S. and England actually supplied aid to Japan in the '30's and not ignored them. Would Japan have joined forces with the Allies during WW2, and would the U.S. actually have joined the Allies because no attack on Pearl Harbor would have happened? If Arch Duke Ferdinand had lived, what would've happened? What would the world be like if The USSR had been the first on the moon? So many questions.
Alternate history scenarios are 'what if' regardless of what moniker one wish as are real life plans that didn't take place and what if they had. Semantics. As for why I said the U.S. ignored Japan, you are correct about the history, I was referring to the Japanese ambassadors that were ignored for every scheduled meeting that was set up. It was the last meeting missed by everyone but the Japanese that caused Japan to pull all diplomats out of the U.S. and prepare for the attack. As for why I didn't go into this in a UA-cam comment, it's simply because it's UA-cam comment. I don't really care about going into a whole lot of detail with accurate spelling and grammar on a page that tends to research things very well anyway. Only the basic information is needed. All that said, you're not telling me anything new and if you would like to add something new then great. Anything else, I'll just agree with just to end it.
Finland could have prevented Russia ever turning into Soviet Union, and there was a plan to do so. The Finnish army commander C. G. E. Mannerheim had serious plans to have the Finnish army participate in the Russian Civil War on the anti-bolshevik side in 1919 and invade St. Petersburg. Had he won the Finland presidential election in July 1919 he surely would have executed the plan but he lost to a more moderate candidate K. J. Ståhlberg who considered the plan too adventurous. Mannerheim tried hard to convince president Ståhlberg and even considered a coup d'état to take power in order to carry out the attack. But eventually the lack of support from the British government to Mannerheim's plan and the hesitance of the White leaders in the Russian Civil War to recognize Finland's independence led Mannerheim to give up. Many who knew the state of the Russian Civil War and the Red Army at that time, including Leon Trotsky the commander of the Red Army, later admitted that the situation was so dire that Mannerheim's attack would have most likely led to bolsheviks losing St.Petersburg and consequently the whole war.
Before 1918, Finland was part of Russia and partly taken over by communists. Mannerheim was one of the Finnish commanders who won the civil war. And one of the very first things Lenin did was to move capital back to Moscow, so this Mannerheim scenario wouldnot have worked in due time.
There was no compelling evidence that the Vietnamese, Laotians, or the Cambodians kept American POW's after the war. The simple fact is that there was no reason for them to KEEP any POW's and dozens of reasons to not keep any. They also had no reason to help the U.S. find the remains of those who died until well after the war (when there was Business to be done). The whole issue was a propaganda ploy by those who resented losing the war. A play on the feelings of the MIA families.
dan pres No there was actual proof of it what reason would they have plenty of them they could be used as bargaining chips at any point in time it’s just it turned into an embarrassing point for the us government what with there no man left behind rhetoric there where reports of airmen all over Vietnam up until the late 80s it’s just most would be dead by now
Opperation Tannenbaum... or Christmas Tree... A German General inspecting the Swiss infantry on maneuvers, singled out a Swiss Private and asked him what he would do if the Germans would attack Switzerland.... the Soldier contemplated for a moment and asked the General 'with how many men he planned to attack?'... the General replied, 'one million'... then answered the Soldier... 'I will have to shoot 10 times'... the ratio Swiss to Germans being one to ten... (Gefr.Füs. Inf.Bat. 22/5 Div and Veteran USArmy 88-96. Proud of having served both my countries... and glad to be done with it!) Expert Marksman!
I remember a story about some threats thrown back and forth between the Swiss and Germans. Switzerland could have put only a few hundred thousand men in the field. When Hitler threatened to double that number in an invasion, the Swiss replied "Then we'll all have to shoot twice." Don't know if it's true, but when their national hero could do it with only one shot, it sounds plausible.
As a Panamanian I love hearing how our little country has a huge impact in the world. Also I’d like make a quick correction. It would have made the US invade Panama sooner, as the US did invoke Panama in December 1989.
The Nukes weren't the real reason for the Japanese Surrender, it was the imminent attack of the Soviet Union, which had already sent over 2 million troops in an attack on Japanese-held Manchuria. The use of the atomic bombs was almost an afterthought in comparison.
Tannenbaum:: A friend of mine was a Swiss national whose father, despite being a neutral citizen, was forced by the Nazis to stay in his job in occupied Paris; their home was adjacent to the Nazi's headquarters. The soldiers used to taunt my friend's family by singing songs about how Switzerland was next on the list of countries to be invaded.
Switzerland provided Germany with huge amounts of weapons. The US estimated it provided so much ammunition it rendered a lot of it's bombing pointless. German trains were allowed to use the Swiss rail system safe from allied attacks. Invading would have cost Germany more than it could have gained.
One more thing worth noting about Downfall is that the people planning it didn't know about the atomic bombs. They thought that the ground invasion was plan A, the most likely to succeed, and consequently, casualty estimates were...optimistic. The US was actually massing troops in Okinawa for the invasion when the bombs dropped. Japan was expecting an American ground invasion and their entire defensive strategy hinged on anticipating where we would land our troops, which it seems they did with a great deal of accuracy. Based on that, we can expect that 500,000 purple hearts probably wouldn't have been enough.
the Swiss were all also expert marksmen, when asked what they would do if the Germans outnumbered them 2:1, it was replied "We'll shoot twice then go home."
The Americans also had a plan to invade Canada in 1936. They felt that the UK was using the Commonwealth Preference provision with Canada to unfairly dump British goods in the USA circumventing the usual import duties. This was due to much lower or non-existent tariffs between the USA and Canada. The plan involved invading and securing the ports of Halifax, Montréal, Toronto and others. I was actually quite shocked to read about this.
glen atkinson Nothing shocking about it. Every country's military planners make "what do we do IF....." plans. Canada in the 1930's had a plan to send a fast motorized brigade to sieze DC IF war was declared with the US. The intention was to capture the US government on a lightning raid to force a peace.
I found that part about the Purple Hearts being made in preparation and them still being used to this day to be a wowser. Even with Korea, the gulf, Iraq, and all the other wars the US has gotten into. That is surprising.
Here is another operation that would have changed history: A commando named Bryn Beorse had devised a plan to kidnap Hitler in 1944. It was NOT as impossible as it sounded because the German Army had agreed to help. Really! This was when the German Army REALLY wanted to get rid of Fearless Leader. The German Army was afraid to move directly against Hitler because of his stature as a virtual deity, but was willing to let the Allies do their dirty work. The deal was this: Wehrmacht would place trucks at a military airport near Berlin. A British transport aircraft would land at the airport, and the commandos would drive the trucks to wherever Hitler happened to be at the time, with the location given by the Wehrmacht. They would overpower Hitler's immediate bodyguard, tie & gag Fearless Leader, and drive him back to the airport. The Wehrmacht would provide a safe route. When Hitler had been flown to England, a cease-fire would be declared. It was thought that kidnapping would be superior to just killing him, because UK would parade the captured Hitler in chain and show the World what a scummy little nothing he really was. This would, hopefully, de-deify him. Then he would be hanged with great pomp and ceremony. That aftermath? Germany would withdraw from countries that it had occupied. What would Germany get for this? Simple: There would be an honorable peace. It would NOT be invaded, and the population would be spared occupation. Remember, a huge Allied army was ALREADY in Europe at the time, so invasion looked immanent. German officers would be pardoned from all war crimes. A peace treaty would be signed, all prisoners repatriated, and bygones would be bygones. Why was it canceled? Churchill had approved of it, but because of its political ramifications, needed to get agreement from USA and USSR. BOTH Roosevelt and Stalin refused to agree to it, despite the fact that it would have ended fighting and included total withdrawal of German forces from all occupied areas including Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc without another shot being fired. Both Roosevelt and Stalin wanted to see Germany CRUSHED and opposed any such negotiated settlement. Roosevelt had demanded unconditional surrender and stuck by his demand.
It bugs me to no end that he says "What if it did happen?" It really should be "What if it had happened?" The former implies that there is still a possibility for it to happen whereas the latter makes it clear that it is a highly fictional scenario.
It's not a mystery why Germany didn't invade Switzerland. Switzerland paid a price for not being invaded. It allowed all the German trains to travel through it's country unmolested including prisoner transports and military transports. It must have been a very hard decision to make but the fact is that they remained free of German rule and they only had to protect their rail lines and their borders.
Switzerland. Most importantly, the Swiss mined the tunnels leading to Italy. Italy needed German coal, Germany needed Italy. 2nd, the Swiss were tough, armed and Alped. 3rd, they grudgingly cooperated economically so the incentive to invade was less. 4th, there was always someone higher on the invade list until too late.
With a lot of the plans you also have to think about secondary consequences: normalizing nukes or biological warfare would have made the world a very different place.
Caesar was days away from starting a campaign in Parthia when he was stabbed up. If it had gone to plan he'd have taken over their empire, swung back north and taken Dacia and onto the Germans. Who's betting against Caesar?
Well, Warsaw was either way virtually obliterated during Warsaw Uprising, and it was also due to Stalin - whose army stood on the other bank of Vistula river and waited for Poles and German Troops to slaughter each other and almost whole city to be devastated. One could hardly destroy Warsaw even more. Thus, Your comment on Stalin saving Warsaw is HUGELY out of place...
Probably the main reason the Germans didn't invade Switzerland is that Switzerland's mountainous terrain makes it a natural fortress. The Germans knew that the casualties would have been too high to justify conquering such a small country. It would have also diverted troops and material away from more important fronts and opened up a front on Germany's border. The Germans knew it would have been better to wait until the Allies were defeated.
The Axis blew off their plan to occupy the Island of Malta, which could have really tipped the balance in North Africa. Malta remained a thorn in the side of Axis supply lines up until their final defeat.
I remember the Vietnam POW episode. Back in the 80's there was a hell of a lot of people convinced the Vietnamese had kept a fair amount of US POW's. I could never understand why they would. It always seemed more beneficial to surrender them to the US as per the original agreement. And I don't believe Vietnam has admitted to holding POW's to this day, despite the large strides in reconciliation with the USA.
Number 10: same reason the famous chinese general myomoto said "you cant invade the main land of america because there will be a gun behind every blade of grass" thats why we have the 2nd A
4 роки тому
I was surprised that the planned use of poison gas in the American Civil War was not mentioned.
They didn't invade Switzerland because all it takes is a single sniper to stop a whole army on the high mountain passes that enter the country. That is why no one has invaded the place in forever.
Given that Germany had already invaded neutral countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark etc) I’m not sure how concerned the German people would be if they invaded another). Switzerland wasn’t invaded by Germany for the same reason Sweden wasn’t invaded. It was convenient to have a neutral country on the border with Germany to provide a buffer against allied invasion. Both countries also provided an important services to Germany that an invasion would have interrupted. Sweden produced 80% of Germany’s ball bearings (vital for any mechanised warfare) and Switzerland provided financial services and a base for espionage. The additional resources required to invade and occupy these countries would have also been costly now that Germany was fighting on multiple fronts.
Interesting list. I would have added Operation Sealion--The proposed invasion of England by Nazi Germany. You could argue that it did happen, but stalled in the first phase during the Battle of Britain, but this is similar to Napoleon's plan invasion being stopped by English naval action.
Ffs it's a English accent he's talking about Hi-rosh-ima not Hero-she-mah the city you guys dropped a Atomic bomb on he's pronouncing it correctly American pronounce it wrong as we English invented the langue
Tyler Collins my mom taught English in Japan for several years, and as a military brat - I've been around the world. People in GB do not pronounce "Hiroshima" like that. The host just didn't know how to pronounce it.
Operation Downfall never would have happened as outlined. Without nukes, we would have firebombed every city with bombers running missions times a day until either Japan surrendered or there was nothing worth fighting for. The firebombing scenario would have been a nightmare for the Japanese people far beyond what the nukes were in our timeline.
He left off Admiral Nagumo's decision to not follow through with a third wave of attacks on Pearl Harbor in 7 December 1941. The objective would have been destruction of oil reserves there and sub pens, dry docks and ship repair shops. Nimitz (USN) is on the record for saying that, if the Japanese had done this, it would have extended the war in the Pacific by two years. Nagumo scrubbed the third wave, having become concerned about US subs on the prowl and the US aircraft carriers which were reported missing at Pearl by his first and second wave pilots. A decision that was made for the situation at hand, but what if....
I love how everyone just glosses over the fact that we have pows in Vietnam it's the saddest thing in the whole world like nobody gives a s*** because out of sight out of mind
One point about the nukes in Japan - many historians believed that the Japanese would have surrendered even if Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't bombed. It was the invasion of the Soviet Union that broke their morale as they wanted to seek help from them to fight the United States. The surrender just merely coincides with the atomic attacks. Thus, Operation Downfall would still be unlikely even if the nukes weren't dropped. But if an invasion ever did occur, we may have a North and South Japan today too.
Japan lost Manchuria when the USSR joined in but they could have still made the Allies pay for every inch of the Japanese home islands in blood. If Japan wasn't going to surrender with the threat of the US invading the home islands then I doubt the addition of a few million Russians would've made a difference to them. Either way Japan losses eventually and millions die on both sides.
Also about the 3 nukes thing, there was barely enough uranium 235 and Plutonium to make Little Boy and Fat Man another 3 bombs would take longer then the war lasted...
Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway were technically all neutral countries until Germany invaded them. So the "German people don't want to see neutral countries invaded" line is out the window. Really it probably was the fact that the cost of manpower and equipment vs the gains of taking over Switzerland were not appeasing. Very mountainous country with a small industrial base, not really strategic.
About the "Cuban" Missile Crisis, it was Kennedy's own fault that happened. Kennedy placed missiles in Turkey that could reach Moscow, Khrushchev basically told him "Two can play that game". In the end both backed down. Yet it was spun to be called the "Cuban" Missile Crisis rather than the "Turkish" one, because, obviously, advertising Kennedy's blunder was not an option to anyone on this side of the Iron Curtain. So that crisis could have been adverted by the same Kennedy who adverted war with Cuba, simply by him using his brain twice instead of once.
About number 10, the Germans not invading Switzerland because it was neutral and there would thus be internal backlash... the Netherlands were also neutral, just like they had been in WW1. Yet, Hitler had no problem attacking us... So then, why diidn't they invade Switzerland. According to the sources I've found, this is certain, but it seems Germany didn't want to attack Switzerland until the enemies at the main frontlines had been defeated. The Netherlands were more strategic, offering ports closer to the UK and a long coastline. Switzerland, having no coastline at all and being completely surrounded by Germany and Italy during the war, served no strategic purpose and, as long as it remained neutral, was no threat either. Had the allies not pushed Germany back, the operation would have been started after all, but since D-Day was succesful, the operation was canceled permenantly.
Why Germany did not invade Switzerland during WW1 and WW11 ? In 1912 the German Kaiser Willhelm 11 visited Switzerland. A major manoeuvre commanded in 1912 by the Swiss General Ulrich Wille, convinced visiting European heads of state, in particular Kaiser Wilhelm II, of the efficacy and determination of Swiss defences. The Kaiser asked Wille how many men did he have, 250,000 crackshots was the reply. The Kaiser asked what would happen if invaded Switzerland with 500,000 men, Wille replied they would fire twice then go home.General Willie was subsequently put in command of the complete mobilization of the Swiss Army in 1914,
The Vietnam POW part didn't inspire the Delta Force 2. That film dealt with the drug war in South America. You probably meant the Missing in Action series, also with Chuck Norris.
Unlike Hitler, Truman wasn't making tactical decisions. Thus, it is unlikely that Truman made the decision to use the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Truman did not intervene tactically until after reports of the devastation such weapons cause reached his desk.
The Japanese had attempted to surrender after the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944. FDR refused because Stalin had not taken eastern Europe. The German military tried to surrender in 1938 and 1939 even offering to arrest Hitler. Bur His Majesty's Jewish Government wanted war so the Allies killed 58 million people after the other side had offered to surrender.
Operation Pike - After the end of the Winter War in March 1940, Anglo-French formulated plans to attack the Caucasian oil production centres of Baku, Batum and Grozny of the then neutral Soviet Union. The bomber attacks were to be flown from bases in Iran, Turkey and Syria. High-altitude reconnaissance flights from RAF Habbaniya were actually undertaken and both Royal Air force with 48 Bristol Blenheim Mk IV bombers and French Air-force with 65 Martin Maryland bombers were reinforced for the operation. After the fall of France in May 1940, the secret plans fell into German hands and excerpts of which were publicly released. Henceforth, Operation Pike was postponed and eventually abandoned.
It kind of sucks that in the "What if did happen" in operation Vulture, you skipped how many Vietnamese would die in the bombings. Secondly... Warsaw was pretty much a big hole in the ground after the uprising in 1944, so the city had to rebuilt almost from scratch anyway.
Operation vulture did not include US Nukes to be dropped on Hanoi During the battle of Dien Bien Phu, Hanoi, haiphong, and the Red river Delta was a French stronghold protected by a chain of concrete pillboxes. Most of northern Vietnam was in the hands of the Viet Minh however this area as not
Wait I thought Operation Warsaw did happen, though not in the concept that Hitler had. It was the Warsaw Uprising. I read it in "The Second World War" by Antony Beevor. Basically when the Russian's broke the Germans and advanced westward, one of their objectives was Warsaw, and there was a resistance there friendly to the exhiled government, which was not pro-communist. When word came to the resistance that the Soviet army approached they launched an attack against the Nazi forces, who had begun their retreat at this time. They were too busy to really go after these hit and run attacks, and the attacks did serve to make it harder for the Nazis to coordinate their retreat. Then Stalin steps in with a plan to decimate any resistance or movements in Poland that are anti-communist. He orders the army halts South East of Warsaw. This gives the German forces time to regroup and they destroy the Polish resistance and raze Warsaw to the ground.
Nr. 1 clearly wrong. The Nazis did destroy Warsaw in the end, but in retaliation for the Warsaw Uprising in 1944. There was nothing left of the city and maybe 1500 inhabitants (from what was 1,5 million before the war) when the Soviets marched in. The capital had to be built from scratch with thought of abandoning it all together.
They planned to destroy it either way either brick by brick or through explosives
They got the whole Warsaw part wrong here!
Ive also heard that the Soviets deliberately waited until the Jews were cleaned up before finally liberating the city.
Germans killed practically all Jews in Warsaw in April 1943, Red Army were this time before Kurs battle deep in Russia. Stalin waited in summer 1944 till Germans cleaned up Warsaw from Poles.
they just waited for the city to be razed and the rebellion squashed. Jews or not jews, Stalin didn't care, the Polish just happened to be the enemy of the enemy, but still the enemy as well.
Simon... Warsaw WAS blown to rubble on Hitler's own command, after the Warsaw Uprising in 1944.
Hubba-Hubba-Hubba-Hubba-Hubba-Hubba-
Mark's unintelligible reply demonstrates his intellect.
Nevertheless, it was the pig stalin (I won't dignify this inhumane piece of garbage by capitalizing its name) who denied its forces from advancing across the Vistula so as to ensure the destruction of Warsaw by the retreating Germans thereby leaving the Polish resistance and general citizens without any hope of reclamation of their state.
That is true, but it's also worth mentioning that the uprising was started precisely in order to deny Stalin the city. Even though the chances it succeeding were grim.
@@Yezu666 Can you blame them for trying to deny Stalin their city?
Manitowoc Wisconsin where Russian shuttle or space ship crashed to earth
Didn't Stalin stop outside of Warsaw tho? That why when he eventually went in the poles resistance would have already been crushed meaning he can setup his puppet government easier?
warspite1995 yep it's called the Warsaw uprising in which the Polish resistance was expecting the Soviets to help join in but instead they betrayed them and allowed Germans to destroy about 85% of the city after fighting took place for 2 months until they were defeated.
correct!
Yep...and if he didn't just let the Germans take care of the uprising, he probably would've had everyone involved in the uprising arrested and sent to gulags for the rest of their lives.
No, he stopped because his forces did not had any way to cross the Vistula in large numbers required to actually fight the germans. He did allowed for western allies bombers to drop in supplies for the poles for a while but he ended up changing that policy later on in the uprising due to the fact that about 3/4 of the supplies dropped actually ended up in german hands.
No, he stopped because his forces did not had any way to cross the Vistula in large numbers required to actually fight the germans. He did allowed for western allies bombers to drop in supplies for the poles for a while but he ended up changing that policy later on in the uprising due to the fact that about 3/4 of the supplies dropped actually ended up in german hands.
Hanoi remained in French control till they withdrew from the country, thus would not have been on any list of targets.
Agreed all of the major Vietnamese cities were under French control the Vietminh only controlled the countryside areas at the time. This wasn't like the American Vietnam War in which the communists had their own country and cities. I believe Operation Vulture would have involved smaller tactical nuclear weapons used against the fortified positions that surrounded Dien Bien Phu. Would it have made a difference? No it would have just gotten the United States' involved years earlier.
I agree. The 2nd Indochina War is much more complicated than usually depicted in western media. There were several factions in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Ho Chi Minh managed to unify enough of them to drive out colonial powers. Dropping nuclear weapons I think just would have caused perhaps even greater numbers to rally together. In Laos alone more munitions were dropped by the united states than all the bombs of World War II combined. That would total to quite a bit more than the destructive power of 3 atomic weapons, and The Pathet Lao still won.
Some people think that the atomic bombs are magical devices to win all wars easily.
Where is Operation Sea Lion?! come on.
german did not have enough landing craft
+CanadianStig Because it happened.
CanadianStig because the RAF shot down the Luftwaffe which means no air support for the German landing craft
Wisemankugel Memicus Of Kekistan no it didnt. The blitz was happening but sea lion never happened because goering switched from targeting the raf to the cities because the raf tricked them into thinking they were being ineffective at wiping them out when they were almost wiped out. with air superiority a sea invasion of Britain would have been possible
Daniel Broome don't forget about the royal navy
So invading the neutral state of Switserland would be a problem for German citizens, but invading the also neutral Netherlands wasn't?
The logic didn't quite flow in that segment, did it?
It didn't indeed, so I am wondering now, what was the real reason?
Buchan van Veen
THE Netherlands did not have the money, political power or resources to defend itself as Switzerland did.
I did some research after this. The reason why Germany never invaded Switserland was that a. it is a land locked country and b. it coöperated very well. They sended Jews back to Germany and stored cash and other valuables. So there was no reason to invade it. The Netherlands on the other hand is a country with a very important harbour and it's well suited to attack Great Britain.
It would've entailed more losses to invade Switzerland because every household has a firearm and it would try to go for more attrition Style combat, door to door fighting weakening the invasion force. Switzerland is also a German country and it held German money in its banks and had many German speaking citizens. Many people wouldn't want to kill fellow Germans.
Three words. Alternate History Hub.
yes, impeach the man that isn't even in power
Blackwolf, I think big pumpkin is talking Alternate History Hub material here. Not actually calling for the impeachment of the president no longer in office.
Blackwolfgoogol (Abdul54cp) it could be an alternate history scenario he wants AltHisHub to cover
I'd be skeptical of AHH. Cody doesn't do enough due diligence and research. When he talks about alternate history regarding something you know a lot about already, you'll find he's flat-out wrong.
There's of course a suspension of disbelief when talking about something that could have (but didn't) happen. For instance, there's about 129,039,209 million different reasons the Axis Powers lost WWII, so it would be rather difficult to discuss a way they could have won without making some assumptions and ignoring some situations.
However, AHH often will get things wrong about a specific topic outside of that to the point where it's hard to assume the video has any credibility. So for instance, there's "How would the Axis won WWII and what would life be like?" and then there's AHH's take "Securing Pegasus Bridge on D-Day would have halted the Allies and resulted in Germany holding France and thus an Axis victory and would have happened this way if Rommel wasn't at his wife's birthday party" (please note this isn't one of AHH's actual videos, just an example of what I'm talking about).
Such a statement completely ignores the Soviets winning Stalingrad and launching a counteroffensive, along with the fact Japan was doomed to lose to the U.S. the moment they failed to sink every aircraft carrier at Pearl Harbor and Midway. Rommel wasn't the strategic genius everyone thinks he is (he was a great tactician, but horrible at logistics...you know the thing that actually wins wars). A single bridge is such a small drop in the bucket compared to the confusion caused by the rest of the 101st. Airborne.
Stuff like this makes you question any of AHH's credibility when it comes to stuff you don't know about that you know it's likely those videos are also wrong.
Eric Vargas tl
1934: German general to Swiss general, "The German army out numbers the Swiss army 2 to 1." Swiss general to German general, "We will have to issue each Swiss soldier 2 bullets."
Nah, it was in WW1:
In WW1, Switzerland had a tiny standing army but a population (250,000) of skilled riflemen. When asked what they would do if the Germans invaded with a force of 500,000, the Swiss answered "shoot twice and then go home"
Jac Lanle they also have a huge geographical advantage. The Alps would slow the advances made by the Axis Powers to the extent where Swiss soldiers could probably pick off soldiers one by one.
to piggie back on howard. Swiss have one of the best mountain troops ever. In there homefield it would take a very concentrate force to push them off tight corridors where german armor would have to travel.
The Swiss had the K31 Rifle I think. A hot rifle amongst enthusiasts on youtube it seems like.
that joke dates back to Napoleon
As long as Switzerland was neutral and not at war with Germany, the Germans could send troops to Italy via Swiss trains that went through the Alrps. The Swiss threatened to destroy key railroads and tunnels if Germany invaded. I think that's a big reason why they didn't
Don't forget how a task force of two carriers,a troopship with two companies of Marinrs as well as some destroyers were dispatched from Pearl Harbor to Wake Island and was within 24 hours of arriving when suddenly the operation was cancelled.
It could'vecchanged the early part of WW2 immensely.
1944 Polish fighters were waiting Soviet troops for help and relief. But Stalin told Zhukov Soviet army commander to wait and not to invade Warsaw. Stalin waited nazis to remove and kill all the Polish freedom fighters. Stalin wanted to make sure Poland didn't become a democratic independent country after the war with strong leadership.
Soviets at the time wore short of supplies and fresh troops to cross the Vistula. Do not forget that railways had to be rerailed after recent reconquest of Bielorussai and eastern Poland...
NO, He really did say that about the Polish freedom fighters ! @@abauzitjean-bernard1822
I remember the first time I played the campaign in "Napoleon: Total War". I looked at the map again and again, looked at the number of soldiers I had and how many I could recruit within a couple of months, and realized that the only logical move would be to take Britain immediately. After that was done, the rest of the world pretty much crumbled before me.
I always assumed Germany didn't attack Switzerland because Switzerland was conveniently useful to the Axis (full transport access for instance).
Baron Miller
Get psychiatric help, NOW!
Robert Miller Preeeeety sure the Alps played a role too.
Could have been. There were undoubtedly multiple factors as to why they didn't; though I expect that the alps played a big part.
They're not a nation-sized force field. Axis forces, attacking from three sides, would have taken the cities, though slowed down by sabotage and the large Swiss militia. The Italians had specialized mountain units-they had lots of experience in that from the previous war-and though there'd be lots of partisan activity in the mountains, the Allies wouldn't be able to support it. It'd be a major sink of Axis resources, and basically a dumb thing to do, but I think it would have been possible. The Swiss-who hadn't fought a war in a long time by then-have a slightly inflated reputation, I say.
+Switzerland, up until today, is a country with among the highest rate of guns pro capita. WHY ?
Their is a military compulsory militia, with most Swiss being soldiers and "callable" between 20 and 40 yrs old. (You go once for instruction on how to use weapons ... and annualy or every two years you go for 3 weeks to exercice with your batallion ... so for 5 mio inhabitants, you would have an army of around 800'000 ... which is huge !! for the size !! ) With every Swiss, owning a gun at home, you result into a pretty big army ... therefore the Tannenbaum operation wasn't executed because it would have costed too many soldiers to the German army ... and they planed doing it 3 times, each time, more troops were needed in Russia, therefore, they postponed taking care of Switzerland.
Much has been said about Switzerland on the subject. A lot wasn't true.
+Robert Miller ... Swiss allways had mountain regiments ... specialized in mountains which makes sense taking into account the surface mountains represent. Going against nature when you don't know how to deal with it ... The Russian winter took out more than expected. But not the Russians !!! The alps would have the same impact IMO. + fortifications in the mountains ... !! I won't argue on the "inflated reputation" aspect, which means, to me not knowing the Swiss. (not for nothing they are not EU !!)
I thnking that Hitler did well , Swizerland would have been a swamp and would have drawn German negative popular opinion.
I am not sure if anybody commented on this yet, but the operation to take down Osama Bin Laden was not done by Delta Force but the US Navy Seals
Carlos Barahona So I'm not the only one who caught this. Also the takedown of the Somali pirates was done by the Navy Seals. Dude needs to double check his facts.
Thank you. Both of those ops were done by SEAL Teams.
ssshhh...we are not supposed to know about them. I mean team 6 :P
Listen again to what he said. He compared the success rates of Navy SEALs and Detachment Delta. He did NOT say Delta Force killed Bin Laden.
Unless of course that's just what they want you think. But that's just a theory a conspiracy theory.
Please remove the factual errors as to Warsaw (even your wiki source shows most of them):
Warsaw was almost completly destroyed, especialy the town center, it was not saved.
The Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943 was a gallant feat of desperation, but a minor unrest compared to the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, which lead to more then 200k dead and the complete depopulation of Warsaw. The order to destroy Warsaw was a direct result of the Warsaw Uprising.
Stalin did not save Warsaw. He helped secure it's destruction.
The soviets revoked the order to capture all of Warsaw as soon as possible, instead they stood at the east side of the Vistula in Warsaw and did nothing.
They stopped all support of polish troops, including the soviet 1st Polish Army.
That included stopping artillery fire and air raids on the Germans in the western part of Warsaw and around.
They refused landing to allied planes, which wanted to deliver arms and supplies to the western part of Warsaw.
They forced the units of the 1st Polish Army which defied orders and crossed over the Vistula, to return.
They removed the leader of the 1st Polish Army.
Stalin threatend to go to war against the western allies, if any armed forces should be air-dropped into Warsaw.
That means the soviets not only refused to help Warsaw, they activly blocked others from doing so.
There might be some debate to why they acted like this, but there is no debate about that they did it.
Many especially young people died in the Warsaw uprising and many were send to gulags or prison by the soviets for beeing part of the polish home army after the war ended. Telling them that Stalin saved Warsaw from the Germans is more then offensive.
I think the reason why Switzerland wasn't invaded is Bc it has like a lot of money held there from countries including Germany. Correct me if I'm wrong
It was also WAY too difficult to invade. An armed population with military training, lots of mountains with very strong fortifications and few strategic reasons to do so.
Switzerland also, had plans to destroy bridges to slow down German assault.
Perry L - *there
You're not wrong. Switzerland served and Germany's banker and did it's money laundering. This Germany would have run out of money in months without the Swiss. It wasn't that the Swiss could have stopped the German military, Germany couldn't afford it. Don't buy the Swiss propaganda. There were also a number Nazi sympathizers in the Swiss govt.
Actually I seem to be the only one, but personally, I don't see how that would work as a deterrent. Switzerland holds German money, so Germany doesn't invade? The whole point of invasion is that you get to plunder the lands you take, including German money along with everybody else's.
I think there are 3 far more likely reasons:
1) Switzerland is notoriously hard to invade because it entails trying to move a whole military through hundreds of miles of precarious mountain goat paths. Historically, foreign invaders always ended up having to fight the Swiss uphill, on narrow paths and throughout mountainous terrain that gives defenders a 10x advantage against attackers.
With how crazily spread-out Hitler's forces were - trying to take too much at once already - investing military resources in the most grueling campaign ever would be fatally unaffordable.
2) The Swizz to this day have literally thousands of points along their mountain roads rigged with hidden explosives. Imagine trying to invade a country throughout mountains and every time you invest weeks traveling up long winding roads, they go and blow-out the path and force you to turn around.
3) Finally, they already had a good financial deal worked out with Switzerland, why mess with a good thing? By keeping funds in a neutral, well-defended country, it was assured that those funds remained protected without the prospect of your enemies taking it in lands they were at war with.
You forgot Bat Bombs. The alternative to using nukes in Japan. It was developed after the numbers for Operation Downfall were crunched. It was what gave us napalm. It was rumored that one of the reasons it was not used and the nukes were, was because the high estimate of deaths from nukes was right around the low estimate for the Bat Bombs.
If the US wanted to burn down more more Japanese cities it would probably have been easier and more reliable to use incendiary bombing that bats. The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombs.
Very hard to shoot down bats. =^[.]^=
The problem with incendiary bombing is you have to a) get the planes there loaded with lots of bombs, and b) hit enough targets that would start the fire. With the Bat Bombs you didn't have either problem. Each normal sized "bomb" would carry around 100 of the bats. And the bats would automatically fly to homes to escape the rising sun. One of the worlds first self-guiding munitions. I think they were right after the pigeon bombs.
The Great Unknown umm they nest in specific area and japan was all wood building it would have worked, there natural instinct would be to hang under the teracces and buildings
The average bombing run of an incendiary bomber started about 400 fires, while the average bat bomb would have started about 1500 fires.
I feel like Sea Lion would've been a better addition then ones like Tannenbaum. Invading Switzerland would do little in regards to the entire war, whereas a naval landing in Great Britain would likely lead to British defeat drastically changing the war.
+Quantum Explosion, No way can the Germans win, the British had the most powerful and biggest navy in the world during that time. What made it worse was that the Axis lost the Battle of Britain, hoping to have an air advantage. So how can the Germans land in the UK if they can't defeat the navy, and how can the Germans defeat the navy if their air force was defeated by the Brits? The biggest problem the German's had was how they can land their troops in the island.
Inigo Villanueva I wish to point out he guns in normandy could bombard all the way across the channel from themselves andni bet some large guns would help protect a landing
In the unlikely event of German air superiority that will do absolutely nothing to stop the RN operating at night.
I've heard it estimated that the German invasion would likely have ground to a halt after about two weeks, maximum. The Royal Navy would've made it more or less impossible for the Germans to keep their forces supplied... The British knew this, and counter invasion plans were designed to force invaders to waste massive quantities of fuel and ammunition for every inch of ground taken. The countryside is still littered with pillboxes, anti-tank ditches and dragon's teeth, especially near the south coast.
Two weeks? Germans would be lucky if they hadn't been defeated in a week!
Fact is that Operation Sea Lion faced so many problems that without aid from alien space bats it wouldn't work. And defeating RAF wasn't a possibility either as if that was ever a danger the RAF would have simply retreated beyond German fighter range. That way the bombers would need to move unescorted if they wanted to bomb RAF and unescorted bombers were pretty much always shot down. So no chance of Luftwaffe destroying RAF.
And as already said so what if Luftwaffe has the air superiority? Luftwaffe lacked proper anti-ship weapons and so they couldn't do much against the Royal Navy. And as long as the Germans cannot stop the Royal Navy there is no chance that the invasion would succeed.
I suggest that you check out British War Academys wargame about the invasion. It was played with everything about the situation known and had German umpires who had fought during the war. The Germans lost it by day 3 and all the umpires agreed on it.
Ian Fleming used the biological livestock warfare scenario as a plot in one of his Bond novels which was also used in the movie.
General Patton distrusted the Soviets
Everyone distrusted the Soviets. Even themselves.
stalin didn't trust the soviets either.
Communism didn't spread to more countries probably because of Stalin himself. With Socialism in One State, no other communists were helped. Pretty sure (correct me if wrong) the PRC won by themselves, and the German communists along with French and Spanish wern't reported. People who hate communism should count their blessings and thank Stalin, because if Trotsky had come to power, you might have seen more communist nations
So Eastern Europe just mysteriously turned communist after opponents of the USSR were either murdered or forced into exile? He gave Manchuria to the PRC which basically decided things. That and the Nationalists own incompetence. Spanish ones were crushed by Franco and the Marshall Plan kept Communism away from the rest of Western Europe.
+Simon Turner Franco's army was not the Nationalists. His army was named the Republicans, but they did not have the elephant as the symbol of the party. hee hee hee
Hitler knew not to attack Switzerland because of the terrain, lack of equipment and the weather 5 mins research told me that (a guy with no military background)
I love how informative toptenz is
Simon sure does love fighting those Germans! I swear it’s like reading one of those old Sergeant Rock comic books
Very interesting... And chilling! Several other 'What if' historical scenarios come to mind, like what would the world look like, as a whole, if the U.S. and England actually supplied aid to Japan in the '30's and not ignored them. Would Japan have joined forces with the Allies during WW2, and would the U.S. actually have joined the Allies because no attack on Pearl Harbor would have happened? If Arch Duke Ferdinand had lived, what would've happened? What would the world be like if The USSR had been the first on the moon? So many questions.
Alternate history scenarios are 'what if' regardless of what moniker one wish as are real life plans that didn't take place and what if they had. Semantics. As for why I said the U.S. ignored Japan, you are correct about the history, I was referring to the Japanese ambassadors that were ignored for every scheduled meeting that was set up. It was the last meeting missed by everyone but the Japanese that caused Japan to pull all diplomats out of the U.S. and prepare for the attack. As for why I didn't go into this in a UA-cam comment, it's simply because it's UA-cam comment. I don't really care about going into a whole lot of detail with accurate spelling and grammar on a page that tends to research things very well anyway. Only the basic information is needed. All that said, you're not telling me anything new and if you would like to add something new then great. Anything else, I'll just agree with just to end it.
Everyone needed aid in the 30's though. It was the Great Depression. It affected people across the globe.
Hey Simon, someone is binging on your product again. ❤️
Finland could have prevented Russia ever turning into Soviet Union, and there was a plan to do so.
The Finnish army commander C. G. E. Mannerheim had serious plans to have the Finnish army participate in the Russian Civil War on the anti-bolshevik side in 1919 and invade St. Petersburg. Had he won the Finland presidential election in July 1919 he surely would have executed the plan but he lost to a more moderate candidate K. J. Ståhlberg who considered the plan too adventurous. Mannerheim tried hard to convince president Ståhlberg and even considered a coup d'état to take power in order to carry out the attack. But eventually the lack of support from the British government to Mannerheim's plan and the hesitance of the White leaders in the Russian Civil War to recognize Finland's independence led Mannerheim to give up.
Many who knew the state of the Russian Civil War and the Red Army at that time, including Leon Trotsky the commander of the Red Army, later admitted that the situation was so dire that Mannerheim's attack would have most likely led to bolsheviks losing St.Petersburg and consequently the whole war.
Before 1918, Finland was part of Russia and partly taken over by communists. Mannerheim was one of the Finnish commanders who won the civil war. And one of the very first things Lenin did was to move capital back to Moscow, so this Mannerheim scenario wouldnot have worked in due time.
Switzerland is also made of giant, angry mountains. Those are hard to invade.
They made them , as a defence measure ? How very clever of them !
There was no compelling evidence that the Vietnamese, Laotians, or the Cambodians kept American POW's after the war. The simple fact is that there was no reason for them to KEEP any POW's and dozens of reasons to not keep any. They also had no reason to help the U.S. find the remains of those who died until well after the war (when there was Business to be done). The whole issue was a propaganda ploy by those who resented losing the war. A play on the feelings of the MIA families.
dan pres No there was actual proof of it what reason would they have plenty of them they could be used as bargaining chips at any point in time it’s just it turned into an embarrassing point for the us government what with there no man left behind rhetoric there where reports of airmen all over Vietnam up until the late 80s it’s just most would be dead by now
great video
Opperation Tannenbaum... or Christmas Tree...
A German General inspecting the Swiss infantry on maneuvers, singled out a Swiss Private and asked him what he would do if the Germans would attack Switzerland.... the Soldier contemplated for a moment and asked the General 'with how many men he planned to attack?'... the General replied, 'one million'... then answered the Soldier... 'I will have to shoot 10 times'... the ratio Swiss to Germans being one to ten... (Gefr.Füs. Inf.Bat. 22/5 Div and Veteran USArmy 88-96. Proud of having served both my countries... and glad to be done with it!)
Expert Marksman!
I remember a story about some threats thrown back and forth between the Swiss and Germans. Switzerland could have put only a few hundred thousand men in the field. When Hitler threatened to double that number in an invasion, the Swiss replied "Then we'll all have to shoot twice." Don't know if it's true, but when their national hero could do it with only one shot, it sounds plausible.
Germany vs Switzerland didn't happen because the people funding both sides of WW2 were located there.
As a Panamanian I love hearing how our little country has a huge impact in the world.
Also I’d like make a quick correction. It would have made the US invade Panama sooner, as the US did invoke Panama in December 1989.
The Nukes weren't the real reason for the Japanese Surrender, it was the imminent attack of the Soviet Union, which had already sent over 2 million troops in an attack on Japanese-held Manchuria. The use of the atomic bombs was almost an afterthought in comparison.
Tannenbaum:: A friend of mine was a Swiss national whose father, despite being a neutral citizen, was forced by the Nazis to stay in his job in occupied Paris; their home was adjacent to the Nazi's headquarters. The soldiers used to taunt my friend's family by singing songs about how Switzerland was next on the list of countries to be invaded.
Switzerland provided Germany with huge amounts of weapons. The US estimated it provided so much ammunition it rendered a lot of it's bombing pointless. German trains were allowed to use the Swiss rail system safe from allied attacks. Invading would have cost Germany more than it could have gained.
One more thing worth noting about Downfall is that the people planning it didn't know about the atomic bombs. They thought that the ground invasion was plan A, the most likely to succeed, and consequently, casualty estimates were...optimistic. The US was actually massing troops in Okinawa for the invasion when the bombs dropped. Japan was expecting an American ground invasion and their entire defensive strategy hinged on anticipating where we would land our troops, which it seems they did with a great deal of accuracy. Based on that, we can expect that 500,000 purple hearts probably wouldn't have been enough.
If Downfall was sparked you would expect an extended war into the 1950's along with a near extinct Japanese population.
I was expecting Schlieffen plan to be up there somewhere. Interesting list anyway ^^
What about operation unthinkable?
No one thinks about it.
@@Christinebanks11 That is why its called Operation: unthinkable.
the Swiss were all also expert marksmen, when asked what they would do if the Germans outnumbered them 2:1, it was replied "We'll shoot twice then go home."
The Americans also had a plan to invade Canada in 1936. They felt that the UK was using the Commonwealth Preference provision with Canada to unfairly dump British goods in the USA circumventing the usual import duties. This was due to much lower or non-existent tariffs between the USA and Canada. The plan involved invading and securing the ports of Halifax, Montréal, Toronto and others. I was actually quite shocked to read about this.
glen atkinson Nothing shocking about it. Every country's military planners make "what do we do IF....." plans. Canada in the 1930's had a plan to send a fast motorized brigade to sieze DC IF war was declared with the US. The intention was to capture the US government on a lightning raid to force a peace.
Steven Weaver thank you very much for the info. I was not aware of that.
I found that part about the Purple Hearts being made in preparation and them still being used to this day to be a wowser. Even with Korea, the gulf, Iraq, and all the other wars the US has gotten into. That is surprising.
Going back to the Ancient era:
1) Alexander's invasion of Carthage and Arabia.
2) Ceasar's invasion of Parthian Empire.
3) Mongal invasion of Europe.
Here is another operation that would have changed history:
A commando named Bryn Beorse had devised a plan to kidnap Hitler in 1944. It was NOT as impossible as it sounded because the German Army had agreed to help. Really! This was when the German Army REALLY wanted to get rid of Fearless Leader. The German Army was afraid to move directly against Hitler because of his stature as a virtual deity, but was willing to let the Allies do their dirty work. The deal was this: Wehrmacht would place trucks at a military airport near Berlin. A British transport aircraft would land at the airport, and the commandos would drive the trucks to wherever Hitler happened to be at the time, with the location given by the Wehrmacht. They would overpower Hitler's immediate bodyguard, tie & gag Fearless Leader, and drive him back to the airport. The Wehrmacht would provide a safe route. When Hitler had been flown to England, a cease-fire would be declared. It was thought that kidnapping would be superior to just killing him, because UK would parade the captured Hitler in chain and show the World what a scummy little nothing he really was. This would, hopefully, de-deify him. Then he would be hanged with great pomp and ceremony.
That aftermath? Germany would withdraw from countries that it had occupied. What would Germany get for this? Simple: There would be an honorable peace. It would NOT be invaded, and the population would be spared occupation. Remember, a huge Allied army was ALREADY in Europe at the time, so invasion looked immanent. German officers would be pardoned from all war crimes. A peace treaty would be signed, all prisoners repatriated, and bygones would be bygones.
Why was it canceled? Churchill had approved of it, but because of its political ramifications, needed to get agreement from USA and USSR. BOTH Roosevelt and Stalin refused to agree to it, despite the fact that it would have ended fighting and included total withdrawal of German forces from all occupied areas including Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc without another shot being fired. Both Roosevelt and Stalin wanted to see Germany CRUSHED and opposed any such negotiated settlement. Roosevelt had demanded unconditional surrender and stuck by his demand.
It bugs me to no end that he says "What if it did happen?" It really should be "What if it had happened?" The former implies that there is still a possibility for it to happen whereas the latter makes it clear that it is a highly fictional scenario.
I like those Swiss helmets In The image in the beginning, interesting design..
"Allies landing in North Africa", they were already there, please get your facts straight.
They were already in Egypt, but that doesn't mean that the US didn't land in Morocco and Algeria during Operation Torch.
In May, 1954, Hanoi was in *French* hands.
I think the reason why Switzerland never got invaded is because they're the only nation in the world to have and own the swiss knife..
It's not a mystery why Germany didn't invade Switzerland. Switzerland paid a price for not being invaded. It allowed all the German trains to travel through it's country unmolested including prisoner transports and military transports. It must have been a very hard decision to make but the fact is that they remained free of German rule and they only had to protect their rail lines and their borders.
Switzerland. Most importantly, the Swiss mined the tunnels leading to Italy. Italy
needed German coal, Germany needed Italy. 2nd, the Swiss were tough, armed
and Alped. 3rd, they grudgingly cooperated economically so the incentive to invade
was less. 4th, there was always someone higher on the invade list until too late.
Lol "grundgingly"
You missed thr biggest one of thedm all: The Invasion of Europe by the Mongols in 1242.
Tsuboti of the Mongols and his almost invasion of France. That would have definitely changed history.
With a lot of the plans you also have to think about secondary consequences: normalizing nukes or biological warfare would have made the world a very different place.
And if the dog didn't stop to crap, he'd have cought the rabbit. Always a helpful thought when wondering"what if"?
Caesar was days away from starting a campaign in Parthia when he was stabbed up. If it had gone to plan he'd have taken over their empire, swung back north and taken Dacia and onto the Germans. Who's betting against Caesar?
It's sad you think Plan Hulber would work
Read source for The Warsaw Question :The Germans destroyed 80%-90% of the buildings in Warsaw
i think the reason why operation sea lion and unthinkable was left out is because they just selected those who has some feasibility on it
Well, Warsaw was either way virtually obliterated during Warsaw Uprising, and it was also due to Stalin - whose army stood on the other bank of Vistula river and waited for Poles and German Troops to slaughter each other and almost whole city to be devastated. One could hardly destroy Warsaw even more. Thus, Your comment on Stalin saving Warsaw is HUGELY out of place...
Probably the main reason the Germans didn't invade Switzerland is that Switzerland's mountainous terrain makes it a natural fortress. The Germans knew that the casualties would have been too high to justify conquering such a small country. It would have also diverted troops and material away from more important fronts and opened up a front on Germany's border. The Germans knew it would have been better to wait until the Allies were defeated.
The Axis blew off their plan to occupy the Island of Malta, which could have really tipped the balance in North Africa. Malta remained a thorn in the side of Axis supply lines up until their final defeat.
I remember the Vietnam POW episode. Back in the 80's there was a hell of a lot of people convinced the Vietnamese had kept a fair amount of US POW's.
I could never understand why they would. It always seemed more beneficial to surrender them to the US as per the original agreement. And I don't believe Vietnam has admitted to holding POW's to this day, despite the large strides in reconciliation with the USA.
Number 10: same reason the famous chinese general myomoto said "you cant invade the main land of america because there will be a gun behind every blade of grass" thats why we have the 2nd A
I was surprised that the planned use of poison gas in the American Civil War was not mentioned.
They didn't invade Switzerland because all it takes is a single sniper to stop a whole army on the high mountain passes that enter the country. That is why no one has invaded the place in forever.
Same with Norway but that didn't stop Nazi Germany.
Bo Gritz, btw, was also the guy that got Randy Weaver to leave Ruby Ridge. Ruby Ridge happened eerily like First Blood...
They only "would have changed everything" only if they were successful. Since the operations never happened, we'll never know for sure.
A lot of these operations would make great alternate history movies. I am imagining something along the lines of the man in the high castle ...
Given that Germany had already invaded neutral countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark etc) I’m not sure how concerned the German people would be if they invaded another). Switzerland wasn’t invaded by Germany for the same reason Sweden wasn’t invaded. It was convenient to have a neutral country on the border with Germany to provide a buffer against allied invasion. Both countries also provided an important services to Germany that an invasion would have interrupted. Sweden produced 80% of Germany’s ball bearings (vital for any mechanised warfare) and Switzerland provided financial services and a base for espionage. The additional resources required to invade and occupy these countries would have also been costly now that Germany was fighting on multiple fronts.
Interesting list. I would have added Operation Sealion--The proposed invasion of England by Nazi Germany. You could argue that it did happen, but stalled in the first phase during the Battle of Britain, but this is similar to Napoleon's plan invasion being stopped by English naval action.
at 3:52 did you refer to Hiroshima (Hero-She-Mah) as here-ra-shu-ma? or were you talking about a different city?
Ffs it's a English accent he's talking about Hi-rosh-ima not Hero-she-mah the city you guys dropped a Atomic bomb on he's pronouncing it correctly American pronounce it wrong as we English invented the langue
Tyler Collins
Hiroshima is a Japanese city so its a Japanese word. The English didn't invent Japanese.
Tyler Collins my mom taught English in Japan for several years, and as a military brat - I've been around the world. People in GB do not pronounce "Hiroshima" like that. The host just didn't know how to pronounce it.
I've heard it both ways many times...
ArghRawrWhoa If you think that's bad, he pronounces advertisements even worse.
Cool list
Suggestion 1: "would ifs" from other time periods
Suggestion 2: drop or change the music. It was distracting and didn't fit the theme
Operation Downfall never would have happened as outlined. Without nukes, we would have firebombed every city with bombers running missions times a day until either Japan surrendered or there was nothing worth fighting for. The firebombing scenario would have been a nightmare for the Japanese people far beyond what the nukes were in our timeline.
He left off Admiral Nagumo's decision to not follow through with a third wave of attacks on Pearl Harbor in 7 December 1941. The objective would have been destruction of oil reserves there and sub pens, dry docks and ship repair shops. Nimitz (USN) is on the record for saying that, if the Japanese had done this, it would have extended the war in the Pacific by two years. Nagumo scrubbed the third wave, having become concerned about US subs on the prowl and the US aircraft carriers which were reported missing at Pearl by his first and second wave pilots. A decision that was made for the situation at hand, but what if....
I love how everyone just glosses over the fact that we have pows in Vietnam it's the saddest thing in the whole world like nobody gives a s*** because out of sight out of mind
The only country the UK was at war with during world war 1 and 2 but never invaded was Hungary.
One point about the nukes in Japan - many historians believed that the Japanese would have surrendered even if Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't bombed. It was the invasion of the Soviet Union that broke their morale as they wanted to seek help from them to fight the United States. The surrender just merely coincides with the atomic attacks. Thus, Operation Downfall would still be unlikely even if the nukes weren't dropped. But if an invasion ever did occur, we may have a North and South Japan today too.
Japan lost Manchuria when the USSR joined in but they could have still made the Allies pay for every inch of the Japanese home islands in blood. If Japan wasn't going to surrender with the threat of the US invading the home islands then I doubt the addition of a few million Russians would've made a difference to them. Either way Japan losses eventually and millions die on both sides.
Not sure I agree with the view that Operation Downfall was a Backup to the A-Bomb. Probably the other way round.
Also about the 3 nukes thing, there was barely enough uranium 235 and Plutonium to make Little Boy and Fat Man another 3 bombs would take longer then the war lasted...
like your videos man how about a new one on Japan's nuclear meltdown
Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway were technically all neutral countries until Germany invaded them. So the "German people don't want to see neutral countries invaded" line is out the window. Really it probably was the fact that the cost of manpower and equipment vs the gains of taking over Switzerland were not appeasing. Very mountainous country with a small industrial base, not really strategic.
About the "Cuban" Missile Crisis, it was Kennedy's own fault that happened. Kennedy placed missiles in Turkey that could reach Moscow, Khrushchev basically told him "Two can play that game". In the end both backed down. Yet it was spun to be called the "Cuban" Missile Crisis rather than the "Turkish" one, because, obviously, advertising Kennedy's blunder was not an option to anyone on this side of the Iron Curtain.
So that crisis could have been adverted by the same Kennedy who adverted war with Cuba, simply by him using his brain twice instead of once.
About number 10, the Germans not invading Switzerland because it was neutral and there would thus be internal backlash... the Netherlands were also neutral, just like they had been in WW1. Yet, Hitler had no problem attacking us... So then, why diidn't they invade Switzerland. According to the sources I've found, this is certain, but it seems Germany didn't want to attack Switzerland until the enemies at the main frontlines had been defeated. The Netherlands were more strategic, offering ports closer to the UK and a long coastline. Switzerland, having no coastline at all and being completely surrounded by Germany and Italy during the war, served no strategic purpose and, as long as it remained neutral, was no threat either. Had the allies not pushed Germany back, the operation would have been started after all, but since D-Day was succesful, the operation was canceled permenantly.
Why Germany did not invade Switzerland during WW1 and WW11 ? In 1912 the German Kaiser Willhelm 11 visited Switzerland. A major manoeuvre commanded in 1912 by the Swiss General Ulrich Wille, convinced visiting European heads of state, in particular Kaiser Wilhelm II, of the efficacy and determination of Swiss defences. The Kaiser asked Wille how many men did he have, 250,000 crackshots was the reply. The Kaiser asked what would happen if invaded Switzerland with 500,000 men, Wille replied they would fire twice then go home.General Willie was subsequently put in command of the complete mobilization of the Swiss Army in 1914,
The one about Vietnam is terrifying it could have been
That one was fantastic
The Vietnam POW part didn't inspire the Delta Force 2. That film dealt with the drug war in South America. You probably meant the Missing in Action series, also with Chuck Norris.
Unlike Hitler, Truman wasn't making tactical decisions. Thus, it is unlikely that Truman made the decision to use the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Truman did not intervene tactically until after reports of the devastation such weapons cause reached his desk.
This was not tactical... This was not a Nimitz or Marshall decision
The purple heart surplus is crazy.
best subtitles ever............
The Japanese had attempted to surrender after the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944. FDR refused because Stalin had not taken eastern Europe. The German military tried to surrender in 1938 and 1939 even offering to arrest Hitler. Bur His Majesty's Jewish Government wanted war so the Allies killed 58 million people after the other side had offered to surrender.
Operation Pike - After the end of the Winter War in March 1940, Anglo-French formulated plans to attack the Caucasian oil production centres of Baku, Batum and Grozny of the then neutral Soviet Union. The bomber attacks were to be flown from bases in Iran, Turkey and Syria. High-altitude reconnaissance flights from RAF Habbaniya were actually undertaken and both Royal Air force with 48 Bristol Blenheim Mk IV bombers and French Air-force with 65 Martin Maryland bombers were reinforced for the operation. After the fall of France in May 1940, the secret plans fell into German hands and excerpts of which were publicly released. Henceforth, Operation Pike was postponed and eventually abandoned.
It kind of sucks that in the "What if did happen" in operation Vulture, you skipped how many Vietnamese would die in the bombings.
Secondly... Warsaw was pretty much a big hole in the ground after the uprising in 1944, so the city had to rebuilt almost from scratch anyway.
you thank another content creator in your video. there is no link in the description of the video. did i miss something?
Thanks,makes one think!
Nr 10. You forgot to mention the mountainous terrain of Switzerland. Mountains are a hell for ANY invading force and a blessing for the defenders.
Also left out details about Operation North Woods
3:30 There were 4 fronts in WW2
1: Western Europe/France
2: Eastern Front U.S.S.R
3: North Africa
4:The Pacific
Operation vulture did not include US Nukes to be dropped on Hanoi
During the battle of Dien Bien Phu, Hanoi, haiphong, and the Red river Delta was a French stronghold protected by a chain of concrete pillboxes. Most of northern Vietnam was in the hands of the Viet Minh however this area as not
Wait I thought Operation Warsaw did happen, though not in the concept that Hitler had. It was the Warsaw Uprising. I read it in "The Second World War" by Antony Beevor. Basically when the Russian's broke the Germans and advanced westward, one of their objectives was Warsaw, and there was a resistance there friendly to the exhiled government, which was not pro-communist. When word came to the resistance that the Soviet army approached they launched an attack against the Nazi forces, who had begun their retreat at this time. They were too busy to really go after these hit and run attacks, and the attacks did serve to make it harder for the Nazis to coordinate their retreat. Then Stalin steps in with a plan to decimate any resistance or movements in Poland that are anti-communist. He orders the army halts South East of Warsaw. This gives the German forces time to regroup and they destroy the Polish resistance and raze Warsaw to the ground.