I would never have guessed that Sam is pretty insightful with WW2 History considering that he's primarily an Indian History Channel. Good surprise to be sure!
@@MatthewCobalt yeah he’s talking about vth as in the a recent previous video a ranking called him Sam which is not his name and said he was a top 10 Indian history channel
@@this_is_patrick I just want him to do a video where he fully leans into it. He reacts to an Indian History video and starts the video saying “Hello! It is I, Sam Nixon, and welcome to another Indian History video!”
I was going into this expecting it to be some high level cringe but that had some thought provoking ideas in it. If D-Day fails, I do have to wonder if there’s a scenario where we see a mushroom cloud over Berlin or Munich. But then again, you’d have to get some B-29s into the European Theater in that case. You could go on for days gaming this kind of stuff out.
Not really - the Lancaster was the back-up for delivering the nuclear bombs in Japan, having already dropped Tallboy and Grand Slam earthquake bombs on German targets, and could easily have done what you describe.
Sam, I primarily (like others) watch your channel for Indian history. But appreciate your versatility and willingness to begin to study other parts of history. Obviously we hope it doesn’t take the place of your standard Indian content, but I enjoy to see you occasionally branch out
It can't be overstated how "we need to beat the Russians to Berlin" guided a LOT of the western allies' war strategy post-Stalingrad (and especially post-Kursk). It became evident that Germany was going to lose eventually, but to the Americans, British and French, a Europe dominated by Stalin was hardly any better than a Europe dominated by Hitler.
That certainly guided Churchill. Unfortunately, he apparently didn't communicate this to William Strang who surrendered large parts of Germany to the Soviets in late 1944.When the EAC made the post-war occupation borders in November 1944 Eisenhower was convinced that it wasn't worth the lives of western allied soldiers to conquer German territory that would just be handed over to the Soviets.
It's refreshing to see one, whom was in direct disagreement with (Hitting the face over with the box of shoes), come back and give them a chance a newed. Truly wonderful content Chris.
I think Mr Z has kind of missed the point of why the French and British decolonised. 1. Britain and France were both broke with neither being able to maintain their empires. 2. Colonisation was seen in a worser and worser light by the people. Neither countries could have kept their empires which is likely why they obtained nuclear weapons to keep a presence on the world stage.
Exactly this. There was no way for the UK to hold their colonial possessions (with France being in an even worse position) in our world as they were broke from the war. That's part of why we saw a huge wave of decolonization following WW2 (though I'm sure US pressure helped some as well)
you can tell when he said Britain would hold on to its empire that was making it wealthy, which wasn't true it was costing Britain even before WW1, we literally got back 50p for every £1 we spent on it. but he also says Britain might not want to continue trying to invade on its own if D-day fails because it would be fighting against the odds, really? we were doing that for 3 years before we saw the first american in action, we already had 2 landings against the odds that failed and were still going.
@@bigenglishmonkey While I agree the Empire would break apart the part that I could see being truthful is the British desire to not press for another invasion. You pointed out that the British had been fighting for 3 years and 2 failed landings. That had cost the British drastically. Now if D-Day fails and even more British die that could have put the british in a place where they'd refuse to invade western Europe. Now it is also possible that the British decide to continue on fighting in the west with another invasion. My personal bet would honestly be that Chruchill pushes for more of his plan which means avoiding the west.
@@marcuswanha9723 my biggest guess is usually that if britain is on it's own, considering the amount of resources it would take to invade britain, it would take the victor out of germany v russia years before it could take the royal navy and invade mainland britain, so it would most likely turn out similar to napoleon with britain blockading till cracks form. And apart from the american war of independance britain hasnt really ever just given up on a fight and conceded, and given who we were fighting they were just strengthening britains resolve by pissing them off with the blitz. People underestimate britains ability as a country to be stuborn and petty. Enemy: you realise if you dont do said thing I want you to do, you will never recover. Britain: yeah, but as long as you dont get what you want i still win.
@@marcuswanha9723 my biggest guess is usually that if britain is on it's own, considering the amount of resources it would take to invade britain, it would take the victor out of germany v russia years before it could take the royal navy and invade mainland britain, so it would most likely turn out similar to napoleon with britain blockading till cracks form. And apart from the american war of independance britain hasnt really ever just given up on a fight and conceded, and given who we were fighting they were just strengthening britains resolve by pissing them off with the blitz. People underestimate britains ability as a country to be stuborn and petty. Enemy: you realise if you dont do said thing I want you to do, you will never recover. Britain: yeah, but as long as you dont get what you want i still win.
this helped me greatly for my history exam all about the history of India! Thank you so much Sam for the quality content and will be excited for your next video about India. Maybe the Mughal Empire?
Hello VGT ,as a history enthusiasist I have spent hours watching most of your videos and I absolutely love them! That being said if you ever found the time I would absolutely love to watch a reaction to the Justinian series about Eastern Rome from Extra History. I may be a bit biased because I am Greek, but I truly believe that it is a great series that's worth reacting to! Also it will be something new for the channel and I am sure that both you and your viewers could get to know and love the dense history of the Byzantines :). And Justinian a great emperor who made the Empire shine at a time that for the rest of Europe was a dark age. Much love and I would really appreciate it!
There is a reason why Monsieur Z was a lot better 2 - 3 years ago than today. Unlike today, where Z puts his own personal politics in his videos, his videos from the past were all Alt-History, without his own personal politics and were actually really good.
To me it seemed like his interest in alternative timelines gradually shifted into making the worst timeline his ideal. To fit alt history into a YT worthy format (at least that was the norm back then) you really have to dumb down your perception of how history, and politics, works. For some this seems to shift into idea that we can just bring back the, much more simple, good ol' days - and all it takes is a smart dude (which is me) with smart views.
Monsieur Z isnt worse. Its just that he makes videos about modern politics more frequently than he does before. The topics he covers are touchy, with alot of emotions attached to it because these subjects can greatly influence the decisions made in the near future which will lead to people like you and I clinging on to our believes tightly and deflecting any critisism it recieves. On top of that, Monsieur Z is someone who isnt afraid of sharing his views and believes even if it means angering his viewers. Thats why disagreeing with him hurts so bad
@@darrylerren8185 It is but another factor is that people do not have expectations for regular history themed UA-camrs (who are not doing political apologia) to insert takes about current issues in a partisan manner, so Monsieur Z and WhatifAltHist get into hot water for inserting their current/partisan takes.
@@inovakovsky Very true. This happened to a youtuber named Second Thought, an educational youtuber who 5 years ago makes videos about science and space but now all his videos are about politics and socialism, I actually disagree with alot of his views. I dont hate him dont get me wrong, its just that I no longer find those videos entertaining.
I personally have my reservations on Monsieur Z. Videos from this time were fine but his more recent ones have taken a turn. But if you want to see more than don’t let me and others stop you. You’ll probably notice some things if you keep watching him. Nonetheless thank you for another alternate history video.
Monsieur Z has been more open about his political views more recently and while I disagree with his political views, I’m still a fan of his channel nonetheless, mainly because I really like his alternate history videos.
"His more recent ones have taken a turn." That's code for "his politics are not the same as mine"... His political views should be irrelevant, as long as the facts are factual and conclusions extrapolated from those facts are reasonable. Plus, this is a "what if" scenario, so it is highly subjective anyway. Thinking it "should" be objective is ludicrous.
@@abrahamlincoln937 and though (I assume) you are more "liberal" (or at least less libertarian), since he is a more alternative history as long as factual it should not make a difference. His "less open" political views (and if you think they are less "open" it's just that you are more observant) are irrelevant.
@@noneatall9060 No that’s not. Vlogging through history would be politics aren’t the same as mine as he’s more conservative than me. But unlike Monsier Z he puts more effort into his videos and doesn’t use them as a pipeline for racism and xenophobia. Vlogging may be more conservative than me but he seems like a good guy and backs up his views even if I disagree with some with research and facts . I can watch videos by someone who’s politics are more conservative than me but Monseir z especially now is not that. Monsieur Z is extreme and his racism and nationalism has been shown in his videos and how he views people not from America or Europe. He keeps going on about a possibility of how any day now theUk Canada and Australia will join in some conservative Union because they’re old white and conservative ignoring the connections to the rest of the commonwealth.The man did a video saying Wilson did nothing wrong. Just watch his videos about how South Africa will collapse and you can see the racism. He says the only reason Native American exist still today is because white people gave them technology. And during his demographic crisis video he said that Germany is letting in too many immigrants to replace old prosper and that they’re too lazy just taking unemployment benefits. The list could go on and on.
I think a failure at D-Day assumes the German were in any way ready to stop an Allied Invasion in 1944. A large portion of the German units on the beaches itself were understrength garrison units, with poor training and poor morale. The Germans were relying on the panzer divisions to stop the Allied advance, but the Allies Air and Naval power would likely have negated the effectiveness of these units.
Hit my head with a shoebox quite a few times at the errors. For example," Chief Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Harris had been a strong believer that tactical bombing raids on German cities would ultimately bring about German surrender." He believed in STRATEGIC bombing of German cities. Strategic bombing involves attacking the enemies industry, population and economy from the air whereas TACTICAL bombing is that done directly supporting land operations.
Love your channel! Have you ever read Arthur Herman's Douglas MacArthur: American Warrior? It's a very fair and balanced book that gave me a deeper appreciation of Macarthur and how important he was. Makes me wonder how different things would have been had he been elected President. Keep up the great work!
I think many decisive battles are less decisive than they are purported to have been, but I wouldn't rule out the existence of them all together. Especially when it comes to naval battles. In fact, for a long time naval doctrine relied heavily on forcing decisive battles as their major tactical aim.
Depends on the country. "Decisive battles" if won against a nation like the US, who can repair/rebuild its ships lost in weeks to even days do not matter. Decisive battles say against Japan, like the battle of midway, are devastating because of their industrial capacity. Japan would never regain its carriers lost in midway, so the decisiveness only matters proportional to the nation. Now if you somehow destroyed most of US naval production at once, that would be decisive proportional to the US's capacity.
I don't think the failure of the Normandy invasion would've slowed down the Soviet advance very much. The Germans couldn't just transfer all their units in France to the Eastern Front, they still had to defend the coastline against further invasions. Perhaps they would've been able to free some reserves for the Eastern Front, but I still think Operation Bagration would've devastated Army Group Center, paving the way for a soviet advance into Poland and ultimately Germany. And with Romania switching sides, the Soviet conquest of Hungary was ensured. So I think the failed western invasion would've prolonged the war for a few months at maximum, giving the western allies just enough time to use their nuclear weapons on Germany, as it was originally intended. I think Churchill would've given this new weapon a chance before resorting to the biochemical option, as it would've meant a lower danger of retaliation. The Allies had already singled out German cities as potential targets for the nuclear bombs, even in our timeline.
Yep. The Operation Bagration was not a single beating Wehrmacht would have in the East in the summer of 1944. By the time of Overlord AG "North" was already retreting from Leningrad and Novgorod, Operation "Bagration" was set to start in June and Soviet push to the Dniepr (and crossing it in several places) was scheduled to begin in August. All three battle were massive Ls for Germans so I doubt that any reinforcements from the West (as limited as they are) would help Germany to avoid ALL of them.
I agree with you. Throughout the entire war Germany stationed around 75-80% of their entire army on the eastern front. Which hovers around 3-4 million soldiers at all times. In 1944-1945 the Soviets outnumbered the germans 2 to 1, increasing to almost 4 to 1. At this time the German army was at such a dire state that even the Soviets were better equipped. Adding a couple hundred thousands men from the west definitely would not have made a difference. Something which wouldn't even be feasible, since it would mean leaving the west undefended. Germany lost the war at the battle of Stalingrad. There was no coming back from it.
I am pretty sure that Rommel did in fact command the D-Day Defense for a while at least, he commanded 2 Armies in the region, but overall theater command was with von Rundstedt. And of course he got injured early on and then swept up in the aftermath of the failed coup attempt.
The use of biological and chemical weapons by the UK was definitely on the table for Britain since the 30's. The initial idea was due to the concern that Germany could use one in the UK so the CID (committee of imperial defence) wanted the ability to retaliate with it's own weapons. From 1940 to the late 50's the British government set up top secret lab and field tests for foot and mouth disease, anthrax dysentery,cholera, typhoid and others.(One such facility that is very controversial and still operating today called Porton Down was one of these sites) They also started experimenting on chemical weapons which one of them would develop to become Sarin. There was some crazy ideas during ww2 to use such weapons, one early idea was spreading foot and mouth disease to cattle and sheep in western in Europe to damage Germany's meat supply line and morale which thankfully never happened.
He probably should've started with this video first rather than beginning with one that was literally a Woodrow Wilson version of the "Griffith did nothing wrong" meme. I like this channel and Monsieur Z and would like to see more reactions in the future.
5:10 I think no matter what, Germany loses the second world war. Nothing could make this different. Lend Lease was essential to British survival, but not to Soviet survival. Sure, it was very helpful to the Soviets, but I am certain without Lend Lease the USSR still wins, just with heavier fighting and losses. Every Soviet would die fighting, I think the point at which any victory against the Soviets is even possible is not realistic even with no western aid. Germany would lose to the Soviets; their manpower, morale, industry and geography was not something the Germans and allies could combat. Nothing would stop Operation Barbarossa either, the main goal of the German Leadership was their eastern empire, something they had no intention of sacrificing. With the British as no impending threat and no foresight on why invading the USSR so soon might be a bad idea, it was inevitable war with the Soviets was going to happen around where it did. Japan, on the other hand, could have kept some of their gains for sure if the USA never intervened. Most likely though, they fall to the USSR too.
Hi, Chris, that was very interesting. I agree that most battles don't change the outcome of a war, if Napoleon had won at Waterloo there would have been wars of the eighth, nineth and tenth coalition in fact as many as it took. The same with D Day if it had failed the allies wouldn't have packed up and asked for peace terms. What these victories did do was shorten the duration of the war and therefore save lives. I'm not convinced the Balkans would have been the site of an alternate invasion I think southern France would have been much more likely. It's an interesting thought would chemical, biological or nuclear weapons hae been used in Europe and I really can't decide on an answer. I believe that at the time there was only a very limited supply of nuclear weapons so if they were used in Europe they would not have been available in Japan which would seriously have lengthened that conflict. I can clear up one point the UK general election would not have happened until the war in Europe had ended, that was agreed at the time of the wartime coalition so the election would have been delayed until then.
"I'm not convinced the Balkans would have been the site of an alternate invasion" Churchill did lobby for landing in the Balkans very actively as he saw it as opportunity to cut off Soviet advances in the area. So, there is a slim chance that if Overlord failed, he would succeed in persuading Roosevelt to have Balkan landing a go. Regarding using Nukes on Germany. That was US intention from the very beginning of Manhattan project, so it's definitely a possibility.
I could definitely see Churchill being desperate enough to use anthrax, but I don’t know if nuclear weapons would have been used, given that those were in the US arsenal, not the British one. P.s. Who’s Chris? Is “Chris” Sam Nixon’s middle name?
My uncle served aboard the Liberty Ship SS John Harvey as a naval gunner. Its cargo on the last voyage included a supply of mustard gas bombs, to be used in the European theater if Germany used chemical weapons first. The ship arrived at the port city of Bari, Italy in late November 1943. The port was backed up, and the presence of those bombs so Top Secret that the British port commander was not told about them. The port was bombed on 2 December 1943 by the Luftwaffe. The John Harvey took a direct hit, and the explosion shock wave actually killed citizens in the town. The smell of garlic was one of the clues to the local hospitals dealing with the aftermath that there were some victims of mustard gas poisoning. Churchill was ready to blame the Germans for using chemical weapons in the attack if the news got out. But it was kept a secret for more than 25 years. I just realized it is exactly 79 years to the day of the Bari attack, so I honor his sacrifice, Seaman First Class Glenn Earl Smith, aged 19 years.
Interesting video. I agree that Dragoon wouldn't have been abandoned so easily. The original vid mentioned Eisenhower, but it didn't really address Montgomery who was commander of Overlord's ground forces. It also didn't mention Patton (sidelined as a diversion), or how de Gaulle would have taken bypassing France (not well). One thing I've noticed about the "d--day failed" speculation is that thought is rarely given to when it failed. A failure to open a beach looks very different in terms of lost men and material than a successful German counter-attack later on. The same follow-on units to exploit a northern landing would have still been available, and if an intact port was taken (the way Marseille and Toulon were IRL) they wouldn't have the same logistical hurdles the northern landings initially had to deal with.
If you want to talk about the Japanese surrender you should watch potentials history's video on it he goes over how much he thinks the two played a role the nukes and the invasion by the soviets its a pretty interesting video in my opinion.
3:20 Midway is a decent example of a turning point when Japan went from at level or better to the US than decidedly behind, but similar to your other points, didn’t change the trajectory of the war.
Regarding the question about weather or not Churchill might be voted out of power, no. There was not a single chance that Churchill would be voted out. Because back when France fell at the early parts of the war, the two parties of Britain, the labor and the Conservative Party, actually joined up into one coalition together, and both agreed to suspend general elections until after the war was over. Churchill was voted out because the war was already over and the labors pulled out of the coalition.
I agree with Sam here lol. If D-Day fails it only changes the Soviet / western influences in post war Europe. To what degree it fails ……changes that outcome. If the invasion fails with moderate to low casualties, and air superiority remains. There’s a D-Day 2 or a stronger push through the alps from the south and maybe that is a success. At that point how far west is the Soviet Union? It all matters.
Love this guy's content. Seems so smart and level-headed. And while he displays a sense of humor, he does not try to upstage his own with silly gags and visual gimmicks.
Hey, Chris. I wanted to elaborate on your takes and maybe with minor/soft criticism and recommendations. Yes, 1900-1950 is the historical era that I specialise in. On a side note Monsieur Z sounds like Cody form Alternate History Hub. 4:50 Lend Lease was critical, though it is a little exaggerated in terms of direct war effort. The primary benefit was simply trucking to transport Soviet troops. However, most the time, they still used horses but just not as much as the Wehrmacht because only 400,000 trucks were transported out of millions mobilised. The Use sent tanks but the Soviets mostly used them for training and rarely use them in combat. They did use foreign-manufactured aircraft (11,000 while the Soviets manufactured 157,000) produced though. However, I would agree with Potential History, whom you reacted to, that without Lend-Lease, the Soviets would still win but longer and bloodier, hence the Soviets would prefer maintaining Lend-Lease instead of ensuring an invasion of France (that would entail a decrease in aid). 5:30 I think that "what country won the war" is loaded since it is hard to objectively measure which stats are valuable, i.e. over 2/3 of German deaths were against the Soviets while the Allies inflicted more 1/3 damage on the Luftwaffe and German industry. 8:17 Rommel was field marshal only for that part of France and its defenses, but I think you meant that anyhow. 14:40 Not so much as a comment for you but for the original vid. The primary reason for UK to prefer the Balkans is the reason why they were adamant to land in Italy in 1943: the UK wants to attack the "periphery" of Europe, i.e. Norway, in order to prevent a repeat of WW1 in France, with Somme and Passchendaele coming to mind (IMO, the slow progress of the Italian campaign, ironic for the UK, is way more comparable). I call this mentality WW1 syndrome, named after "Vietnam Syndrome" or the mentality of avoiding any military could that could be a repeat, however very unlikely in realities, in the advancement in military technology and strategy alone, after of the war. 18:25 Even if the Germans were able to manufacture jets in this scenario, Germany would still lack the fuel to use them in significant numbers, especially when the Soviets occupied Romania, a major source of petroleum, by late 1944. Potential History, in his iconic video on Germany could not vids, made the same point for the hypothetical of manufacturing more tanks and aircraft of the current models. 23:00 The Soviets only intervened in Yugoslavia by moving to the capital, Belgrade, due to its proximity to the Romanian border, so the Partisans took over when the Germans retreated, which was how communist Enver Hoxha (infamous for building bunkers on the Albanian coast) took over. The only outcome of the UK invasion in summer 1944 would be that the chances of Greece falling into civil war (between the Communists and the resurrected pro-UK government) would be rendered unlikely since Greece fell into civil during a transition that occurred once the Germans simply retreated (UK and empire landed). The Armchairs Historian has a video about the transition and civil war. 23:56 The Americans for sure wanted an invasion in southern France, but the UK would prefer the Balkans because the UK, or at least Churchill, were hesitant for having an invasion of France be top priority for 1944 and already expressed interest in the Balkans, in which the Americans opposed this in a documented by Dr. David Reynolds titled World War Two: 1942 and Hitler's Soft Underbelly (free on UA-cam). 24:30 By late 1944, the Soviets actually entered Belgrade to prop up the Partisan as the official Yugoslav government while non-communist resistance groups were next to non-existent for the UK to prop up, with the Chetniks no longer receiving aid when they decided to collaborate with the Germans, so there be no divided Yugoslavia nor civil war. At most they UK may remove the Partisans and return the pre-1941 monarchy (at most). 25:11 Clement Attlee, in terms of foreign policy, is hardly any different from Churchill. The cabinet under Churchill, called the "war cabinet" was actually bi-partisan with Labour ministers, so there was minimal division in terms of waging the war. Keep in mind, the UK joined NATO (when it began in 1949) under Attlee, so he practically anti-Soviet/anti-communist (hence, why began the suppression of Malaysian communists in the Malay Emergency). That and Attlee let UK's campaign in Burma continue without interference. The only difference in Attlee's foreign policy, from Churchill's, was that he was willing to give India dominion status (like in Canada and Australia). 26:30 Potential History, made a recent video, after being inactive for over a year, in which he argued that it is a false dichotemy to argue whether it was the US or the Soviets that made Japan surrender. He argued that Japan surrendered because the Japanese relaised that they could not inflict massive casualties and stalemate on both the Americans and Soviets, regardless of their military and civilian "scarifies". Therefor, the motivation behind surrender was not an "either or" situation but both functioned as one underlying reason. 28:00 Actually, the Soviets agreed to attacked Japanese occupied Manchuria, Korea, and Sakhilin & Kuryl islands (given to Japan from Russia after the Ruso-Japanese War) three months after VE day because the US suggested it. In this scenario, the Soviets may have had too much influence in Europe, so Truman would not want the Soviets to have influence in Northern China and Korea. 28:21 I disagree with Z on the Chinese Civil War resumption because the Kuomintang lost due to US intel dropping the ball in their aid while the Kuomintang faced opposition from local peasantry due to stationing in their areas (requisitioning food, which was standard practiced in developing countries) for literal years. That and the Kuomintang was weakened in conventional warfare while the Communists developed skills in mostly guerilla tactics to the point "People's War" is a corner-stone of Maoist political theory. However, Korea would be pro-US. Chinese support in the Vietnam reduced from 1969 partially because of the Viet Mihn was more pro-Soviet when China began distancing itself from the USSR (due to fears of becoming a satellite to the Soviets when Mao had contentions over supposed "revisionism" [deviations from Marxist practice] in the USSR). 1968 was when the US cranked support for South Vietnam and the North won years later when Chinese aid was decreasing. I would concede that it was debatable because even with decreases the Viet Mihn received million of ammunition and thousands of artillery pieces (but I am sure if they represent a majority of the total resources used). Keep in mind, the Viet Mihn was using guerilla tactics to compensate for lack of industry and limited aid, which cause the "quagmire" that inspired the US to eventually give up. 31:00 Decolonisation would occur because of the limited ability of the UK (a victory) to suppress mutinies and demonstrations after the war. I appreciate your feedback, as I put time into making this.
Small addition to your first statement: Delivering arms and vehicles wasn't even main articles of land-lease. Allies supplied almost 100% of Soviet industry demand rare metals, titanium and aluminium; 70% of the Red Army demand for gasoline, powder and explosives; and about a half of the Red Army demand for foodstuff. That allows Soviets later to downplay allied assistance by claiming that "Allies supplied only 10% of weapon with which WE won the war" and convenietly "forgetting" that almost every soviet-made tank was made with allies' alloys, fuelled by allies' gasoline, shot shells filled with allies' explosives, and its crew sustained by allies' spam and beans.
@@090giver090 Yeah, I read that there was significant amount of refined feul sent, but I was not sure in how proportional it was to Soviet petroleum production, which large enough to make the USSR among the top producers of petroleum.
@@inovakovsky Before and during the war most USSR oil production was concentrated in Maikop and Baku oil fields that, although significant, were logistically hampered due to German advances in 1942. Siberian oil fields were discovered and exploited only after the war. More importantly, even being one of the top producers of crude oil Soviet Union struggles with technologies and capacity for refining this crude oil into fuel (especially high-octane aviation fuels) and this is where Allies filled the gap mostly.
@@090giver090 I read that much of Soviet petroleum related imports were high-octane fuel. The Soviets used deiseal, instead of refined gasoline for their tanks.
Talking about turning moments reminds me talkernate history. Some of those videos point out how some things in history were seemingly inevitable due to a multitude of factors
18:21 Great video! Small point of contention - the Me262 was actually a terrible plane when compared to the Gloster Meteor, which was made operational only days after the 262. It couldn't turn worth a damn, it killed inexperienced pilots on takeoff, its engines blew up after a couple of hours, and Willy Messerschmitt couldn't help but give in to the age-old phrase that makes manufacturing engineers drink themselves to death - "wouldn't it be great if..." resulting in a number of useless variants with awful build quality. Lord HardThrasher made a video which summarises everything better than me.
The US was very aware of the potential for chemical weapon warfare. D-Day invasion jeeps even had white stars painted on their hoods with a paint that would change to a different color in the presence of chemical agents. In reading "D-Day Though the eyes of German Soldiers", there are several accounts of 'special' mines that were planted around natural armor choke points and capable of clearing over a square kilometer of terrain each. They got overrun too quickly to use, and no one seems to know what they contained - some say a type of fuel-air explosive or Sarin analogue.
I think the main sticking point with the whole "who made Japan surrender" thing is kind of like how surrendering German soldiers would run toward the Americans and British rather than stay and try their luck with the Soviets. They knew the Soviets had nothing good in mind for them. By Japan making a bigger deal of what the US did rather than what Russia was _going_ to do, they avoided having to kneel for the Soviets. It was planning for the future rather than a pure reactionary moment.
I don't think the Soviets would've invaded mainland Japan. For some reason I feel that if Japan was going to be invaded it would've been a triple front with the US leading the charge. Japan was the US main enemy and the target for its furry. Allowing the Soviets to take any Japanese territory especially after they took Berlin, would've been out of the question.
I think that the US inclination to fix the problem rather than seek punitive measures probably hastened the end of the war while a peaceful solution was available. Since the US somehow managed to conclude it's own Civil War without a drawn out guerilla resistance against federal occupation, it came naturally for them to implement the Marshall Plan in the same spirit. It's multi-ethnic heritage didn't hurt as mediator on occasion.
Regarding chemical weapons, there was actually a German air raid on Bari in Italy in December 1943 which hit ships carrying mustard gas. A lot of people died from poison gas, and of course there was a huge cover up. All so that the Allies could respond in kind if the Germans resorted to chemical weapons.
Pointing out some historical inaccuracies in this video, having now watched the entirety of it: As Mr. Chris has already pointed out, Normandy not being the decisive turning point of the war, Balkans allied invasion seeming implausible, etc. Since they're already pointed out I won't dive too deep into these. The ending of colonialism not as much the result of "US pressure" or "war promises" as it is the result of the cost to maintain these colonies and popular discontent with the colonies, as pointed out in the comments. And some more that haven't been pointed out yet: 25:35 Sweden and Finland would become Soviet-aligned and fall to Communist pressure in this timeline. Not necessarily. Finland in our world remained consistently neutral, independent, and democratic despite not being a part of NATO nor the EU during the Cold War AND sharing a massive border with the Soviets. In our timeline, appeasement and diplomatic concession made this possible, with the mutual understanding being that Finland would not join Western alliances in exchange for independence and neutrality. We can imagine that in this timeline Sweden and Finland, despite being surrounded by the Soviets' Sphere of Influence, would still maintain neutrality via appeasement and trade agreements, just like how Sweden and Switzerland survived an Axis Europe in WWII that surrounded them via such strategies too. 27:25 "Restlessness from within the Japanese population" This is simply untrue. The vast majority of Japanese civilians believed in the Japanese war effort, militarism, and believed that the ideals of dying for the country was the most glorious thing a Japanese person can ever do until the bitter end, and would die to defend such ideals. Such is proven by the brutal Japanese civilian campaigns against American island hoppings, and many historical accounts evidently suggesting that once the Japanese Emperor announced the unconditional surrender, the vast majority of the Japanese civilians were said to be weeping on the streets at the news. The reason Japan surrendered was not because of its civilians, but because certain factions within the high command realized the only realistic option left for Japan was to surrender to avoid certain destruction. 28:16 China would return to nationalist rule because of an Allies dominated post-war Japanese occupation zone and no Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Being a huge Chinese history geek, this is one of the points that I will most heavily criticize him on for simply being implausible compared to alternative suggestions. Since we assume that in this alternative timeline everything happened as it should have happened in our timeline until D-day, the fate of the nationalist government in China would have already been sealed. The Chinese Communists employed a strategy of saving up strength and mass propaganda to win over the agarian populace with the occasional guerilla campaigns against the Japanese long before 1944. The nationalists by 1944 were a disorganized, tired, unpopular mess in China, and if not for the Japanese invasion that still posed a threat to all of China, would've been ousted long ago by the Chinese Communists. The Kuomintang military had no real centralized command structure, were fractured and divided by individual interests, and much of the military were lacking strength and equipment due to their war against the Japanese compared to the CCP who had saved up all their strength until now. Warlords de-facto ruled much of China, bandits and partisans were plaguing the countryside, and rural civilian support when asked about supporting the CCP vs the Kuomintang was overwhelmingly in favor of the CCP. The Communists already controlled much of the rural areas in Japanese occupied China by 1944. Yes, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the subsequent handover of Manchurian lands and thus the Manchurian industry to the CCP was important, but that pales in comparison to the massive amounts of support the Soviets were already sending to the CCP before then. Sure, we can imagine that in an allied-occupied Manchuria and North Korea scenario with the subsequent handover of Manchuria to the nationalist Chinese, the Kuomintang would've been much more powerful and tougher in the ensuing civil war, but the CCP would've still won via the "encircling the cities from rural areas" strategy. And who said the Soviets would not support the CCP in the civil war even if the Kuomintang took over Manchuria? They would've still had supply routes via air and via Mongolian/Sinkiang land routes to the CCP. All things considered, the best case _maybe plausible_ scenario that I can see here is the CCP and the Kuomintang coming to a stalemate and China being divided. But it remains the most likely scenario that the CCP would win the Chinese civil war. And regardless, in both of the scenarios, it is likely that Vietnam would've still happened as a struggle between the pro-West camp and the pro-Soviet camp. The Korean War may not have happened but a Communist Chinese attack supported by the Soviets to secure a Korean buffer state is still totally foreseeable. All of all, having now watched the video, this only confirms my understanding that Mr. Z only focuses on the scenario and not on its plausibility, yet presents the story in an dramatized way and as if it is totally plausible when it is mostly pure fiction. 😅
You're not even damaging any infrastructure, and when bombing cities, you won't hit many soldiers either. That's just murdering lots of bystanders in the hope that the Great Dictator and his cronies decide to give up out of compassion for their fellow citizens.
Mr. Chris, don't feel pressured by people to view Mr. Z videos. I personally think diving into Mr. Z's videos will only provide a breeding ground for historical myths and inaccuracies. I enjoy your independent content and reactions to factually-driven UA-camrs like Oversimplified and the Armchair Historian much more. Personally, I feel like Monsieur Z, Whatifalthist and the UA-camrs of the likes tend to put an overemphasis on fantasy material and argumentation without much consideration for historical accuracy and plausibility. They typically come up with an interesting scenario or argument and thinks to themselves: "hmm, this can make for some great video content!", but fails to provide any in-depth evidence or historical knowledge to back their videos back. It would be considered maybe mistakes if they provided bad historical background once or twice, but these UA-camrs are at the point where they mostly consistently provide inaccurate information and bad arguments. It's all surface level arguments and hypothesis, with cherrypicked surface-level 'evidence' to support their case instead of providing an historical and neutral look into history. Their surface understanding and research may impress the history casuals, but as proven by videos like the Woodrow Wilson video and stuff relating to Ukraine from Mr. Z, and the Turkish Empire wet dreams from Whatifalthist's future prediction videos, more educated historians and history geeks like you, Mr, Chris (lol), would fail to be impressed by these fallacy-filled videos. I once saw an comment on one of Whatifalthist's videos (paraphrasing here) that I thought best described these types of internet historian UA-camrs: "This is a classic example of someone who knows everything, yet understands nothing." It's quite literally the Dunning-Kruger effect at play. And so I personally think giving more publicity and platform to these people will only promote a rising wave of "Pseudo-history" as I call it and create grounds for myths to be spread.
@@chheinrich8486 Unlike Z, Cody always stresses that his scenarios are pure fiction that couldn't have happened in reality (and often provide reasons why and what historical things he omits to exercise his "artistic lisense"). Z (much like History Channel nowadays) present his timelines in a more sensational way as great possibilities that have were nearly avoided by a single pivoting moment IRL.
@@TigerWave01 wiah praised the assimilation of Hispanic Americans into broader American society and African American's cultural influence so he probably isn't racist
27:38 No Monsieur Z is very wrong here: "An overall lack of preparation on the mainland islands." There were extensive preparations. One reason the Soviets were able to overrun the Japanese forces in Manchuria so quickly is that the veteran divisions stationed there had been pulled out and replaced with green divisions, the veterans having been reassigned to defend the home islands. All school classes 7th grade and up were dissolved and the children brought into either direct military or military support roles. Thousands of gallons of aircraft fuel, as well as aircraft, were squirreled away in dispersed locations. The Japanese knew the main threat were the Americans as the Soviets had no means of conducting an invasion of their home islands.
Churchill would not be defeated in an election in this scenario for one key reason - the British PM was the one to choose when an election would be held. With Germany clearly about to fall, Chruchill decided the time was right and went for it. Unless and until Germany is similarly about to fall in this timeline, the election will not be called.
I wonder if a failed D-day invasion might have led to some interesting developments in Italy. If Dragoon was called off, which does seem likely, there might well have been amphibious landings in Northern Italy in late 44, or early 45, using the troops meant for Dragoon, as well as potentially some of the D-Day forces, though they might have been better used to maintain a threat to the Channel coast and keep Wehrmacht forces in place in France. A credible threat into Austria or southern Germany might have been possible, or cutting off the German forces in Italy.
I seriously doubt that Dragoon would have been called off even if Overlord fails. I more inclined to think it would merely become a main effort instead of Overlord.
@@090giver090 The idea of a reinforced Dragoon landing is also interesting. It could happen, but without a D-Day success, landing in Southern France on the planned time table with the planned forces would have been very risky. Maybe riskier than the Normandy invasion itself. With a failed D-Day, I believe that the landings in Southern France, if they did happen, would be delayed, by months at least, to allow for additional strength to be shifted in support of a beefed up Dragoon effort.
25:35 Actually a good question is does Britain opt to vote out Churchill whilst still at war? Me I doubt it. They only were able to "afford that feeling" once the war was over. Remember in the alternate timeline the Brits are still fighting Nazism and are fearful of Communism and therefore not likely to take to another "ism" in socialism which many saw as Communism's "slow sister."
I find the Balkans alternative history unconvincing. When Operation Torch had already put the Americans in North West Africa. So they could channel supplies through North West Africa without entering the Mediterranean. A lot shorter route than supporting an invasion of the Balkans through the Mediterranean. Plus fighting conditions in Italy would have discouraged them from fighting in the Balkans. More likely that Hitler would have moved his forces from Northern France to the Eastern Front, and the already prepared invasion of Southern France would have been beefed up by the allies.
I think we don't talk often enough about just how close the Normandy landings came to a colossal failure. It wasn't a sure thing until much later in the campaign that the Allies would win. Look at the first day: aside from holding the beaches, the Allies failed all of their first-day objectives. Carentan, Saint-Lo, Bayeux, and Caen all remained in German hands, only Juno and Gold beaches had been linked, and all five would not be joined until nearly a week later.
25:37 It's hard to see Churchill surviving the 1945 elections. Eventhough he is popular, the rest of the conservative party is not. Making it worse for them is the fact that so many urban Labor voters moved to the countryside thus flipping a number of traditional conservative seats.
One thing to be considered is that the US could have suspended Lend Lease to the soviets. Officially they could claim they needed resources to launch another invasion. But in reality it could have caused the batter to stalemate. Until the Western Allies could get the resources to pincer France again.
Regarding the huge stockpiles of German chemical weapons, after the war the Allies mostly just dumped them in the Baltic, and they continue to be a huge issue and a potential ticking time bomb. The country most affected is Denmark.
This brings up a point in my mind. If the UK had been occupied would the US have persisted, or even begun, actions against Germany? The defensive advantage of the Atlantic would also be an obstruction against invading Europe.
America was in the fight via lend-lease long before it had boots on the ground in combat. Stalin himself said as much. If you think of WWII as a boxing match, lend-lease is like America's jab punch. The one you often throw just to keep the other guy off balance.
Tango Bravo: Churchill was a great war-time leader but a different type of leader was/is needed in peace-time.....he was too right-wing for the latter situation. The same thing happened to Wellington in the 19th century.....he was great for fighting the French but when he became PM he didn't last long.
19:20 Poison Gas? So then if Churchill were to go that route he'd had been in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol thereby making anything akin to the Nuremburg tribunals much more difficult to justify as a major state actor can be accused of a clear violation of international law.
What if when the sentry had called the command they would have taken it seriously and sent support? Weren't all of German high command unavailable for some reason?
The soviets razed the Kwantug army they were crushed like never before in the war in a matter of months, the land army stationed on mainland Asia who was basically independent from government and other sectors of Japan military (navy was razed by US). For the military, the USSR was a top reason to surrender, for the civilians and part of governemt it was the bomb, which at first glance didn't seemed worse than the Tokio bombings. Anyhow, the japanease pictured that US wouldn't risk millions of soldiers for an invasion, but then the Red Army was flocking on the east asia harbours, they wouldn't care the cost of the invasion. So the point is not what made Japan surrender, but rather to whom, having a huge army with no regard for sacred imperial figures convinced the Japanease to surrender to US, Japan was very complex, a mess if you will, and both were equally decisive to convince all the spheres of Japanease civil and military society that this was the end, and it was better to do so through USA, who didn't wanted 2 millions of dead soldiers for the empereor's head.
What about Trafalger? With control of the sea Great Britian and her empire could basically hold out for ever and Napoleon would eventually run out of resources fighting everyone over and over again.
Agree with you pretty much across the board. Allies invade southern France in October 1944 and push rowards Bordeaux. Hitler evacuates to Magdeburg in June 1945 as USSR approaches Berlin. This buys him only a month or two and in the end the main difference is that East Germany is the physically and population-wise larger portion, including 100% of Berlin.
Regarding the political implications of a failed invasion: Let's not forget, that this was the SECOND amphibious invasion ordered by Churchill. The first had been Gallipoli which at that time was still fresh in people's memory: The largest amphibiuous landing in history up to that point, which had been an utter failure and a horrible blood bath. This fateful decision had ended Churchill's first political career in total disgrace. And now here he is, ordering a huge amphibiuous assault AGAIN. But this time on a much larger scale against an enemy who knew they were coming and had had time to prepare the beaches for years. If that had been a failure AGAIN, this very likely would have ended Churchill's political career for good. (Churchill was not politically unassailable during the war. Britain was perfectly capable of getting rid of a Prime Minister even during war time. Chamberlain had been forced to resign because of the failure of the Norway campaign. The same could well have happened to Churchill.).
I really appreciate your remarks about how one nation, or one battle is pivotal for the win. Yes, the three main nations, who had incredible economic power at the time did contribute much, but without the support of the smaller nations at the time. The same goes for different battles. Operation Torch could be argued as a turning point, as it is where the USA forces were seasoned, and there were lessons learned for Britain in co operation. It strengthened landings for Italy and D Day. ( a little stated fact: the Australian, Netherlands, and Canadian navies were there for naval support) The Dieppe Raid taught the Allies about amphibious assaults and what was needed to make a successful landing on D Day. The thing about war and our world is that it is ever changing: technology, world political conditions, and alliances/ interests, call for innovation and creativity meshed with experience and intelligence. Look at the changes in the current Russian - Ukrainian war and the cost of depending on old tactics and weapons. Stay safe, stay sane, stay Strong Ukraine 🇺🇦 Ps. I am going to definitely watch your last video reaction to Mr. Z …… I can’t miss seeing you hit yourself with a box😉😉😉
I am pretty sure the US could win a japanese-german war solo if it maximized its conscription. 50 million men in the US had registered in the draft by the wars end, and 10 million were serving. Do you know how mind boggling that is? Germany's population was 80 million, (89 - the oppressed / genocided), half were women. There were more registered men in the US draft, then the entire men able bodied population of Germany, and the US had double the industria/munition production of Japan and Germany combined.
Personally I would believe if D-Day failed we may have seen all of Germany and maybe parts of the Benelux and Some of the Nordic Nations to be in the Warsaw Pact and if the Soviet get far enough until the Western Allies would get to Europe in France, France may even be apart of the Pact
One of the most important details of WW2 that doesn’t seem to be taught in school is the following. It was not “Axis vs the Allies”. There were **three** factions, not two. Axis, Allies, and the Commiturn.
What do you think about the effect of operation Uranus conducted by the soviets to encircle the German 6th army in Stalingrad? Was that a decisive turning point in your assessment?
Somewhat related to this video, I think you would enjoy the video Dropping the Bomb: Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the channel Shaun. It's a very in depth look at what all the major players were thinking and doing in the lead up to and aftermath of the dropping of the atom bombs. I think it does a really good job dispelling some commmon misconceptions and providing some new angles to look at how and why the war ended as it did. Thanks for all your reactions and insights, you really are one of my favorite history youtubers out there.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I would never have guessed that Sam is pretty insightful with WW2 History considering that he's primarily an Indian History Channel. Good surprise to be sure!
Hahahaha
Having a specialization in a given field doesn't preclude you from having general to semi-detailed knowledge of other areas in history.
@@MatthewCobalt It's a joke about a previous video he made
And a welcome one.
@@MatthewCobalt yeah he’s talking about vth as in the a recent previous video a ranking called him Sam which is not his name and said he was a top 10 Indian history channel
Thanks for getting out of your comfort zone Sam! I will say that I would want to see a little more of your specialty on the channel : Indian history
I think him making that one video was a mistake. Now he has to legally change his name to Sam Nixon lol.
LOL
Oh, we are actually doing the Sam Nixon thing? Well, I'm here for it. :)
Best youtuber Sam Nixon great guy
@@this_is_patrick I just want him to do a video where he fully leans into it. He reacts to an Indian History video and starts the video saying “Hello! It is I, Sam Nixon, and welcome to another Indian History video!”
It's refreshing to see Sam doing more Indian history. Keep it up!
Another great reaction on Indian history! Great work, Sam!
I loved your insights on the Indian efforts during WW2, keep it up Sam!
I was going into this expecting it to be some high level cringe but that had some thought provoking ideas in it. If D-Day fails, I do have to wonder if there’s a scenario where we see a mushroom cloud over Berlin or Munich. But then again, you’d have to get some B-29s into the European Theater in that case. You could go on for days gaming this kind of stuff out.
Not really - the Lancaster was the back-up for delivering the nuclear bombs in Japan, having already dropped Tallboy and Grand Slam earthquake bombs on German targets, and could easily have done what you describe.
Yeah Z has the capability to make decent videos. The problem with a lot of his newer videos is his insistence of injecting them with his own politics.
Sam, I primarily (like others) watch your channel for Indian history. But appreciate your versatility and willingness to begin to study other parts of history. Obviously we hope it doesn’t take the place of your standard Indian content, but I enjoy to see you occasionally branch out
It can't be overstated how "we need to beat the Russians to Berlin" guided a LOT of the western allies' war strategy post-Stalingrad (and especially post-Kursk). It became evident that Germany was going to lose eventually, but to the Americans, British and French, a Europe dominated by Stalin was hardly any better than a Europe dominated by Hitler.
That certainly guided Churchill. Unfortunately, he apparently didn't communicate this to William Strang who surrendered large parts of Germany to the Soviets in late 1944.When the EAC made the post-war occupation borders in November 1944 Eisenhower was convinced that it wasn't worth the lives of western allied soldiers to conquer German territory that would just be handed over to the Soviets.
It's refreshing to see one, whom was in direct disagreement with (Hitting the face over with the box of shoes), come back and give them a chance a newed. Truly wonderful content Chris.
I think Mr Z has kind of missed the point of why the French and British decolonised.
1. Britain and France were both broke with neither being able to maintain their empires.
2. Colonisation was seen in a worser and worser light by the people.
Neither countries could have kept their empires which is likely why they obtained nuclear weapons to keep a presence on the world stage.
Exactly this. There was no way for the UK to hold their colonial possessions (with France being in an even worse position) in our world as they were broke from the war. That's part of why we saw a huge wave of decolonization following WW2 (though I'm sure US pressure helped some as well)
you can tell when he said Britain would hold on to its empire that was making it wealthy, which wasn't true it was costing Britain even before WW1, we literally got back 50p for every £1 we spent on it.
but he also says Britain might not want to continue trying to invade on its own if D-day fails because it would be fighting against the odds, really? we were doing that for 3 years before we saw the first american in action, we already had 2 landings against the odds that failed and were still going.
@@bigenglishmonkey While I agree the Empire would break apart the part that I could see being truthful is the British desire to not press for another invasion. You pointed out that the British had been fighting for 3 years and 2 failed landings. That had cost the British drastically. Now if D-Day fails and even more British die that could have put the british in a place where they'd refuse to invade western Europe. Now it is also possible that the British decide to continue on fighting in the west with another invasion. My personal bet would honestly be that Chruchill pushes for more of his plan which means avoiding the west.
@@marcuswanha9723
my biggest guess is usually that if britain is on it's own, considering the amount of resources it would take to invade britain, it would take the victor out of germany v russia years before it could take the royal navy and invade mainland britain, so it would most likely turn out similar to napoleon with britain blockading till cracks form.
And apart from the american war of independance britain hasnt really ever just given up on a fight and conceded, and given who we were fighting they were just strengthening britains resolve by pissing them off with the blitz.
People underestimate britains ability as a country to be stuborn and petty.
Enemy: you realise if you dont do said thing I want you to do, you will never recover.
Britain: yeah, but as long as you dont get what you want i still win.
@@marcuswanha9723
my biggest guess is usually that if britain is on it's own, considering the amount of resources it would take to invade britain, it would take the victor out of germany v russia years before it could take the royal navy and invade mainland britain, so it would most likely turn out similar to napoleon with britain blockading till cracks form.
And apart from the american war of independance britain hasnt really ever just given up on a fight and conceded, and given who we were fighting they were just strengthening britains resolve by pissing them off with the blitz.
People underestimate britains ability as a country to be stuborn and petty.
Enemy: you realise if you dont do said thing I want you to do, you will never recover.
Britain: yeah, but as long as you dont get what you want i still win.
Keep up the content Sam! It's good to see Indian History Channels explore other Historical events😍
Another crazy video, Sam. Your knowledge on the history of India is unmatched. Thank you.
this helped me greatly for my history exam all about the history of India! Thank you so much Sam for the quality content and will be excited for your next video about India. Maybe the Mughal Empire?
Hello VGT ,as a history enthusiasist I have spent hours watching most of your videos and I absolutely love them! That being said if you ever found the time I would absolutely love to watch a reaction to the Justinian series about Eastern Rome from Extra History. I may be a bit biased because I am Greek, but I truly believe that it is a great series that's worth reacting to! Also it will be something new for the channel and I am sure that both you and your viewers could get to know and love the dense history of the Byzantines :). And Justinian a great emperor who made the Empire shine at a time that for the rest of Europe was a dark age. Much love and I would really appreciate it!
There is a reason why Monsieur Z was a lot better 2 - 3 years ago than today.
Unlike today, where Z puts his own personal politics in his videos, his videos from the past were all Alt-History, without his own personal politics and were actually really good.
To me it seemed like his interest in alternative timelines gradually shifted into making the worst timeline his ideal.
To fit alt history into a YT worthy format (at least that was the norm back then) you really have to dumb down your perception of how history, and politics, works.
For some this seems to shift into idea that we can just bring back the, much more simple, good ol' days - and all it takes is a smart dude (which is me) with smart views.
Monsieur Z isnt worse. Its just that he makes videos about modern politics more frequently than he does before. The topics he covers are touchy, with alot of emotions attached to it because these subjects can greatly influence the decisions made in the near future which will lead to people like you and I clinging on to our believes tightly and deflecting any critisism it recieves. On top of that, Monsieur Z is someone who isnt afraid of sharing his views and believes even if it means angering his viewers. Thats why disagreeing with him hurts so bad
@@darrylerren8185 It is but another factor is that people do not have expectations for regular history themed UA-camrs (who are not doing political apologia) to insert takes about current issues in a partisan manner, so Monsieur Z and WhatifAltHist get into hot water for inserting their current/partisan takes.
@@inovakovsky Very true. This happened to a youtuber named Second Thought, an educational youtuber who 5 years ago makes videos about science and space but now all his videos are about politics and socialism, I actually disagree with alot of his views. I dont hate him dont get me wrong, its just that I no longer find those videos entertaining.
@@darrylerren8185 That's cool and all, but the man supported eugenics.
I personally have my reservations on Monsieur Z. Videos from this time were fine but his more recent ones have taken a turn. But if you want to see more than don’t let me and others stop you. You’ll probably notice some things if you keep watching him. Nonetheless thank you for another alternate history video.
Monsieur Z has been more open about his political views more recently and while I disagree with his political views, I’m still a fan of his channel nonetheless, mainly because I really like his alternate history videos.
What kind of turn?
"His more recent ones have taken a turn."
That's code for "his politics are not the same as mine"...
His political views should be irrelevant, as long as the facts are factual and conclusions extrapolated from those facts are reasonable. Plus, this is a "what if" scenario, so it is highly subjective anyway. Thinking it "should" be objective is ludicrous.
@@abrahamlincoln937 and though (I assume) you are more "liberal" (or at least less libertarian), since he is a more alternative history as long as factual it should not make a difference.
His "less open" political views (and if you think they are less "open" it's just that you are more observant) are irrelevant.
@@noneatall9060 No that’s not. Vlogging through history would be politics aren’t the same as mine as he’s more conservative than me. But unlike Monsier Z he puts more effort into his videos and doesn’t use them as a pipeline for racism and xenophobia. Vlogging may be more conservative than me but he seems like a good guy and backs up his views even if I disagree with some with research and facts . I can watch videos by someone who’s politics are more conservative than me but Monseir z especially now is not that. Monsieur Z is extreme and his racism and nationalism has been shown in his videos and how he views people not from America or Europe. He keeps going on about a possibility of how any day now theUk Canada and Australia will join in some conservative Union because they’re old white and conservative ignoring the connections to the rest of the commonwealth.The man did a video saying Wilson did nothing wrong. Just watch his videos about how South Africa will collapse and you can see the racism. He says the only reason Native American exist still today is because white people gave them technology. And during his demographic crisis video he said that Germany is letting in too many immigrants to replace old prosper and that they’re too lazy just taking unemployment benefits. The list could go on and on.
I think a failure at D-Day assumes the German were in any way ready to stop an Allied Invasion in 1944. A large portion of the German units on the beaches itself were understrength garrison units, with poor training and poor morale. The Germans were relying on the panzer divisions to stop the Allied advance, but the Allies Air and Naval power would likely have negated the effectiveness of these units.
Yeah any what if scenario of Germany winning needs to go as far back as 1940 and by that point why not just rewrite the entire war
Hit my head with a shoebox quite a few times at the errors. For example," Chief Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Harris had been a strong believer that tactical bombing raids on German cities would ultimately bring about German surrender." He believed in STRATEGIC bombing of German cities. Strategic bombing involves attacking the enemies industry, population and economy from the air whereas TACTICAL bombing is that done directly supporting land operations.
Love your channel! Have you ever read Arthur Herman's Douglas MacArthur: American Warrior? It's a very fair and balanced book that gave me a deeper appreciation of Macarthur and how important he was. Makes me wonder how different things would have been had he been elected President. Keep up the great work!
Alternative history stuff is undeniably entertaining no matter what
I think many decisive battles are less decisive than they are purported to have been, but I wouldn't rule out the existence of them all together. Especially when it comes to naval battles. In fact, for a long time naval doctrine relied heavily on forcing decisive battles as their major tactical aim.
Depends on the country. "Decisive battles" if won against a nation like the US, who can repair/rebuild its ships lost in weeks to even days do not matter. Decisive battles say against Japan, like the battle of midway, are devastating because of their industrial capacity. Japan would never regain its carriers lost in midway, so the decisiveness only matters proportional to the nation. Now if you somehow destroyed most of US naval production at once, that would be decisive proportional to the US's capacity.
I’d like to see your reaction to Potential History’s “Why Japan Surrendered”
More reactions to potential history's videos would be great
I don't think the failure of the Normandy invasion would've slowed down the Soviet advance very much. The Germans couldn't just transfer all their units in France to the Eastern Front, they still had to defend the coastline against further invasions. Perhaps they would've been able to free some reserves for the Eastern Front, but I still think Operation Bagration would've devastated Army Group Center, paving the way for a soviet advance into Poland and ultimately Germany. And with Romania switching sides, the Soviet conquest of Hungary was ensured. So I think the failed western invasion would've prolonged the war for a few months at maximum, giving the western allies just enough time to use their nuclear weapons on Germany, as it was originally intended. I think Churchill would've given this new weapon a chance before resorting to the biochemical option, as it would've meant a lower danger of retaliation. The Allies had already singled out German cities as potential targets for the nuclear bombs, even in our timeline.
Yep. The Operation Bagration was not a single beating Wehrmacht would have in the East in the summer of 1944. By the time of Overlord AG "North" was already retreting from Leningrad and Novgorod, Operation "Bagration" was set to start in June and Soviet push to the Dniepr (and crossing it in several places) was scheduled to begin in August. All three battle were massive Ls for Germans so I doubt that any reinforcements from the West (as limited as they are) would help Germany to avoid ALL of them.
Yep! Sounds right to me.
I agree with you. Throughout the entire war Germany stationed around 75-80% of their entire army on the eastern front. Which hovers around 3-4 million soldiers at all times.
In 1944-1945 the Soviets outnumbered the germans 2 to 1, increasing to almost 4 to 1.
At this time the German army was at such a dire state that even the Soviets were better equipped.
Adding a couple hundred thousands men from the west definitely would not have made a difference. Something which wouldn't even be feasible, since it would mean leaving the west undefended.
Germany lost the war at the battle of Stalingrad. There was no coming back from it.
I am pretty sure that Rommel did in fact command the D-Day Defense for a while at least, he commanded 2 Armies in the region, but overall theater command was with von Rundstedt.
And of course he got injured early on and then swept up in the aftermath of the failed coup attempt.
The use of biological and chemical weapons by the UK was definitely on the table for Britain since the 30's. The initial idea was due to the concern that Germany could use one in the UK so the CID (committee of imperial defence) wanted the ability to retaliate with it's own weapons. From 1940 to the late 50's the British government set up top secret lab and field tests for foot and mouth disease, anthrax dysentery,cholera, typhoid and others.(One such facility that is very controversial and still operating today called Porton Down was one of these sites) They also started experimenting on chemical weapons which one of them would develop to become Sarin.
There was some crazy ideas during ww2 to use such weapons, one early idea was spreading foot and mouth disease to cattle and sheep in western in Europe to damage Germany's meat supply line and morale which thankfully never happened.
For napoleon Waterloo wasn’t a decisive loss but his invasion of Russia was the turning point.
He probably should've started with this video first rather than beginning with one that was literally a Woodrow Wilson version of the "Griffith did nothing wrong" meme. I like this channel and Monsieur Z and would like to see more reactions in the future.
I love Mr. Z! Thanks!
Last time I was this early, Germany was ruled by Charlemagne.
I was earlier, ask Arminius!
Awesome video as usual Sam!
Thank you for reviewing this indian history video Mr. Nixon! I would love to see more on India keep it up! 👍
5:10 I think no matter what, Germany loses the second world war. Nothing could make this different. Lend Lease was essential to British survival, but not to Soviet survival. Sure, it was very helpful to the Soviets, but I am certain without Lend Lease the USSR still wins, just with heavier fighting and losses. Every Soviet would die fighting, I think the point at which any victory against the Soviets is even possible is not realistic even with no western aid. Germany would lose to the Soviets; their manpower, morale, industry and geography was not something the Germans and allies could combat. Nothing would stop Operation Barbarossa either, the main goal of the German Leadership was their eastern empire, something they had no intention of sacrificing. With the British as no impending threat and no
foresight on why invading the USSR so soon might be a bad idea, it was inevitable war with the Soviets was going to happen around where it did. Japan, on the other hand, could have kept some of their gains for sure if the USA never intervened. Most likely though, they fall to the USSR too.
Hi, Chris, that was very interesting. I agree that most battles don't change the outcome of a war, if Napoleon had won at Waterloo there would have been wars of the eighth, nineth and tenth coalition in fact as many as it took. The same with D Day if it had failed the allies wouldn't have packed up and asked for peace terms. What these victories did do was shorten the duration of the war and therefore save lives.
I'm not convinced the Balkans would have been the site of an alternate invasion I think southern France would have been much more likely.
It's an interesting thought would chemical, biological or nuclear weapons hae been used in Europe and I really can't decide on an answer. I believe that at the time there was only a very limited supply of nuclear weapons so if they were used in Europe they would not have been available in Japan which would seriously have lengthened that conflict.
I can clear up one point the UK general election would not have happened until the war in Europe had ended, that was agreed at the time of the wartime coalition so the election would have been delayed until then.
"I'm not convinced the Balkans would have been the site of an alternate invasion" Churchill did lobby for landing in the Balkans very actively as he saw it as opportunity to cut off Soviet advances in the area. So, there is a slim chance that if Overlord failed, he would succeed in persuading Roosevelt to have Balkan landing a go.
Regarding using Nukes on Germany. That was US intention from the very beginning of Manhattan project, so it's definitely a possibility.
I could definitely see Churchill being desperate enough to use anthrax, but I don’t know if nuclear weapons would have been used, given that those were in the US arsenal, not the British one.
P.s. Who’s Chris? Is “Chris” Sam Nixon’s middle name?
My uncle served aboard the Liberty Ship SS John Harvey as a naval gunner. Its cargo on the last voyage included a supply of mustard gas bombs, to be used in the European theater if Germany used chemical weapons first. The ship arrived at the port city of Bari, Italy in late November 1943. The port was backed up, and the presence of those bombs so Top Secret that the British port commander was not told about them. The port was bombed on 2 December 1943 by the Luftwaffe. The John Harvey took a direct hit, and the explosion shock wave actually killed citizens in the town. The smell of garlic was one of the clues to the local hospitals dealing with the aftermath that there were some victims of mustard gas poisoning. Churchill was ready to blame the Germans for using chemical weapons in the attack if the news got out. But it was kept a secret for more than 25 years.
I just realized it is exactly 79 years to the day of the Bari attack, so I honor his sacrifice, Seaman First Class Glenn Earl Smith, aged 19 years.
This was some good Indian History, thank you Sam!
Interesting video. I agree that Dragoon wouldn't have been abandoned so easily. The original vid mentioned Eisenhower, but it didn't really address Montgomery who was commander of Overlord's ground forces. It also didn't mention Patton (sidelined as a diversion), or how de Gaulle would have taken bypassing France (not well).
One thing I've noticed about the "d--day failed" speculation is that thought is rarely given to when it failed. A failure to open a beach looks very different in terms of lost men and material than a successful German counter-attack later on. The same follow-on units to exploit a northern landing would have still been available, and if an intact port was taken (the way Marseille and Toulon were IRL) they wouldn't have the same logistical hurdles the northern landings initially had to deal with.
If you want to talk about the Japanese surrender you should watch potentials history's video on it he goes over how much he thinks the two played a role the nukes and the invasion by the soviets its a pretty interesting video in my opinion.
My player name is Deeday in Overwatch. Was in matches while listening, healing my teams. Was a blast hearing you say "d-day" next to me. 🤘
3:20 Midway is a decent example of a turning point when Japan went from at level or better to the US than decidedly behind, but similar to your other points, didn’t change the trajectory of the war.
Regarding the question about weather or not Churchill might be voted out of power, no. There was not a single chance that Churchill would be voted out. Because back when France fell at the early parts of the war, the two parties of Britain, the labor and the Conservative Party, actually joined up into one coalition together, and both agreed to suspend general elections until after the war was over. Churchill was voted out because the war was already over and the labors pulled out of the coalition.
Sir's Reaction Face on thumbnail is Op 😂😂😂
30:21 earlier in the video, this came up *not pictured, Churchill wanted a new Austria-Hungary Federation as a buffer. He pictured it with that change
I agree with Sam here lol. If D-Day fails it only changes the Soviet / western influences in post war Europe. To what degree it fails ……changes that outcome. If the invasion fails with moderate to low casualties, and air superiority remains. There’s a D-Day 2 or a stronger push through the alps from the south and maybe that is a success. At that point how far west is the Soviet Union? It all matters.
I was just thinking about hearts of iron the entire time.
Love this guy's content. Seems so smart and level-headed. And while he displays a sense of humor, he does not try to upstage his own with silly gags and visual gimmicks.
Hey, Chris. I wanted to elaborate on your takes and maybe with minor/soft criticism and recommendations. Yes, 1900-1950 is the historical era that I specialise in. On a side note Monsieur Z sounds like Cody form Alternate History Hub.
4:50 Lend Lease was critical, though it is a little exaggerated in terms of direct war effort. The primary benefit was simply trucking to transport Soviet troops. However, most the time, they still used horses but just not as much as the Wehrmacht because only 400,000 trucks were transported out of millions mobilised. The Use sent tanks but the Soviets mostly used them for training and rarely use them in combat. They did use foreign-manufactured aircraft (11,000 while the Soviets manufactured 157,000) produced though.
However, I would agree with Potential History, whom you reacted to, that without Lend-Lease, the Soviets would still win but longer and bloodier, hence the Soviets would prefer maintaining Lend-Lease instead of ensuring an invasion of France (that would entail a decrease in aid).
5:30 I think that "what country won the war" is loaded since it is hard to objectively measure which stats are valuable, i.e. over 2/3 of German deaths were against the Soviets while the Allies inflicted more 1/3 damage on the Luftwaffe and German industry.
8:17 Rommel was field marshal only for that part of France and its defenses, but I think you meant that anyhow.
14:40 Not so much as a comment for you but for the original vid. The primary reason for UK to prefer the Balkans is the reason why they were adamant to land in Italy in 1943: the UK wants to attack the "periphery" of Europe, i.e. Norway, in order to prevent a repeat of WW1 in France, with Somme and Passchendaele coming to mind (IMO, the slow progress of the Italian campaign, ironic for the UK, is way more comparable). I call this mentality WW1 syndrome, named after "Vietnam Syndrome" or the mentality of avoiding any military could that could be a repeat, however very unlikely in realities, in the advancement in military technology and strategy alone, after of the war.
18:25 Even if the Germans were able to manufacture jets in this scenario, Germany would still lack the fuel to use them in significant numbers, especially when the Soviets occupied Romania, a major source of petroleum, by late 1944. Potential History, in his iconic video on Germany could not vids, made the same point for the hypothetical of manufacturing more tanks and aircraft of the current models.
23:00 The Soviets only intervened in Yugoslavia by moving to the capital, Belgrade, due to its proximity to the Romanian border, so the Partisans took over when the Germans retreated, which was how communist Enver Hoxha (infamous for building bunkers on the Albanian coast) took over. The only outcome of the UK invasion in summer 1944 would be that the chances of Greece falling into civil war (between the Communists and the resurrected pro-UK government) would be rendered unlikely since Greece fell into civil during a transition that occurred once the Germans simply retreated (UK and empire landed). The Armchairs Historian has a video about the transition and civil war.
23:56 The Americans for sure wanted an invasion in southern France, but the UK would prefer the Balkans because the UK, or at least Churchill, were hesitant for having an invasion of France be top priority for 1944 and already expressed interest in the Balkans, in which the Americans opposed this in a documented by Dr. David Reynolds titled World War Two: 1942 and Hitler's Soft Underbelly (free on UA-cam).
24:30 By late 1944, the Soviets actually entered Belgrade to prop up the Partisan as the official Yugoslav government while non-communist resistance groups were next to non-existent for the UK to prop up, with the Chetniks no longer receiving aid when they decided to collaborate with the Germans, so there be no divided Yugoslavia nor civil war. At most they UK may remove the Partisans and return the pre-1941 monarchy (at most).
25:11 Clement Attlee, in terms of foreign policy, is hardly any different from Churchill. The cabinet under Churchill, called the "war cabinet" was actually bi-partisan with Labour ministers, so there was minimal division in terms of waging the war. Keep in mind, the UK joined NATO (when it began in 1949) under Attlee, so he practically anti-Soviet/anti-communist (hence, why began the suppression of Malaysian communists in the Malay Emergency). That and Attlee let UK's campaign in Burma continue without interference. The only difference in Attlee's foreign policy, from Churchill's, was that he was willing to give India dominion status (like in Canada and Australia).
26:30 Potential History, made a recent video, after being inactive for over a year, in which he argued that it is a false dichotemy to argue whether it was the US or the Soviets that made Japan surrender. He argued that Japan surrendered because the Japanese relaised that they could not inflict massive casualties and stalemate on both the Americans and Soviets, regardless of their military and civilian "scarifies". Therefor, the motivation behind surrender was not an "either or" situation but both functioned as one underlying reason.
28:00 Actually, the Soviets agreed to attacked Japanese occupied Manchuria, Korea, and Sakhilin & Kuryl islands (given to Japan from Russia after the Ruso-Japanese War) three months after VE day because the US suggested it. In this scenario, the Soviets may have had too much influence in Europe, so Truman would not want the Soviets to have influence in Northern China and Korea.
28:21 I disagree with Z on the Chinese Civil War resumption because the Kuomintang lost due to US intel dropping the ball in their aid while the Kuomintang faced opposition from local peasantry due to stationing in their areas (requisitioning food, which was standard practiced in developing countries) for literal years. That and the Kuomintang was weakened in conventional warfare while the Communists developed skills in mostly guerilla tactics to the point "People's War" is a corner-stone of Maoist political theory. However, Korea would be pro-US. Chinese support in the Vietnam reduced from 1969 partially because of the Viet Mihn was more pro-Soviet when China began distancing itself from the USSR (due to fears of becoming a satellite to the Soviets when Mao had contentions over supposed "revisionism" [deviations from Marxist practice] in the USSR). 1968 was when the US cranked support for South Vietnam and the North won years later when Chinese aid was decreasing. I would concede that it was debatable because even with decreases the Viet Mihn received million of ammunition and thousands of artillery pieces (but I am sure if they represent a majority of the total resources used). Keep in mind, the Viet Mihn was using guerilla tactics to compensate for lack of industry and limited aid, which cause the "quagmire" that inspired the US to eventually give up.
31:00 Decolonisation would occur because of the limited ability of the UK (a victory) to suppress mutinies and demonstrations after the war.
I appreciate your feedback, as I put time into making this.
Small addition to your first statement:
Delivering arms and vehicles wasn't even main articles of land-lease. Allies supplied almost 100% of Soviet industry demand rare metals, titanium and aluminium; 70% of the Red Army demand for gasoline, powder and explosives; and about a half of the Red Army demand for foodstuff.
That allows Soviets later to downplay allied assistance by claiming that "Allies supplied only 10% of weapon with which WE won the war" and convenietly "forgetting" that almost every soviet-made tank was made with allies' alloys, fuelled by allies' gasoline, shot shells filled with allies' explosives, and its crew sustained by allies' spam and beans.
@@090giver090 Yeah, I read that there was significant amount of refined feul sent, but I was not sure in how proportional it was to Soviet petroleum production, which large enough to make the USSR among the top producers of petroleum.
@@inovakovsky Before and during the war most USSR oil production was concentrated in Maikop and Baku oil fields that, although significant, were logistically hampered due to German advances in 1942. Siberian oil fields were discovered and exploited only after the war.
More importantly, even being one of the top producers of crude oil Soviet Union struggles with technologies and capacity for refining this crude oil into fuel (especially high-octane aviation fuels) and this is where Allies filled the gap mostly.
@@090giver090 I read that much of Soviet petroleum related imports were high-octane fuel. The Soviets used deiseal, instead of refined gasoline for their tanks.
Nice to see something other than Indian history from Mr. Sam Nixon!
Talking about turning moments reminds me talkernate history. Some of those videos point out how some things in history were seemingly inevitable due to a multitude of factors
18:21 Great video! Small point of contention - the Me262 was actually a terrible plane when compared to the Gloster Meteor, which was made operational only days after the 262. It couldn't turn worth a damn, it killed inexperienced pilots on takeoff, its engines blew up after a couple of hours, and Willy Messerschmitt couldn't help but give in to the age-old phrase that makes manufacturing engineers drink themselves to death - "wouldn't it be great if..." resulting in a number of useless variants with awful build quality. Lord HardThrasher made a video which summarises everything better than me.
The US was very aware of the potential for chemical weapon warfare. D-Day invasion jeeps even had white stars painted on their hoods with a paint that would change to a different color in the presence of chemical agents. In reading "D-Day Though the eyes of German Soldiers", there are several accounts of 'special' mines that were planted around natural armor choke points and capable of clearing over a square kilometer of terrain each. They got overrun too quickly to use, and no one seems to know what they contained - some say a type of fuel-air explosive or Sarin analogue.
I think the main sticking point with the whole "who made Japan surrender" thing is kind of like how surrendering German soldiers would run toward the Americans and British rather than stay and try their luck with the Soviets. They knew the Soviets had nothing good in mind for them. By Japan making a bigger deal of what the US did rather than what Russia was _going_ to do, they avoided having to kneel for the Soviets. It was planning for the future rather than a pure reactionary moment.
I don't think the Soviets would've invaded mainland Japan. For some reason I feel that if Japan was going to be invaded it would've been a triple front with the US leading the charge. Japan was the US main enemy and the target for its furry. Allowing the Soviets to take any Japanese territory especially after they took Berlin, would've been out of the question.
@@joeclaridy I'm sorry your comment was quite unclear is it american furries going to japan or japanese furries going to america
I think that the US inclination to fix the problem rather than seek punitive measures probably hastened the end of the war while a peaceful solution was available. Since the US somehow managed to conclude it's own Civil War without a drawn out guerilla resistance against federal occupation, it came naturally for them to implement the Marshall Plan in the same spirit. It's multi-ethnic heritage didn't hurt as mediator on occasion.
27:24 even without resources Japan would've still fought and this has been proven, their fanaticism would keep the war going.
Hey Sam, when are we getting the Napoleonic Wars by Epic History?
I really like how things were better in Asia and worse in Europe. I was not expecting that, but it’s and interesting thought experiment.
He’s honestly pretty good for the most part. Gives perspectives others simply don’t which I like
Sam, thank you for expanding your reactions to include western european history.
Nice video Sam, looking forward to that next Indian History video!!!
Sam reacting to Indian history through a D-day lens.
Lmao this is going to be a hilarious meme throughout his channel
This is amazing I just rewatched your reaction to the WoodWil Video as a goof 2 hours ago. Weird how things work out hahaha
Regarding chemical weapons, there was actually a German air raid on Bari in Italy in December 1943 which hit ships carrying mustard gas. A lot of people died from poison gas, and of course there was a huge cover up. All so that the Allies could respond in kind if the Germans resorted to chemical weapons.
Pointing out some historical inaccuracies in this video, having now watched the entirety of it:
As Mr. Chris has already pointed out, Normandy not being the decisive turning point of the war, Balkans allied invasion seeming implausible, etc. Since they're already pointed out I won't dive too deep into these.
The ending of colonialism not as much the result of "US pressure" or "war promises" as it is the result of the cost to maintain these colonies and popular discontent with the colonies, as pointed out in the comments.
And some more that haven't been pointed out yet:
25:35 Sweden and Finland would become Soviet-aligned and fall to Communist pressure in this timeline.
Not necessarily. Finland in our world remained consistently neutral, independent, and democratic despite not being a part of NATO nor the EU during the Cold War AND sharing a massive border with the Soviets. In our timeline, appeasement and diplomatic concession made this possible, with the mutual understanding being that Finland would not join Western alliances in exchange for independence and neutrality.
We can imagine that in this timeline Sweden and Finland, despite being surrounded by the Soviets' Sphere of Influence, would still maintain neutrality via appeasement and trade agreements, just like how Sweden and Switzerland survived an Axis Europe in WWII that surrounded them via such strategies too.
27:25 "Restlessness from within the Japanese population"
This is simply untrue. The vast majority of Japanese civilians believed in the Japanese war effort, militarism, and believed that the ideals of dying for the country was the most glorious thing a Japanese person can ever do until the bitter end, and would die to defend such ideals. Such is proven by the brutal Japanese civilian campaigns against American island hoppings, and many historical accounts evidently suggesting that once the Japanese Emperor announced the unconditional surrender, the vast majority of the Japanese civilians were said to be weeping on the streets at the news. The reason Japan surrendered was not because of its civilians, but because certain factions within the high command realized the only realistic option left for Japan was to surrender to avoid certain destruction.
28:16 China would return to nationalist rule because of an Allies dominated post-war Japanese occupation zone and no Soviet invasion of Manchuria.
Being a huge Chinese history geek, this is one of the points that I will most heavily criticize him on for simply being implausible compared to alternative suggestions. Since we assume that in this alternative timeline everything happened as it should have happened in our timeline until D-day, the fate of the nationalist government in China would have already been sealed. The Chinese Communists employed a strategy of saving up strength and mass propaganda to win over the agarian populace with the occasional guerilla campaigns against the Japanese long before 1944.
The nationalists by 1944 were a disorganized, tired, unpopular mess in China, and if not for the Japanese invasion that still posed a threat to all of China, would've been ousted long ago by the Chinese Communists. The Kuomintang military had no real centralized command structure, were fractured and divided by individual interests, and much of the military were lacking strength and equipment due to their war against the Japanese compared to the CCP who had saved up all their strength until now. Warlords de-facto ruled much of China, bandits and partisans were plaguing the countryside, and rural civilian support when asked about supporting the CCP vs the Kuomintang was overwhelmingly in favor of the CCP. The Communists already controlled much of the rural areas in Japanese occupied China by 1944. Yes, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the subsequent handover of Manchurian lands and thus the Manchurian industry to the CCP was important, but that pales in comparison to the massive amounts of support the Soviets were already sending to the CCP before then.
Sure, we can imagine that in an allied-occupied Manchuria and North Korea scenario with the subsequent handover of Manchuria to the nationalist Chinese, the Kuomintang would've been much more powerful and tougher in the ensuing civil war, but the CCP would've still won via the "encircling the cities from rural areas" strategy. And who said the Soviets would not support the CCP in the civil war even if the Kuomintang took over Manchuria? They would've still had supply routes via air and via Mongolian/Sinkiang land routes to the CCP.
All things considered, the best case _maybe plausible_ scenario that I can see here is the CCP and the Kuomintang coming to a stalemate and China being divided. But it remains the most likely scenario that the CCP would win the Chinese civil war. And regardless, in both of the scenarios, it is likely that Vietnam would've still happened as a struggle between the pro-West camp and the pro-Soviet camp. The Korean War may not have happened but a Communist Chinese attack supported by the Soviets
to secure a Korean buffer state is still totally foreseeable.
All of all, having now watched the video, this only confirms my understanding that Mr. Z only focuses on the scenario and not on its plausibility, yet presents the story in an dramatized way and as if it is totally plausible when it is mostly pure fiction. 😅
With anthrax, it's worse than fire bombing because it hangs around years after the attack, kind of like nuke or landmines
You're not even damaging any infrastructure, and when bombing cities, you won't hit many soldiers either. That's just murdering lots of bystanders in the hope that the Great Dictator and his cronies decide to give up out of compassion for their fellow citizens.
Mr. Chris, don't feel pressured by people to view Mr. Z videos. I personally think diving into Mr. Z's videos will only provide a breeding ground for historical myths and inaccuracies. I enjoy your independent content and reactions to factually-driven UA-camrs like Oversimplified and the Armchair Historian much more.
Personally, I feel like Monsieur Z, Whatifalthist and the UA-camrs of the likes tend to put an overemphasis on fantasy material and argumentation without much consideration for historical accuracy and plausibility. They typically come up with an interesting scenario or argument and thinks to themselves: "hmm, this can make for some great video content!", but fails to provide any in-depth evidence or historical knowledge to back their videos back. It would be considered maybe mistakes if they provided bad historical background once or twice, but these UA-camrs are at the point where they mostly consistently provide inaccurate information and bad arguments. It's all surface level arguments and hypothesis, with cherrypicked surface-level 'evidence' to support their case instead of providing an historical and neutral look into history. Their surface understanding and research may impress the history casuals, but as proven by videos like the Woodrow Wilson video and stuff relating to Ukraine from Mr. Z, and the Turkish Empire wet dreams from Whatifalthist's future prediction videos, more educated historians and history geeks like you, Mr, Chris (lol), would fail to be impressed by these fallacy-filled videos.
I once saw an comment on one of Whatifalthist's videos (paraphrasing here) that I thought best described these types of internet historian UA-camrs: "This is a classic example of someone who knows everything, yet understands nothing." It's quite literally the Dunning-Kruger effect at play. And so I personally think giving more publicity and platform to these people will only promote a rising wave of "Pseudo-history" as I call it and create grounds for myths to be spread.
Im Interested to see what you think of the alternate history hub,
@@chheinrich8486 Unlike Z, Cody always stresses that his scenarios are pure fiction that couldn't have happened in reality (and often provide reasons why and what historical things he omits to exercise his "artistic lisense"). Z (much like History Channel nowadays) present his timelines in a more sensational way as great possibilities that have were nearly avoided by a single pivoting moment IRL.
@@chheinrich8486 cody is the best of the three, he isn't racist like the other two.
@@dremore96 who are they "racist" against, specifically?
@@TigerWave01 wiah praised the assimilation of Hispanic Americans into broader American society and African American's cultural influence so he probably isn't racist
27:38 No Monsieur Z is very wrong here: "An overall lack of preparation on the mainland islands." There were extensive preparations. One reason the Soviets were able to overrun the Japanese forces in Manchuria so quickly is that the veteran divisions stationed there had been pulled out and replaced with green divisions, the veterans having been reassigned to defend the home islands. All school classes 7th grade and up were dissolved and the children brought into either direct military or military support roles. Thousands of gallons of aircraft fuel, as well as aircraft, were squirreled away in dispersed locations. The Japanese knew the main threat were the Americans as the Soviets had no means of conducting an invasion of their home islands.
Churchill would not be defeated in an election in this scenario for one key reason - the British PM was the one to choose when an election would be held. With Germany clearly about to fall, Chruchill decided the time was right and went for it. Unless and until Germany is similarly about to fall in this timeline, the election will not be called.
If D-day failed I wouldn't be here. My grandfather would have most likely died there and my dad wouldn't have been born.
You mentioned Dresden, and I'm curious if you've seen Potential Histories Dresden video. Might be worth a look!
I wonder if a failed D-day invasion might have led to some interesting developments in Italy. If Dragoon was called off, which does seem likely, there might well have been amphibious landings in Northern Italy in late 44, or early 45, using the troops meant for Dragoon, as well as potentially some of the D-Day forces, though they might have been better used to maintain a threat to the Channel coast and keep Wehrmacht forces in place in France. A credible threat into Austria or southern Germany might have been possible, or cutting off the German forces in Italy.
I seriously doubt that Dragoon would have been called off even if Overlord fails. I more inclined to think it would merely become a main effort instead of Overlord.
@@090giver090 The idea of a reinforced Dragoon landing is also interesting. It could happen, but without a D-Day success, landing in Southern France on the planned time table with the planned forces would have been very risky. Maybe riskier than the Normandy invasion itself. With a failed D-Day, I believe that the landings in Southern France, if they did happen, would be delayed, by months at least, to allow for additional strength to be shifted in support of a beefed up Dragoon effort.
Hey VTH, would there be a chance you can check out Mr.Beat’s video about Herbert Hoover video “the terrible president who saved millions of lives”
25:35 Actually a good question is does Britain opt to vote out Churchill whilst still at war? Me I doubt it. They only were able to "afford that feeling" once the war was over. Remember in the alternate timeline the Brits are still fighting Nazism and are fearful of Communism and therefore not likely to take to another "ism" in socialism which many saw as Communism's "slow sister."
I find the Balkans alternative history unconvincing. When Operation Torch had already put the Americans in North West Africa. So they could channel supplies through North West Africa without entering the Mediterranean. A lot shorter route than supporting an invasion of the Balkans through the Mediterranean. Plus fighting conditions in Italy would have discouraged them from fighting in the Balkans. More likely that Hitler would have moved his forces from Northern France to the Eastern Front, and the already prepared invasion of Southern France would have been beefed up by the allies.
React to History Legends, Whatifalthist, and Saga of Tanya the Evil.
Love your content. Have you considered replaying ugcw with the j&p mod updates? Your campaigns were always great
I think we don't talk often enough about just how close the Normandy landings came to a colossal failure. It wasn't a sure thing until much later in the campaign that the Allies would win. Look at the first day: aside from holding the beaches, the Allies failed all of their first-day objectives. Carentan, Saint-Lo, Bayeux, and Caen all remained in German hands, only Juno and Gold beaches had been linked, and all five would not be joined until nearly a week later.
Can you please, for once, make a history video that is NOT about India Sam...
25:37 It's hard to see Churchill surviving the 1945 elections. Eventhough he is popular, the rest of the conservative party is not. Making it worse for them is the fact that so many urban Labor voters moved to the countryside thus flipping a number of traditional conservative seats.
One thing to be considered is that the US could have suspended Lend Lease to the soviets. Officially they could claim they needed resources to launch another invasion. But in reality it could have caused the batter to stalemate. Until the Western Allies could get the resources to pincer France again.
19:21 I remember some theory of a plan of the US drop the first atomic bomb on Hamburg, if we (Germany) hadn't surrendered early enough.
Regarding the huge stockpiles of German chemical weapons, after the war the Allies mostly just dumped them in the Baltic, and they continue to be a huge issue and a potential ticking time bomb. The country most affected is Denmark.
This brings up a point in my mind. If the UK had been occupied would the US have persisted, or even begun, actions against Germany? The defensive advantage of the Atlantic would also be an obstruction against invading Europe.
America was in the fight via lend-lease long before it had boots on the ground in combat. Stalin himself said as much. If you think of WWII as a boxing match, lend-lease is like America's jab punch. The one you often throw just to keep the other guy off balance.
25:02 I wonder if Churchill would have not been ousted in summer of 1945 if war in Europe was still on-going in the alternate time line.
Tango Bravo: Churchill was a great war-time leader but a different type of leader was/is needed in peace-time.....he was too right-wing for the latter situation. The same thing happened to Wellington in the 19th century.....he was great for fighting the French but when he became PM he didn't last long.
19:20 Poison Gas? So then if Churchill were to go that route he'd had been in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol thereby making anything akin to the Nuremburg tribunals much more difficult to justify as a major state actor can be accused of a clear violation of international law.
Oh boy this is going to be an interesting experience.
Why is there so many indian history comments?
it was a bit of a running gag when this video was posted
What if when the sentry had called the command they would have taken it seriously and sent support? Weren't all of German high command unavailable for some reason?
The soviets razed the Kwantug army they were crushed like never before in the war in a matter of months, the land army stationed on mainland Asia who was basically independent from government and other sectors of Japan military (navy was razed by US). For the military, the USSR was a top reason to surrender, for the civilians and part of governemt it was the bomb, which at first glance didn't seemed worse than the Tokio bombings. Anyhow, the japanease pictured that US wouldn't risk millions of soldiers for an invasion, but then the Red Army was flocking on the east asia harbours, they wouldn't care the cost of the invasion. So the point is not what made Japan surrender, but rather to whom, having a huge army with no regard for sacred imperial figures convinced the Japanease to surrender to US, Japan was very complex, a mess if you will, and both were equally decisive to convince all the spheres of Japanease civil and military society that this was the end, and it was better to do so through USA, who didn't wanted 2 millions of dead soldiers for the empereor's head.
What about Trafalger? With control of the sea Great Britian and her empire could basically hold out for ever and Napoleon would eventually run out of resources fighting everyone over and over again.
Agree with you pretty much across the board. Allies invade southern France in October 1944 and push rowards Bordeaux. Hitler evacuates to Magdeburg in June 1945 as USSR approaches Berlin. This buys him only a month or two and in the end the main difference is that East Germany is the physically and population-wise larger portion, including 100% of Berlin.
Congrats on not hitting yourself with a shoe box 👏🏻
Examples of battles that were decisive, Bosworth and Hastings.
And the battle of the Isonso River during WW1!
Regarding the political implications of a failed invasion:
Let's not forget, that this was the SECOND amphibious invasion ordered by Churchill.
The first had been Gallipoli which at that time was still fresh in people's memory: The largest amphibiuous landing in history up to that point, which had been an utter failure and a horrible blood bath. This fateful decision had ended Churchill's first political career in total disgrace.
And now here he is, ordering a huge amphibiuous assault AGAIN. But this time on a much larger scale against an enemy who knew they were coming and had had time to prepare the beaches for years.
If that had been a failure AGAIN, this very likely would have ended Churchill's political career for good.
(Churchill was not politically unassailable during the war. Britain was perfectly capable of getting rid of a Prime Minister even during war time. Chamberlain had been forced to resign because of the failure of the Norway campaign. The same could well have happened to Churchill.).
5:14 bursts INTO laughter
I really appreciate your remarks about how one nation, or one battle is pivotal for the win. Yes, the three main nations, who had incredible economic power at the time did contribute much, but without the support of the smaller nations at the time. The same goes for different battles. Operation Torch could be argued as a turning point, as it is where the USA forces were seasoned, and there were lessons learned for Britain in co operation. It strengthened landings for Italy and D Day. ( a little stated fact: the Australian, Netherlands, and Canadian navies were there for naval support) The Dieppe Raid taught the Allies about amphibious assaults and what was needed to make a successful landing on D Day.
The thing about war and our world is that it is ever changing: technology, world political conditions, and alliances/ interests, call for innovation and creativity meshed with experience and intelligence.
Look at the changes in the current Russian - Ukrainian war and the cost of depending on old tactics and weapons.
Stay safe, stay sane, stay Strong Ukraine 🇺🇦
Ps. I am going to definitely watch your last video reaction to Mr. Z …… I can’t miss seeing you hit yourself with a box😉😉😉
I am pretty sure the US could win a japanese-german war solo if it maximized its conscription. 50 million men in the US had registered in the draft by the wars end, and 10 million were serving. Do you know how mind boggling that is? Germany's population was 80 million, (89 - the oppressed / genocided), half were women. There were more registered men in the US draft, then the entire men able bodied population of Germany, and the US had double the industria/munition production of Japan and Germany combined.
Personally I would believe if D-Day failed we may have seen all of Germany and maybe parts of the Benelux and Some of the Nordic Nations to be in the Warsaw Pact and if the Soviet get far enough until the Western Allies would get to Europe in France, France may even be apart of the Pact
Considering France was flirting with Communism for about 80 years at that point? It's almost surprising they *didn't* even in the real timeline.
In this universe the US and the UK didn’t research the floating harbour
One of the most important details of WW2 that doesn’t seem to be taught in school is the following.
It was not “Axis vs the Allies”. There were **three** factions, not two. Axis, Allies, and the Commiturn.
Yeah no, the soviet union originally teamed up with the axis to split europe, then after the betrail they joined up with the allies
What do you think about the effect of operation Uranus conducted by the soviets to encircle the German 6th army in Stalingrad?
Was that a decisive turning point in your assessment?
Somewhat related to this video, I think you would enjoy the video Dropping the Bomb: Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the channel Shaun. It's a very in depth look at what all the major players were thinking and doing in the lead up to and aftermath of the dropping of the atom bombs. I think it does a really good job dispelling some commmon misconceptions and providing some new angles to look at how and why the war ended as it did.
Thanks for all your reactions and insights, you really are one of my favorite history youtubers out there.