What if Germany Won at Stalingrad? - Britain's Global Empire Could Crumble

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 29 жов 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 397

  • @colder5465
    @colder5465 2 місяці тому +79

    This video is a rather rare occasion when western speakers describe the Soviet side in better light than it had actually been. Before Operation Uranus the Soviets tried many times to get to Stalingrad on the land to relieve its 62nd Army there. To no avail: they were each time repelled by mighty German artillery. One Red Army commander described the situation so in his memoirs: we had only a few hundred meters left to get to the outskirts of the city. We saw its streets! But we couldn't overcome these few hundred meters. And that was exactly because of German long range heavy artillery. So the situation threatened an impasse. The legend says that at one (among many) meetings at Soviet Stavka (High Command) right before the official duscussions started Stalin's two key figures in Stavka - Marshals Zhukov and Vasilevskiy stand aside and discussed the situation in low voice among themselves. And one of the two softly said "We need a different solution". Stalin had a very keen hearing and immediately asked them: What different solution? And so started the planning of the Operation Uranus. As to "ended bullets" for the Germans: actually they hadn't any problems with bullets exactly: there were plenty of munitions for small arms and even machine guns. That wasn't a problem. The problem was they had no heavy artillery shells. Here the speaker said about Operation Mars. Why Model could keep the Rzhev salient? Because it was no problem for him to fire up to 2000 tons of heavy artillery shells every day. The statistics were that for each Soviet heavy shell came back two or three German shells often of a heavier caliber. And airlifting such huge volumes of artillery munitions for Paulus was pure fantasy.

  • @kjm2199
    @kjm2199 2 місяці тому +151

    I always felt that Germany's best bet would have been to leave Russia alone and invade North Africa in a big way. They could have likely taken Egypt and the Suez and on to the Middle East.

    • @kevinrayner5812
      @kevinrayner5812 2 місяці тому +23

      Having virtually eliminated the Italian navy the British RN almost had freedom of the Mediterranean could the Germans have got enough supplies through? Even if they had then if the RN built up a submarine fleet and had the equivalent of the Battle of the Altantic and just sent all the German oil tankers to the bottom of the Med? Still got to get the oil up into Germany some how.

    • @eric-wb7gj
      @eric-wb7gj 2 місяці тому +29

      @@kevinrayner5812 Libyan oil hadn't been discovered at that time, you need to go to Iraq/Iran, which are huge distances away, & as you say, still get it back. The British hadn't eliminated the Italian navy, the Italian navy lacked fuel, which is why it stayed in port a lot.
      Yes, the British could have built up their submarines in the Mediterranean further.
      The Axis could have taken Egypt up to the Suez canal, but what then? it's good for the Italians, but not the Germans. Every step further East is a logistical nightmare for them, & delays the critical attack on the Soviet Union, which DID have the oil Hitler was desperate for.

    • @kevinrayner5812
      @kevinrayner5812 2 місяці тому +6

      @@eric-wb7gj My thinking was to get to the Middle East via the Suez Canal and the Red Sea or overland and link up with a southern push from Russia. But as you say logistically it was a non starter as there there would still have been the overland bit to get the oil over but I suppose they could at least get it into Southern Germany via the Black Sea and the Danube. The whole of the North Africa campaigne was really just face saving the Italians.

    • @davethompson3326
      @davethompson3326 2 місяці тому +5

      @@eric-wb7gj Yep, each side was frequently accusing the other of tainting water sources with fuel. No one made the leap of logic that it was happening quite a lot, so may have other causes.

    • @ericscottstevens
      @ericscottstevens 2 місяці тому +7

      Most of the middle east oil was still untapped and no infrastructure. Germany needed oil now and the Caucuses were not too far away. As it was Germany and the USSR were eventually going to fight, it was just a matter of when.

  • @dennisweidner288
    @dennisweidner288 2 місяці тому +39

    The Professor is misleading about oil. Middle Eastern oil fueled the British in Egypt and Egypt. But the oil for Britain itself came primarily from America.

    • @royboakes9798
      @royboakes9798 Місяць тому +3

      Including Venezuela

    • @odysseus2656
      @odysseus2656 Місяць тому +9

      In 1940, 70% of the global oil production was in the USA. 5% was in Venezuela, 20% Iraq.

    •  Місяць тому +1

      @@odysseus2656 what about kuwait and saudi?

    • @odysseus2656
      @odysseus2656 Місяць тому +5

      Developed post WW2. Indonesia did produce some since Japan wanted it. Remember the demand for oil was a lot less since most of the world had not been mechanized, and also that almost all oil was transported by ship. In 1940 the only fully mechanized army was the British one, and they had done it because they realized a third of the supplies shipped to the army in WW1 was fodder for the animals, and running tanker trucks or tanker ships, was easier. That is why for D-Day they ran a pipeline under the English channel.

    • @rdelrosso1973
      @rdelrosso1973 29 днів тому +2

      @@odysseus2656
      So only 5% in the USSR?
      That seems kind of small.

  • @johncochrane1301
    @johncochrane1301 2 місяці тому +20

    My degree is 1932-45 Europe - I LOVE what if discussions - Thank you!!!

    • @tomassmolen9443
      @tomassmolen9443 2 місяці тому

      The split armies was a mistake. The decision was made on final hour.

    • @raigarmullerson4838
      @raigarmullerson4838 2 місяці тому +1

      @@tomassmolen9443 it would not have mattered. Either way germany loses the campaign

    • @Fitness4London
      @Fitness4London Місяць тому

      Sounds like a fascinating degree course. Where are you studying? My A Level History course was Europe 1900 - 1945.

    • @jordanwilliams8040
      @jordanwilliams8040 22 дні тому

      That can't be a real degree lol

  • @BigYouDog
    @BigYouDog 2 місяці тому +29

    It makes me wonder as to what would have happened if the city of Tsaritsyn hadn't had its name changed?

    • @secretname4190
      @secretname4190 2 місяці тому +2

      The exact same thing

    • @guillaumedubos6596
      @guillaumedubos6596 Місяць тому

      The idea that Hitler somehow was fixated on the name is a common trope that has been debunked hundreds of times.

  • @EL20078
    @EL20078 2 місяці тому +60

    22:50, the Germans could not have simply bypassed the city and starved it out. They would have had to cross the Volga which was a huge river and also allocated a lot more forces to such a venture. Remember sixth army arrived at Stalingrad in an already weakened state having to fight a series of battles to get there. Secondly Soviet armies were constantly counter-attacking on the flanks meaning most of the sixth armies formations were actually on the flanks as opposed to the city itself. Thirdly German logistics were already on a shoe-string with barely enough supplies arriving along the Kalach railroad pre-encirclement, crossing a river would have broken them.

    • @bobcougar77
      @bobcougar77 2 місяці тому +11

      Totally agree. Have you followed "TIK's" series on Stalingrad? It's massive, but if I remember right he makes similar claims about the decimation of the sixth army before it reaches the city.

    • @EL20078
      @EL20078 2 місяці тому +3

      @@bobcougar77 Sure have!

    • @ericscottstevens
      @ericscottstevens 2 місяці тому +4

      The HEER started having rail traffic snags into the depths of the Ukraine. They did not realize siding stations were further away than normal Reichsbahn scale. Lack of sidings slowed everything down with traffic going to the front and trains trying to depart the frontline sector at the same time.

    • @bobcougar77
      @bobcougar77 2 місяці тому +1

      @@ericscottstevens Are you saying it was single rail track and the Germans got caught having to backtrack trains to solve head on situations?

    • @bobcougar77
      @bobcougar77 2 місяці тому +2

      @@ericscottstevens also: I've always heard about the gauge problem with the Soviet railways but I've never really known how the Germans dealt with it. Did they try to build new track, or transfer goods at the border, use horses/trucks or some combination of all. If you know of a good podcast or book on the subject I'd be interested.

  • @LeotheOrangeCat
    @LeotheOrangeCat 2 місяці тому +55

    If Germany ended up capturing the entire city, the Soviets would still launch Operation Uranus and encircle and destroy the 6th Army.

    • @Omar-vp3hd
      @Omar-vp3hd Місяць тому

      Bruh no Germans would conquered soviet union

    • @CharlieVetter-wk9hf
      @CharlieVetter-wk9hf Місяць тому +8

      But the 20 or so German divisions fighting in Stalingrad wouldn't have been there. Maybe only three Hungarian divisions holding the river at the city. So there would be all those German divisions available for other duties, like resisting Uranus.

    • @shawnbergmann2638
      @shawnbergmann2638 Місяць тому +6

      Resisting Uranus he he

    • @bigvinnie3
      @bigvinnie3 Місяць тому

      @@CharlieVetter-wk9hf exactly most could be moved to flank holding. Its still up in the air but its by now means a sure thing they soviets win.

    • @HandFromCoffin
      @HandFromCoffin Місяць тому +2

      Literally what I came here to say and I don't see how it would matter in the end.

  • @ErnaldtheSaxon
    @ErnaldtheSaxon Місяць тому +4

    The Germans lost at Stalingrad and Britain's global empire still crumbled. Choose your friends wisely.

  • @Idahoguy10157
    @Idahoguy10157 2 місяці тому +16

    If Hitler and his General listened to their own logisticians they’d have known how over ambitious conquering all of european Russia was

    • @pippodeclown
      @pippodeclown Місяць тому +1

      he knew better.

    • @panzerdeal8727
      @panzerdeal8727 11 днів тому +1

      Ukraine and Caucasus...those were the Objectives.

  • @garymango
    @garymango 2 місяці тому +2

    great channel. It deserves a lot more subscribers. Keep it up

  • @CNCTEMATIC
    @CNCTEMATIC 2 місяці тому +6

    The Stalingrad "what if?" that fascinates me is: what if the Germans had surrounded the city, pressed on to the East bank of the Volga, cut off its supply and left Chuikov to rot? The city itself was of little strategic value; the real prizes lay south east on the Caspian coast. Seems to me it was a political prize that ground down the 6th Army for no good reason.

    • @zzzxxc1
      @zzzxxc1 2 місяці тому +6

      Stalingrad held a strategic position on the Volga through which supplies moved further north up the river. Crossing the Volga to encircle Stalingrad would've left the Germans even more strung out than they were in OTL. They also couldn't have just left a city, a massive staging area for the Soviet to utilize in striking Army Group A's flank (which Army Group B was supposed to prevent), totally untouched. The real interesting question is if the 4th Panzer Army drove on Stalingrad immediately instead of being shuffled further south and then back. General von Kleist complained that this just caused a traffic jam and gave 2 extra weeks for the Soviets to dig in and muster forces.

  • @egosumhomovespertilionem
    @egosumhomovespertilionem 2 місяці тому +20

    If the Germans had won the Battle of Stalingrad, it probably would have only delayed the inevitable. Of course, that's the thing about "what ifs" and alternate histories -- you cannot fully predict, let alone comprehend the follow-on ripple effects from the hypothesized changes in history as it actually happened.

    • @luigifranceschi2350
      @luigifranceschi2350 Місяць тому +4

      I disagree, once taken Stalingrad it would have been open all the way to Astrakhan and the Caspian Sea, keeping on the left the wide and open Volga as natural barrier from any possible counterattack from the soviets. The Soviet army in the Caucasus would have been cut from food and ammo, without resupply, while the Soviet army north of the Volga and the Don would have been cut out from the fuel.
      Stalingrad is on the narrowest gap, only 50km, between the Don river and The Volga. Both very wide rovers, basically without bridges at the time, and surrounded by soft marshes impassable for heavy vehicles. If you control that gap, you control any possible movement of supplies between the Caucasus in the land and also on the rivers. That was the jugular of Russia.

  • @stevetorres76
    @stevetorres76 2 місяці тому +14

    And what if Jabba the Hutt would of been successful in killing Luke Skywalker?

    • @fett333
      @fett333 2 місяці тому +3

      No Ewoks on screen then? I am cool with that 😉

    • @stevetorres76
      @stevetorres76 2 місяці тому +2

      @@fett333 😀

    • @raigarmullerson4838
      @raigarmullerson4838 2 місяці тому

      @@stevetorres76 basically. These wehraboos are pathetic

    • @xmaniac99
      @xmaniac99 2 місяці тому +3

      Than disney would not have been facking us in the face with woke star wars

    • @stevetorres76
      @stevetorres76 2 місяці тому +1

      @@xmaniac99 yeah... there wouldn't be a bunch of clam lickers pretenting to be jedis lol ..

  • @dennisweidner288
    @dennisweidner288 2 місяці тому +3

    Not mentioned is Operation Torch (November 8). Hitler used the Luftwaffe to move and supply a substantial German Army into Tunisia and supply it. This restricted the air transport capability available to supply Stalingrad and the Germans did not have a substantial air transport capability to begin with.

  • @kennetth1389
    @kennetth1389 2 місяці тому +4

    They are overlooking that 6th army was already worn down and leaving units along the river to secure its flank before engaging stalingrad.

    • @markprange2430
      @markprange2430 Місяць тому

      Soviets held out at Serafimovich and Kremenskaya.

    • @andrewholt5659
      @andrewholt5659 19 днів тому

      Yep, no chance the Germans win.

  • @LarsRyeJeppesen
    @LarsRyeJeppesen 2 місяці тому

    Really love these. Well done. Chapeau

  • @modero6370
    @modero6370 2 місяці тому +12

    In the discussion as well as in some comments there is always coming up Hitler's "obsession with Stalingrad". I just want to mention that there is no materials whatsoever to support this. Of course once heavily engaged in Stalingrad, the city and surrounding was of strategic significance but there seems to be no first source material available to show that in Hitler's mind the name of the city was something to think about.

    • @panzerdeal8727
      @panzerdeal8727 11 днів тому

      Volga river was the target. It was a supply line for fuel to Soviet forces in the North. Problem was army group south got split in half and divided between the Volga and Maikop. [ Oil fields].

  • @grzzz2287
    @grzzz2287 2 місяці тому +14

    Love these "what-ifs"

  • @AlexanderYap
    @AlexanderYap 2 місяці тому +12

    Almost all scenarios that delay the landings of Allied forces in Southern and Western Europe would have resulted in Berlin getting nuked in 1945, and Stalin taking a bigger chunk of Europe than what happened historically.

    • @kjm2199
      @kjm2199 17 днів тому +2

      I don't think the allies would have nuked Berlin even if the had got the bomb earlier. They nuked the Japanese because at the time they were seen as Asian and more foreign and less civilized then Europeans. Dropping nukes in the middle of Europe would be whole different matter. Not saying its right, but thats the way people thought at the time.

    • @johnhallett5846
      @johnhallett5846 3 дні тому

      @@kjm2199 Actually only Truman mattered. Not people. He wrote at the time he just considered it a much bigger bomb. And its doubtful that we would have needed the bomb by then in Europe. Only if Germany could have denied the oil production there to Russia for at least six months could they have won.

  • @LeePrice-r9u
    @LeePrice-r9u 2 місяці тому +5

    Trying to take the city was the big mistake that summer.
    The Soviets needed that oil almost as much as Germany. Even if Germany doesn't take the fields in tact, denying them to the Soviets is almost as big a deal.

    • @dennisweidner288
      @dennisweidner288 Місяць тому

      What I would like toknow is how much of the Caucasian oil went up the Volga or through Stalingrad. Could the Soviets have transported the oil if Stakingrad had fallen?

    • @LeePrice-r9u
      @LeePrice-r9u Місяць тому +2

      @dennisweidner288
      The USSR did have a 40% reduction in production during WWII.
      The Germans still wouldn't need to take Stalingrad to disrupt oil shipments up the Volga river. Just need to take the shoreline somewhere along it.

    • @dennisweidner288
      @dennisweidner288 Місяць тому

      @@LeePrice-r9u How much of the oil was shipped up the Volga as opposed to rail shipment. And then as rail shipments were cut off through Stalingrad. Was it possible to move the oil around Stalingrad by rail routes to the East?

  • @gqs1
    @gqs1 2 місяці тому +14

    Great channel , I would cut in half the historical setting prior the what if part

  • @jasonmussett2129
    @jasonmussett2129 Місяць тому

    Very interesting, well done lads

  • @hermesshkurti396
    @hermesshkurti396 2 місяці тому +6

    I think it matters when they take Stalingrad, and if they defeat the Soviets or Zhykov was laying a trap as they did with Napoleon. Let's not forget you can always set the oil fields on fire, houthis stopped 50% of Saudi supply output just two years ago. Soviet ability to move heavy machinery in the Uruals was amazing. I think Stalingrad as important as it was, was second to Ribentop not getting Japan to attack the Soviets in the East in exchange for joining against the US.

    • @johnhallett5846
      @johnhallett5846 2 місяці тому +4

      they moved the machinery to empty fields without a power grid or any kind of ability to make use of that machinery for over a year.

  • @AFGuidesHD
    @AFGuidesHD 2 місяці тому +1

    Wasn't sending 4th Panzer to Stalingrad in July/August the best bet of winning Stalingrad? Various Generals said Stalingrad could and should have been captured without much of a fight in August. If that happens, then Stalingrad becomes "Stalingrad" for the Red Army instead of the Germans. A second Rzhev. And the situation for the Soviets in 1943 is even worse being cut off from their oil and another 5% of their food source.

  • @celdur4635
    @celdur4635 2 місяці тому +6

    It would've taken a minimum of 8 months to make the caucasus oil fields capable of producing again, after they were sabotaged by USSR troops, so even "winning" Stalingrad it would've been hairy for months.

    • @karlheinzvonkroemann2217
      @karlheinzvonkroemann2217 2 місяці тому +3

      Stalingrad had nothing to do with german oil at all. The Volga was used to transport some of it north to various industrial centers though. That's why the germans just had to stop the river traffic on the Volga, not conquer the city.

    • @Jim-Tuner
      @Jim-Tuner Місяць тому

      Its more like at least a couple years to restore oil production. Perhaps even more to create a system for refining and transporting the oil in a useful way.

    • @karlheinzvonkroemann2217
      @karlheinzvonkroemann2217 Місяць тому +1

      @@Jim-Tuner One year was the german estimate for the Maikop oilfields.

    • @celdur4635
      @celdur4635 Місяць тому

      @@karlheinzvonkroemann2217 That, too.

  • @kevinrayner5812
    @kevinrayner5812 2 місяці тому +15

    To quote Hitler became fixated on Stalingrad to the exclution of concentrating on the oil fields. Makes you wonder if the city had been named anything other than Stalingrad would he have just ignored it and gone roud it.

    • @Spectification
      @Spectification 2 місяці тому +2

      What oil fields... Maykop was captured (totally destroyed though) and everything else was behind Caucasus.
      What oil fields were they supposed to concentrate on.
      Also, lets say they capture the fields in better shape and magically transport crude oil to Germany without a pipeline, Germans did not have the rafinery capacity to handle it anyways...

    • @bingobongo1615
      @bingobongo1615 2 місяці тому +2

      The Germans would likely not even have been able to use the oil wells until well into mid / late 43…
      That being said - the Germans in the end surprisingly were not that impacted by oil shortages until 1944 and the bombing and capture of the Romanian oil fields…

    • @mwieser123
      @mwieser123 2 місяці тому

      @@Spectification Yes thats definetly the case. The German Quest for oil in the caucasus could never ever succeed.

    • @Spectification
      @Spectification 2 місяці тому

      @@bingobongo1615 Luftwaffe would like a word about that...
      Also Wacht am Rhein was made not very interesting given the fact, that Germans did not have fuel to reach the Meuse in sufficient numbers, never mind breach it.

    • @bingobongo1615
      @bingobongo1615 2 місяці тому

      @@Spectification all correct but also both issues of late 44 and early 45 after the loss of Ploesti…

  • @steveclapper5424
    @steveclapper5424 Місяць тому +3

    The empire fell anyway thank to Churchill.

  • @aconsideredopinion7529
    @aconsideredopinion7529 2 місяці тому +2

    Fun fact… before operation Barbarossa and after the signing of The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet Union under Stalin sought to become the fourth member of the axis. They proposed that the axis should be made up of Germany, Italy, Japan and the Soviet Union. If Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo had agreed then the Soviet Union would be a member of the axis and not an enemy.
    The question then becomes could the British commonwealth and the USA have defeated the axis?

  • @rodan2852
    @rodan2852 2 місяці тому +5

    The Germans needed Winchester rifles. They won the west so they should work in the east too

  • @colm-u8m
    @colm-u8m 2 місяці тому +2

    brilliant as always

  • @magpiemorris8844
    @magpiemorris8844 Місяць тому

    Interesting format for this vid, almost like sports punditry

  • @scullcap357
    @scullcap357 Місяць тому

    WOW i live this show , well done .

  • @pbryan1967
    @pbryan1967 Місяць тому +2

    The role of Turkey in all this is VASTLY underrated by historians in my opinion.
    If Turkey had joined the Axis in 1942, Germany would have had a second line of advance to the oil fields of the Caucuses and the Middle East.

    • @gumdeo
      @gumdeo 10 днів тому

      The problem is that the Turks would have to fight the British and Soviets at the same time, and their army was fairly weak at that time.

  • @blockmasterscott
    @blockmasterscott Місяць тому +2

    I don’t see how winning Stalingrad could have kept the Russians from launching the same pincer move that enabled them to surround the 6th Army. Either way, Stalingrad would still have been cut off.

  • @panic_2001
    @panic_2001 2 місяці тому +4

    I am curious how a German “victory” at Stalingrad (or its consequences) will be interpreted here.

  • @ncander64
    @ncander64 Місяць тому +7

    The biggest mistake was for the Germans to initiate WWII. They did not have the resources to win or overwhelm their adversaries.

    • @stuka80
      @stuka80 Місяць тому

      eh, debatable. it went well enough for them at the start. The problem was the horrendous mistakes that were made along the way.

  • @quentinquentin6752
    @quentinquentin6752 2 місяці тому +1

    Very very interesting !!!

  • @dennisweidner288
    @dennisweidner288 2 місяці тому +3

    If the Germans had taken Stalingrad, would that have blocked Soviet oil shipments from Caucasus oil fields?. Another issue is that Stain would have destroyed the oil fields as they did at Maikop, how long would it have taken to get the Germans to get them going again and how would the Germans have transported the oil back to the Reich?

    • @Jim-Tuner
      @Jim-Tuner Місяць тому +2

      The German operations in 1942 - Both being able to block Volga traffic and entering the Caucasus region - deeply disrupted soviet oil transportation from the Caucasus and other economic activity in the Soviet Union.
      In reaching Stalingrad and the Volga, the Germans had already accomplished the maximum economic damage to the Soviet Union. Taking the city would not have increased that economic damage.

    • @insideoutsideupsidedown2218
      @insideoutsideupsidedown2218 Місяць тому +1

      24 months

  • @ValentinCheval-b1e
    @ValentinCheval-b1e 2 місяці тому +17

    Nothing happens. Hitler still lose.

  • @freddieclark
    @freddieclark 6 днів тому

    The Caucasus, was a non starter. By the time the Germans made it a priority they could neither supply thenecessary forces and logistics, but more critically they could not guarantee air superiority in any single area, while the run for the caucasus was in effect.

  • @robertmiller2173
    @robertmiller2173 Місяць тому +2

    Japan attacking the Communist USSR would have put the Cat in with the Canarys!

  • @kabiam
    @kabiam Місяць тому +3

    The Germans were just plain outnumbered.

    • @EdMcF1
      @EdMcF1 Місяць тому +1

      Yes and out-manufactured and under-oiled.

    • @cricketerfrench7501
      @cricketerfrench7501 Місяць тому +1

      And a lot more after the Romanian and Italian armies together with the German's largest army - the 6th - were all lost.

  • @tomcolvin8199
    @tomcolvin8199 2 місяці тому

    Good show with experts.

  • @Ganiscol
    @Ganiscol 2 місяці тому +4

    Hitler's Hubris always played a decisive role in his defeat.

  • @robertfrost1683
    @robertfrost1683 2 місяці тому +27

    Russia was almost starving in 1942/1943. Shutting off lend lease would have been much worse than you mention. True professionals discuss logistics. Russia was starving.

    • @FacloFormerFavorite
      @FacloFormerFavorite 2 місяці тому

      They had archangel and Vladivostok still. Though only the latter in the winter?

    • @craiglarge5925
      @craiglarge5925 2 місяці тому +2

      @@FacloFormerFavorite Iran ?

    • @raigarmullerson4838
      @raigarmullerson4838 2 місяці тому +4

      so was Germany. Starving from Oil and raw materials.

    • @hypothebai4634
      @hypothebai4634 2 місяці тому

      @@FacloFormerFavorite Most of the lend lease from the US went to the USSR via Japan and the Trans Siberian Railroad.

    • @Madskidzz
      @Madskidzz 2 місяці тому +5

      Without lend lease Germany wins

  • @MWcrazyhorse
    @MWcrazyhorse Місяць тому +1

    It was the Axis at Stalingrad.
    Romania, Italian and Hungarian forces were there aswell.

    • @gumdeo
      @gumdeo 10 днів тому

      And quite a significant number of Soviet citizens fighting against Stalin as well.

  • @andreolofsson894
    @andreolofsson894 Місяць тому +1

    Would have secured the caucasus oil fields preventing demechanization of the German army and preventing its paralysis, and prevented the severe fuel shortages of the Luftwaffe.

  • @Crashed131963
    @Crashed131963 2 місяці тому +2

    The British had more oil shipped from the USA than IRAN.
    Back then the US was the largest oil producer ,the Middle East was not a Oil superpower back then. They never discovered oil in Libya until 1958!
    Britain did not need the Middle east for oil , the atlantic convoys took care of that like everything else .

  • @johns3544
    @johns3544 2 місяці тому

    THIS!!!
    see trees of green
    Red roses too
    I see them bloom
    For me and you
    And I think to myself
    What a wonderful world
    I see skies of blue
    And clouds of white
    The bright blessed day
    The dark sacred night
    And I think to myself
    What a wonderful world
    The colors of the rainbow
    So pretty in the sky
    Are also on the faces
    Of people going by
    I see friends shaking hands
    Saying, "How do you do?"
    They're really saying
    I love you
    I hear babies cry
    I watch them grow
    They'll learn much more
    Than I'll ever know
    And I think to myself
    What a wonderful world
    Yes, I think to myself
    What a wonderful world
    Ooh, yes

  • @purcitron
    @purcitron 2 місяці тому +1

    Some argue that even if the Germans did capture the Kavkaz oilfields, there was not sufficient railroad capacity to transfer it back to Germany to refine it into fuels and to again send it out by rail

  • @pablopeter3564
    @pablopeter3564 2 місяці тому

    Great channel ¡¡¿ Try to discuss the Battle of Moskow (1941).

  • @jarrodf_
    @jarrodf_ 2 місяці тому +1

    Loving the series. PS on the Eastern Front, should consider having on Dr. David Stahel, University of New South Wales; one of the preeminent scholars on that subject

    • @jarrodf_
      @jarrodf_ 2 місяці тому +1

      (Not to take anything away from Trigg, of course, who was excellent in this episode.)

  • @ronaldschultenover8137
    @ronaldschultenover8137 2 місяці тому +5

    The Germans did put an end to the Brits

  • @raedwulf7623
    @raedwulf7623 2 місяці тому +4

    The role of a submarine is not to sink enemy ships and for fighters not to destroy enemy planes?

    • @stripeytawney822
      @stripeytawney822 2 місяці тому +5

      Consider American fighter escorts for the bombers. Their job was to protect the bombers, not shoot down planes.
      Screening not individual dogfights.
      Does that make sense?

    • @davethompson3326
      @davethompson3326 2 місяці тому +2

      @@stripeytawney822 The problem for Japanese carriers was often that their CAP fighters had a nasty tendency to go chasing glory & left their own ships with their highly vulnerable and inflammable arses hanging out.

    • @catpriest
      @catpriest 2 місяці тому +1

      Submarines destroy convoys with goods

  • @josephmcbee1291
    @josephmcbee1291 14 днів тому

    Splitting the German army midway through the advance and suddenly coming up with two very different objectives (each new army group now only at half strength), was the catastrophic mistake. Neither army was strong enough to reach their objectives and cover their flanks at the same time. Keeping the army intact, perhaps the best objective would have been to surround Stalingrad and seize strong, well-defended bridgeheads on the eastern bank of the Volga both north and south of the city, protect their long flanks with quality mobile divisions, then hunker down for the inevitable Soviet counterattacks that they knew from experience (the year before), would be coming throughout the fall and winter. The vitally important supply route of the Volga would be cut off. Stalingrad would still be there, but struggling to exist. The German army would still be largely intact for whatever the Soviets threw at them in the winter. Assuming they could hold them, the Germans would have bridgeheads across the Volga to use as a springboard the following spring when they were finally resupplied. Go after the oil fields the following year, in 1943.

  • @johncochrane1301
    @johncochrane1301 2 місяці тому +4

    Question, why did the Wehrmacht not move on Murmansk from Northern Norway; or ask/tell Finland to do it?

    • @Xino6804
      @Xino6804 2 місяці тому +1

      Most forces in the north were tied up at Leningrad.

    • @dr.paulwilliam7447
      @dr.paulwilliam7447 2 місяці тому +1

      @@Xino6804 Exactly. The Germans wanted direct control of the landway. So Leningrad was the best obstacle the Soviets could have wished for.

    • @kjm2199
      @kjm2199 2 місяці тому +4

      They did try and it failed. They also tried to cut the rail line from there with the Finns and that also failed.

    • @stuka80
      @stuka80 Місяць тому

      Due to earlier blunders.

  • @IvanLeonard-b7y
    @IvanLeonard-b7y 13 днів тому +1

    2:44 "Lay-bans-room"??? Oh, you must mean Lebensraum.

  • @carisi2k11
    @carisi2k11 Місяць тому +1

    Germany's problem was that they focussed on Stalingrad but still once Pearl Harbour happened it was downhill.

    • @tomassmolen1260
      @tomassmolen1260 Місяць тому

      They should encircle Staingrad first. The 6th army was victim of Fuhrer

    • @dennisweidner288
      @dennisweidner288 Місяць тому

      @carisi2k1 Not exactly. Most of 1942 was a disaster for the Sovierts and Allies.

  • @colder5465
    @colder5465 2 місяці тому +5

    For the Soviet Union it'd be a catastrophe. The Volga River was a major transportation way for oil and oil products. Stalingrad was a major transportation knot in the south of Russia. Even in our reality there was a real oil crisis in the Soviet Union in late 1942 - early 1943 which was very detrimental to the industry - even though the oil wells in Baku region were intact. Simply because worsened transportation. Second: in our reality the Germans had to withdraw Army Group B because of the threat of cutting it off after Stalingrad debacle. If Paulus won the Stalingrad battle he could go on on the offensive along the Don River and there would be no need for withdrawing Army Group B. In the end the threat if taking Baku wells would be very real - and surprise! - the Germans could start planning capturing the Middle East, first of all Iraqi oil wells.

    • @FacloFormerFavorite
      @FacloFormerFavorite 2 місяці тому +1

      Paulus just takes his battered over extended army and keeps going?

    • @colder5465
      @colder5465 2 місяці тому

      Correction: Army Group A (from the Caucasus)

  • @FacloFormerFavorite
    @FacloFormerFavorite 2 місяці тому +2

    “The the Soviets counterattack and overextended German army that couldn’t get (intact) oil fields anyway”. Maybe you don’t lose the entire 6th army. At the same time Rommel is losing in Africa operation torch kicks off. And last as far as Japan coming in they were busy in China and south East asia and obviously the pacific.

    • @Crashed131963
      @Crashed131963 2 місяці тому

      Also oil transported far distance in large amount can only be done by Ships or pipeline. Trains at those distances could never supply Germany's needs .

  • @TheLucanicLord
    @TheLucanicLord 2 місяці тому +1

    You want the Ilfracombe & Bartable section.

  • @partygrove5321
    @partygrove5321 2 місяці тому +2

    They need to work on the maps Come on, they couldn't find larger scale maps of the immediate region!

  • @AustinFarrara
    @AustinFarrara 3 дні тому

    Tik history does a great series on the battle of Stalingrad

  • @howardgem
    @howardgem 2 місяці тому

    I was ready to move on if he mentioned that Stalingrad was an objective for the name Stalin. He didn’t , I learnt something new and have subscribed.

  • @ericscottstevens
    @ericscottstevens 2 місяці тому +1

    If they had won the HEER would have shored up the defense line all along the Volga northeast towards Saratov by early summer.
    Pushing to cut off the north-south Volzhskaya Rokada military rail road, as well as Povorino railway area of resupplies that had to be stopped via a Luftwaffe bombing campaign.
    The rail lines at Stalingrad had to be restored as the road network east of the Volga basically disappeared from the landscape. It was reported Germans that had looked across the Volga river remarked the country was endless and turning into a vast wilderness. They were defeating themselves by going on an endless offensive that reached far beyond their imagination.

  • @JohnSmith-rw2yn
    @JohnSmith-rw2yn 2 місяці тому +4

    Miles to feet and inches. The blackadder sketch of, the total amount of land retaken is? *gets tape measure out* 17 sq ft sir!

    • @simony2801
      @simony2801 2 місяці тому +1

      Bought its very detailed, there's a worm.

  • @andrewholt5659
    @andrewholt5659 19 днів тому

    How would they win? Logistics and supply lines overstretched, outmanned against an enemy growing in strength and experience.

  • @AykutDans
    @AykutDans 2 місяці тому +10

    Stalingrad fiasco was entirely Hitler's fault. 6th Army didn't even supposed to capture Stalingrad. His obsession with the city caused him to dispatch Panzer divisions back and forth from Army Group A, which also caused the slowing down of Caucasus advance and caused massive traffic jams amongst the Divisions. Panzer Group commanders were actually furious about the ever changing orders and they complained a lot about this.
    And there is also the thing that when the Stalingrad got cut off, Manstein immediately wanted the Panzers to attack from South but he insisted on keeping going for Oil Fields and left the Panzers in the South. Crucial time was lost there and it only doomed the 6th Army even further.

    • @tomassmolen9443
      @tomassmolen9443 2 місяці тому +2

      Correct!

    • @karlheinzvonkroemann2217
      @karlheinzvonkroemann2217 2 місяці тому

      He's an easy target. The whole of Case Blue was a cluster Fk. It was a lot more than just ole Hitler though, there were major traffic problems in the area and a few different reassignments of the 4th Pz Army that delayed the taking of Stalingrad and actually prevented it from being taken "off the march" like Voronezh was. Half of the plan wasn't necessary either. Moving around the 2 Pz Armies, 1st and 4th in the Don bend was a large delay also that cost the germans a lot of time.

    • @celdur4635
      @celdur4635 2 місяці тому

      Fake news actually. The generals tricked Hitler, he ordered reinforcements and to encircle the city, but they changed the orders to send reinforcements to the center and north and to take the city. Which Hitler disagreed and never knew how badly the reinforcements had been diverted. Which is why there were only weakly armed Romanians on the flanks.

  • @TheYeti308
    @TheYeti308 2 місяці тому +2

    I suspect 2022 would not be an issue .

  • @taylorshipman1045
    @taylorshipman1045 2 місяці тому +1

    Everyone knows that on a map. Soviets are red, Germans are grey, italians are green, Romanians are pale yellow, and Hungarians are pale green

  • @EdMcF1
    @EdMcF1 Місяць тому +1

    Chris Parry, last Navy man to sink (cripple) a submarine.

  • @thorshammer8033
    @thorshammer8033 2 місяці тому +2

    Well comrade , how went the experiment ?
    Excellent comrade. The Peoples Rodent unit was able to sabotage the Germanski's panzers.

  • @sahhaf1234
    @sahhaf1234 Місяць тому +1

    AFAIK, throughout the ww2 most of the oil used by british was venezuellan oil. So abadan must not be that important.

  • @clanpsi
    @clanpsi Місяць тому +2

    The historians here misunderstand the situation. Stalingrad was always a major objective. The main folly was Germany splitting its forces south before capturing the city instead of driving on the city with everything and then swinging south. The Germans didn't go after the city because of its name, they went after it because it was actually in a very strategic position. It was both a major railway hub and river transport hub. They needed if they were to have any hope of getting the oil from the Caucasus to their forces.

  • @novakva
    @novakva Місяць тому

    Oil wasn't in OKW mind, and Hadler sent replacements and supplies to center and thats what doomed the whole operation

  • @guillaumedubos6596
    @guillaumedubos6596 Місяць тому +1

    "Could the German have won at Stalingrad?" "Yes they could have if they had won quicker"
    Well thanks, Paulus must roll in his grave that he didnt think about it.

  • @chriscolton6329
    @chriscolton6329 2 місяці тому

    It depends how emphatic and swiftly they concluded proceedings at Stalingrad. Otherwise, chances are they would still have bled critical casualties and equipnent, which would have fatally weakened their invasion plans, anyway. It may have been a bit of a costly Phyrric Victory for them...

  • @sethbecker7162
    @sethbecker7162 Місяць тому +1

    Title is stupid because the empire DID crumble. Probably the only way to avert that was allying the Germans.

  • @davidrobertson9271
    @davidrobertson9271 2 місяці тому +3

    Useless graphics and maps. Unimpressed

  • @laurentfranco8075
    @laurentfranco8075 Місяць тому +1

    If the Germans would become so strong in the West that an invasion of France by the Anglo-American forces would become unviable? Then America in reality would have to draw its conclusions and leave the British to their own devices in Europe and North Africa and concentrate all their forces on the Pacific. However in this case a massive American military build up of forces within the Soviet Union instead of in Britain could be an option. The British would just have to hold own to what they got in the West and the Americans would keep supplying them instead of the Soviet Union. Soviet and American forces could then attack and destroy the Germans in an all out offensive on the eastern front.

  • @fett333
    @fett333 2 місяці тому +2

    What if lend lease was never implemented? Likely both England and the Soviet Union go down

    • @joeschmoe21
      @joeschmoe21 2 місяці тому

      Lend lease had very little effect on Soviet Union. Americans have created a myth of Russia being dependent on lend-lease. US didn't give any bombs or missiles to Russia. Only food and trucks. ALL THE BOMBs that killed Germans (80% German deaths were by Russian fire) were *Made In Russia* . Russia has great engineers and scientists. And Russia has all the raw materials. Current pounding of Ukraine by Russia is further proof.

    • @ceciljohnrhodes4987
      @ceciljohnrhodes4987 Місяць тому

      That’s a fair stretch.

  • @accolontoss318
    @accolontoss318 2 місяці тому +1

    All those "What-If-Scenarios" are kinda cringe. All everybody has to do is remember that the Atomic Bomb wasn't build to attack Japan in the first place. Albert Einstein and his infamous letter to Roosevelt started the World we all live in today. It is called "The Atomic Age".

  • @unclelex2006
    @unclelex2006 2 місяці тому

    From the Soviet Secret Archives: Special Mice Operations Executive.

  • @h.carson5414
    @h.carson5414 Місяць тому

    Just as was said about Napoleon: " Too big for France but too small for Europe."

  • @glennfletcher9699
    @glennfletcher9699 2 місяці тому +1

    A very excellent series about Stalingrad on UA-cam. TIK, Battlestorm Stalingrad.

  • @moon_knight8578
    @moon_knight8578 Місяць тому

    they would have had to have won against the USSR in the first year. wasn't going to happen after that except in a Harry Turtlehead novel with some time travel involved.

  • @LpalmerECspindoctor
    @LpalmerECspindoctor Місяць тому

    Germany was short on fuel and needed to get it from the wells in the southern USSR. Stalingrad was a diversion caused by Hitler's ego in wanting to destroy the namesake of Stalin. The Germans needed fuel.

  • @blank557
    @blank557 2 місяці тому

    Even if the Germans "won" Stalingrad and the Caucasus, they didn't have the forces to hold them. Even if they got oil form the Caucasus, the Soviet partisans would have sabotaged the railways. The Soviet Army would eventually smash through their over-extended lines with massive forces. The Soviets were producting like 20K T-34's a year, compared to the Germans1-2K Mark IV's annually.

  • @jwiles545
    @jwiles545 Місяць тому

    Excellent video from your group as usual. There is one thing you failed to discuss. Or maybe you did and I missed it. If so, I apologize. But if the Germans won at Stalingrad, and the end of Germany was delayed by a few months, or even a year, would Germany have been the place where the first atomic bomb was used, instead of Japan?

  • @gertfeikens7311
    @gertfeikens7311 Місяць тому +2

    Essentially the Germans won Stalingrad, and then lost the rest.

  • @HamidReza_Rajaei
    @HamidReza_Rajaei 2 місяці тому

    Battle of the Bulge please

  • @joslynscott466
    @joslynscott466 9 днів тому

    All Hitler had to do was go to Stalin and say, I'll let you have such and such if you will give me oil.

  • @mikereddy-x9f
    @mikereddy-x9f 2 місяці тому +1

    This was an essential battle to cover the withdrawal from the east.

  • @fratersol
    @fratersol 2 місяці тому +6

    Germany actually wanted to preserve the British empire. One of his peace offers was to even provide troops if the British ever needed to keep there empire. It was Churchill that cost the end of the British empire..

    • @chrisstrawn4108
      @chrisstrawn4108 2 місяці тому +8

      Depends on how you define "preserve." The only peace Hitler would have accepted amounted to surrender and collaboration. Sure Hitler "wanted" the English to keep their Empire-- he had no problem with the French keeping theirs. Look how that ended up for them.

    • @mikebellis5713
      @mikebellis5713 Місяць тому

      Hess flew to Britain to try for peace, which Churchill ignored and put him in solitary. And look what happened to Britain.... lost its standing in the world and became America's lap dog

  • @redjacc7581
    @redjacc7581 2 місяці тому +1

    i would not have made any difference. They would not have been able to push across the river or any further into the caucuses and they had supply issues even before they got to stalingrad. They also would have no way of stopping the massive soviet build up. They only way germany would have had a chance is if they were NOT fighting in africa & eventually western europe.

  • @ericadler9680
    @ericadler9680 5 днів тому

    No, Hitler's motivation for attacking the UDSSR was NOT ideological, since Nazism and Soviet communism were in fact very similar; Hitler was a socialist, something he stresses again and again in his speeches, and he admired Stalin's planned economy. His motivation for attacking the UDSSR was his old dream of colonising Russia with settlers mainly from Germany, Holland and Scandinavia. In fact Hitler had been a communist himself in 1919, something which most historians tend to ignore because they are leftists themselves.

  • @sdfsdf7870
    @sdfsdf7870 2 місяці тому +1

    The empire crumbled anyways...

  • @CamelNotation222
    @CamelNotation222 2 місяці тому

    Why is there time limit and we need to abruptly stop the conversation like it's TV program?

  • @Passwort-ng4gs
    @Passwort-ng4gs 2 місяці тому +5

    Oh, the answer ist quite clear and easy. "What if Germany won at Stalingrad"? "Nothing"!

    • @ralfweber4346
      @ralfweber4346 2 місяці тому +1

      Agree. It is nearly the same "What if Germany won at Moskow"

  • @procopiusaugustus6231
    @procopiusaugustus6231 2 місяці тому +5

    I always thought the Middle East strategy was the way to go. The Germans didn’t have the logistics to sustain a Stalingrad line even if they had taken it how could they get to the Gulf?

    • @dr.paulwilliam7447
      @dr.paulwilliam7447 2 місяці тому +2

      They might have asked Stalin. Keep in mind that exactly one or two weeks before Operation Barbarossa started the British were in their last planning stage to bomb Baku, drain the Germans from the oil that Stalin gave them. Had they done that before the start of Barbarossa, Hitler could have exploited that by „offering“ Stalin some help to throw the Brits out between the Sinai peninsula and the British Raj on the other side.

    • @arddel
      @arddel 2 місяці тому +5

      The logistics to the middle east through North Africa by land was logistically impossible. And even if you get there, how do transport oil back to Europe without a high-seas navy?

    • @dr.paulwilliam7447
      @dr.paulwilliam7447 2 місяці тому +1

      @@arddel You ask the Soviets and the Turks ;)

    • @KraytTheGreat
      @KraytTheGreat 2 місяці тому

      @@dr.paulwilliam7447 Hitler could have done that. But his ideological fight against the USSR was far more important to him. So, he wouldnt have.

    • @arddel
      @arddel 2 місяці тому +2

      @@dr.paulwilliam7447 They don't have the needed roads, railways, and pipelines to the middle east either ;)