Comments by "King Orange" (@kingorange7739) on "Was Germany's Defeat Inevitable in WW2? Turning Point? And more... TIK Patreon Q&A 4" video.

  1.  @TheImperatorKnight  Just to ask out of curiosity, why did the Germans try to siege Stalingrad in the first place? I know the Germans wanted to block Soviet oil shipments. However, if I'm not mistaken, I believe you stated in your oil video that Army Group B could of just went south of the city and still be able to reach the Volga. If that's the case, especially when you stated in your Fall Blau video that the city of Stalingrad was not a priority by Hitler and that at most he only wanted the city bombarded by artillery, why did the Germans try to take the city, and what strategic advantages could of been gained through taking the city? Also do you know whether or not the Soviets would have been willing to make a peace with Germany in 1943 and if so what the terms of surrender would of probably been? Thanks and keep up the Great work man. You are without a doubt my favorite World War 2 historian.
    16
  2. True but it would cripple the Soviet means to fifht
    4
  3. What?
    3
  4.  @fazole  I'm aware.
    2
  5. He is saying the result if the operations were successful
    2
  6. U must be joking. Also America is not socialist
    2
  7. Conflictions between Hitler and his generals.
    2
  8. Ste D it depends if they could take the Caucasus in 1941. Their logistics broke down before they even reached Moscow so try imagining going another 800km. The fact is that it is unlikely that they would take the Caucasus in 1941. The farthest they could go would be where they reached in our own timeline before being pushed back. That is around north west corner in the Caucasus. Now that area had some oil but not enough to sort their crisis. They would have to attack in 1942. The main thing this would do is put more burden on Blau even more than our timeline. Now would things be better for the Germans? Yes, they would have less distance to cover, their logistics would be better. But they would also have more Soviet troops fighting against them considering Stalin would then conclude that the Caucasus is what the Germans prioritized. So could the Germans had pulled a win with that? Hard to say and we are going into hypotheticals, but I will say. If they took and held the Caucasus in 1942. Especially without losing too many men (don’t go into Stalingrad), then it would give Germany its absolute best chance of winning. It would begin to deprive the Soviets of oil and by 1943, it could result in a Soviet economic collapse. But that’s just my analysis.
    2
  9. Ste D there are a couple of reasons. One it would help break Soviet morale, two, it would help them block the Volga, three, they did not expect the city to be too difficult to take.
    2
  10.  @WJack97224  Ok then
    2
  11. U realize even in our timeline Germany successfully extracted oil in the Caucasus in the brief time they controlled it in late 1942-early 1943.
    2
  12. No
    2
  13. Possible but unlikely. Moscow was already evacuating its key assets and the Supreme Defense Council already agreed to keep fighting if Moscow fell. Also the Soviets had more population than just the Moscow region.
    2
  14. Not really. At least not till after 1942
    1
  15. Ian Whitchurch how r they over? When u move German troops to surround Stalingrad within a Pinser and putting it under siege. That would do the trick
    1
  16. Ian Whitchurch and? The thing is yes they are across for the counter attack but they are also going against stronger German defenses. And Operation Uranus was predicated on Germany being spread thin
    1
  17. Ian Whitchurch I’m not advocating to go to Astrikn
    1
  18. Ian Whitchurch what? 😂
    1
  19. ITILII I would disagree with that statement. I could definitely agree that that’s when the turning point of the war would occur but I cannot agree with the notion that Germany had no chance afterwards. The fact of the matter was is that the Soviet union was still on the verge of collapse and had Germany won fall Blau at 1942 then it would have been likely that they would have achieved enough tactical and strategic advantages to collapse the Soviet union within the next two years and then rage of war within the west after the fact.
    1
  20. It still would’ve given Germany a major advantage and would’ve denied the Soviets oil as well.
    1
  21. Germany could’ve extracted it and Even Germany just holding it would help them a lot.
    1
  22. Elton Vieira The problem with that is one in a scenario where Germany beats Russia their anti-air defenses will be significantly improved to face the Western allies considering that would be the only enemy left they would have to deal with on top of that Germany at this point would have no intention of further fighting Britain Or the United States meaning they would simply hold off on till eventually confidence and support for the war would deplete with the UK and USA. And yes wow it is most likely that the US would get to the atomic bomb first there is the factor that is left out, just because Germany couldn’t make the bomb first does not mean they could not make a bomb at all.
    1
  23.  @Travolta12e  It would be crazy.
    1
  24. Malcolm Clayton true
    1
  25.  @thomaslinton1001  And? U think he is going to reply to something over 2 years old? Be realistic.
    1
  26. U must be joking
    1
  27. That’s something the Nazis realistically would not allow
    1
  28. Spartan 506 they weren’t. So it’s not worth answering. It has to be in the realm of possibility
    1
  29. Spartan 506 alt history needs to be in the realm of what aligns with each respective faction. Otherwise ur argument is fictious. There is no way for the Germans to be all lovey dovy to the Slavs without fundamentally changing who the Nazis and Hitler were and straying to fiction. And once when that happens, it’s not worth discussing as ur no longer crafting an educational alternative, ur writing fan fiction.
    1
  30. Spartan 506 dude I just said that there is different between logically constructed scenarios versus writing a fan fic. Ur argument literally only stems from if the Nazis weren’t Nazis.
    1
  31. Spartan 506 which if that’s all ur argument stems from, there is no point. Since there is no factual foundation to stand on
    1
  32. Spartan 506 how am I the moron? I know ur talking about alt his! I am saying that if it is not in a realistic realm of possibility, then it’s not worth discussing since ur lacking a basis of reality to back ur claims. Again u cannot have the Nazis do that without fundamentally changing who the Nazis were but then when u change that, u change everything and there is no longer factual grounding. So idk, maybe use a brain or look up what I mean before calling me a moron. U pathetic excuse of a historian. I don’t mean to be toxic. But u do not insult me unless u actually can present good logic. And here u failed to. Come back when u have actual good counters otherwise good day.
    1
  33. Spartan 506 wow nothing to add? Goes to show who the moron is
    1
  34. @Spartan 506 Did u delete ur response?
    1
  35. Spartan 506 it’s fine man. It happens
    1
  36. Kiowhattaisthetruth C Here’s the thing though while I do agree that the other factors you mention would definitely help Germany’s keys even holding the caucuses in 1942 to 1943 alone in theory could’ve been enough as even in 1942 to 43 in our timeline the Soviet union was on the verge of an economic collapse. And it’s not hard to conclude that had the caucuses fallen the Soviets probably would’ve ended up facing that economic collapse. This isn’t the say they’re out of the war completely but it would hinder their ability to fight completely and if this was combined with Germany say taking Moscow in 1943 could result in enough of a moral blow to have the Soviets peace out as if Stalin doesn’t do so, a cue may happen
    1
  37. Not an option. Their logistics and supply lines would not allow the Middle East to be taken
    1
  38.  @azralandar  Again, the manpower was not the issue. Rommel could not even have his 3 divisions properly supplied.
    1
  39. araneajj then u run into many problems. Logistics, British blockade, and the Soviets being prepared for a later attack. And this still depends on UK surrendering which is not going to happen
    1
  40. araneajj no it wouldn’t. The Germans would not had been able to cross the oil through the Mediterranean practically
    1
  41. araneajj ever heard of Royal Navy?
    1
  42. araneajj taking Gibraltar was not going to happen. Also that was only for a period of time. Germany could still not supply itself which was needed in order to take the middle east
    1
  43. araneajj ok. So let’s just say for the sake of this hypothetical they did win in the Middle East. Problem 2. How do u properly get the oil when not many oil fields are produced and more importantly how do u get them back to Germany to get refined?
    1
  44.  @azralandar  Hence part of the point of the problem. It would not provide enough oil to manage their crisis, unlike the Caucasus in the Soviet Union.
    1
  45.  @azralandar  Which is where u get to the problem. By 1942, The Soviets are going to be in a ready war position and by 1943 was planning to invade Germany themselves. That is not going to change and because UK being in the war still will still draw in the USA, this will still create problems. Because Germany is not doing damage to the enemy that matters
    1
  46.  @azralandar  Except Stalin realistically would not take it. Stalin did hope for the western allies and Germany to grind each other. But he was not ignorant to the chance of Germany backstabbing him. Also for ur scenario to work, it would require many supplies and troops on Germany's end to be depleted.
    1
  47. Anirudh Dad it’s possible it’s just the act by itself would not be enough to secure a German victory not to mention German logistics collapsed before they reached Moscow so whether or not they could’ve even capture the city is debatable.
    1
  48.  @anirudhdad2739  By 1942, they had no choice but to go south or else their oil crisis would prevent them from going anywhere.
    1
  49. 1943 probably
    1
  50. Germany did contain a good amount of trucks and trains. They probably would’ve used trains since Germany actually had a decent coal supply.
    1
  51. "Germans could win WW II." Disclaimer I agree. "FIRST - coordinate the attack on Russia with Japan that simultaneously should attacks in Siberia, so that fresh Siberian Russian troops couldn't be used by Stalin against Nazis;" Problem is realistically Japan would never due so based on both their resources being depleting due to US embargo but also because their army was tied in China and getting bogged down. "SECOND - Simultaneously decisively, relentlessly attack from Norway in order to take super vital port of Murmansk ( about 60 miles from the border ) and cut off any supplies, help from outside World including later the Lend Lease. It could direct, tight a bulk of Russian forces there to take Murmansk back. Without that aid Stalin is doomed. No oil from US. As a consequence no Stalin's order to destroy oil fields in the South. Red Army in a Chaos. Moscow could be taken." While I agree that could help the two problems are one that the British navy could counter Germany's attempt to block them and 2 most USA lend lease was crossing the pacific. "THIRD - Use a slogan " It's LIBERATION operation from communist oppression", treat people humanly, no mass murders of any kind. Underground (Partisans), that was very effective harassing occupying forces, destroying railroad tracks wouldn't exist without people supporting them. Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians or Estonians, they hate Stalin oppression. That's a historic fact that they welcomed incoming Germans with flowers. They rather denounce that partisan stuff to Gestapo." Problem with this is that is clashes the Nazi ideology and clashes the strategy for how soldiers were meant to resupply during Barbarossa. Taking it from the people. Also Germany could not adequately supply these groups anyway. "FOURTH - go South as soon as possible to take the oil fields bypassing Stalingrad. After that come back to Stalingrad with the Gustav Gun (almost 50km range), that was used during the Sevastopol Siege. GOOD THING IT DID NOT PLAYD OUT. I'm Polish, so I'm so happy, Hitler lost. My late Father (87) was a partisan then front line soldier during WW II on Eastern Front, killed over 160 Germans. Out of over 800 soldiers unit that my Father belonged to, just three of them survived including my dad." Ok this one I would actually somewhat agree with except Army groups B does have to secure it's northern guardline first before going south, otherwise Operation Uranus will cut them off.
    1
  52. Ironuniverse 1230 well partially. He did want the south to be the priority of the campaign.
    1
  53. Mark12 Strang true
    1
  54. Logistics and supply lines. It’s easier to supply an USSR invasion than the middle east
    1
  55. Traveller678 again. Egypt did not have enough oil. Plus they didn’t even have the supply lines to take Egypt even in our own timeline. So would good is more tanks to fuel and mouths to feed going to do?
    1
  56. Traveller678 not necessarily. German supplies could not easily be transported through the Mediterranean because of the Royal Navy
    1
  57. Traveller678 Malta is hard logistically and they couldn’t invade Gibraltar without Spain allowing Germany to use their territory to stage it which Spain did not allow
    1
  58. Not necessarily. Had Germany even had a chance to encircle the city, it would of been a meat grinder to take it and there is a population outside the city u know. The only real advantages taking Moscow does for the Germans is logistics and morale. But without the food in Ukraine and oil of the Caucasus these advantages won’t do much. Also no even if Moscow was taken, the Germans would still only have enough oil to move one army group. Also u clearly are ignorant of the fact that Stalin was not going to allow a single inch of German territory to be taken without a fight. Caucasus especially as Stalin and Soviet high command knew Germany needed oil. This is why Fall Blau in 1942 was such a devastating battle. I’m not saying taking Moscow wouldn’t increase Germany’s chances of winning but it was a horrible mistake to try to prioritize that over the Caucasus.
    1
  59. WJack97224 you realize the things Germany had going for it could of won them the war had they made better decisions.
    1
  60. WJack97224 you realize you’re not even discussing this from a war perspective at this point you’re now trying to look at this from some sort of destiny outlook.
    1
  61. WJack97224 yeah but that’s not relevant in regards of whether not Germany could win the war it’s more of “their regime survive afterwords. And unfortunately that’s a difficult thing to predict.
    1
  62. Stalin refused to leave for Morale. Not for the sake of the city
    1
  63. Germany wasn’t trying to take the entire Soviet Union. Just up till the AA line.
    1
  64. John Smith perhaps but after the destruction of Russia then Germany no longer has to fight in offense of war and once putting itself on the defense would in theory be able to hold off the British and Americans on till support for the war dies out
    1
  65.  @Crashed131963  the manhattan project would do no good if German air defenses were held in tact, not to mention that Germany in this timeline would not be far behind in atomic weapons. Considering that in our own timeline focus was shifted completely to convententational weapons after war with the USSR was not going well.
    1
  66.  @Crashed131963  Doesn't mean Germany had none left. Germany was working on their own atomic weaponry before and during the war. However the project got pretty much cancelled in 1942, due to the war in the east not going well. However, it is not hard to conclude that if the war in the east ended by 1943 - 44 which would be possible if the Soviets faced an economic collapse that the project would resume. Either that or like I said earlier. With Germany having the oil they need, they could pretty much make an air defense near impenetrable. Making an attempted nuke target that would be worth the cost (Belin, Munich) near impossible to do. By contrast Germany would also have v2s ready and could be more massed produced unlike our own timeline.
    1
  67. No they really wouldn’t
    1
  68. Daniel C so? Maps have nothing to do with it
    1
  69. not really. Now National Socialism does
    1
  70. Problem. Us without maintaining a part of Europe would render the atomic weapons pointless. Since I doubt the US population would not approve of that if there is no tangible way for them to liberate Europe.
    1
  71. The bombs would be less likely to scare Germany and would be more likely to piss them off
    1
  72. How would Churchill die? This is historic analysis not fan fiction
    1
  73. Charles ok well it needs to be one in German control and u have to set up why
    1
  74. Even so, defensive measures could of been taken, I also wouldn’t be surprised if a second attack on Moscow or at the very least Leningrad would of been done in 1943. If successful 2 of the 3 army groups wouldn’t had needed as many supplies. Plus even disregarding how it helps the Germans u have to factor that the Soviets are now being deprived of a oil source
    1
  75. super Troll Germany could not have afforded to invade the Soviet Union any later than June 1941 not only because of the oil situation but also because Stallon was heavily building forces up to prepare for a future war against Germany which more than likely would’ve had the Soviets attack.
    1
  76. Anıl Demeli u realize Hitler did not have a desire to keep fighting after the East was taken. He would of seeked peace with the western allies.
    1
  77. Anıl Demeli questionable. If the East was taken and Germany just fought defensively then it would kill British will to fight.
    1
  78. Yes he did. Turkey not liking it is an understatement, they didn’t allow the Nazis to use their territory.
    1
  79. Debatable
    1
  80. That doesn’t make sense
    1
  81. Not exactly. First off just because the U.S would build one first doesn’t mean the Germans can’t build one at all. Not to mention that if the Soviets were defeated, most troops would be turned west to finish off Britain. America can’t use an A bomb on Germany if Britain is out of the war.
    1
  82.  @maartenvandam344  Again, I don't disagree it was unlikely but I'm just saying that much of Germany's problems with the west were because of resources mainly being used each which in this alternate scenario they wouldn't have to do.
    1
  83. Except they couldn’t because of the oil crisis
    1
  84. super Troll not even close
    1
  85. Mark12 Strang yes but Germany tried to make peace with Britain and that didn’t work.
    1
  86. Mark12 Strang ok define other circumstances that Germany actually could control. Because do not base it on chance, that’s just fanfic. It needs to be an actual change in German decisions.
    1
  87. Interesting but that’s not the only gamble
    1
  88. Because it wasn’t yet. Hitler and the Germans had enough oil to supply one AG left and knew that taking the Caucasus was their last real chance of winning. Stalin knew this as well. Also that doesn’t make any sense. U can’t lose a war if no one fights u
    1
  89. 1. Germany could not take the Middle East as they didn’t even have the logistics for NA 2. Germany very much could of beaten the Soviets had they taken a more strategic approach instead of thinking it was going to be easy 3. I don’t recall NA or Middle East solving a food crisis 4. If Germany did not invade the Soviets, the Soviets would of invaded Germany a year or 2 later
    1
  90. 5. Iran and Turkey were never going to join Germany
    1
  91. The Nazis were not going to develop an A bomb and even if they did. That doesn’t single handily solve their problems
    1
  92. Depends on how u define winning the war.
    1
  93. True but also not true. The Soviets were facing a famine by the end of 1941, and had Germany took the caucasus in 1942, followed up by competent offenses. Then it would of been the death blow to the Soviets fighting. Not their will to fight but their means. Plus if the people suffer enough, they will call for peace of the Germans offer it. Which they would once the AA line was taken. This doesn't ensure anything but it does ensure a decent chance. The only problem would be dealing with UK and America after.
    1
  94. Interested American so it’s basically the same argument as if the Nazis werent Nazis they would’ve won
    1
  95. Debatable. Ukraine and others are good allies to have but they aren’t mandatory. Otherwise the USSR would of failed as well.
    1
  96. SSG D. Ret I agree that it would help a lot. I’m just saying the task itself is not impossible without it.
    1
  97. Problem was Germany could no longer sustain any major offensives and because the Soviets now had more resources and a larger industry. The Germans were not going to be able to beat the Russians in the East within 1943. Kursk says it all on how far the German army had fallen from their previous selves. The other fronts may have helped the war go by faster but with or without the western invasions, the Soviets now has the initiative.
    1
  98. Snuffy Ballparks yep that’s why Caucasus were needed.
    1
  99. Problem is Stalin would not stay if the city was in risk of being encircled. Even if he wanted to stay which is unlikely, the Soviet High Command would not allow it considering it would be too much of a propaganda blow. Also u have to think on what kind of city Moscow is
    1
  100. It’s not that simple
    1
  101. Robert Kaslow The former is impossible the latter would backfire
    1
  102. Um, why would Moscow cause Stalin to be overthrown? 😂
    1
  103. ? Ok, what’s the point?
    1
  104. That wouldn’t work. Germany did not have the resources to invade UK and would run out of oil by 1941. They had no choice but to attack when they did. Plus if Germany did not invade the USSR, the USSR would of invaded Germany 2 years later.
    1
  105. I would disagree with that. Germany at the beginning had a pretty good chance and had they played their cards right could of brought the Soviets down. In fact, I strongly advocate as does TIK in another video that the Soviets would of economically collapsed had the Causcasus fell in 1942.
    1
  106. And I also wouldn’t define turning points based on the success of one operation. Because if that were the case then America would not had have a turning point until the tail end against Britain. In my view a turning point is when the initiative of the war changes. In my opinion I would define 1942 the last chance for Germany to win but I would consider the Battle of Moscow, the Soviet winter counter attacks, and Japan doing Pearl Harbor with Germany declaring war 2 days later to be the turning point. As that’s really when the odds of the whole war and the initiative was beginning to shift
    1
  107. I would not consider it inevitable considering the damage caused
    1
  108. No
    1
  109. How on earth would they conquer UK?
    1
  110. Ryan true. But within weeks some of them could be rebuilt
    1
  111. Ryan besides it’s not just a matter of the Germans taking them but also the Soviets not having them which more than likely would of been the push to result in the Soviet economy collapse
    1
  112. What? 😂
    1
  113. recurf hmmmmm. Depends
    1