Comments by "bart thomassen thomassen" (@thomassenbart) on "How Nazi Germany could have Defeated Russia... (HITLER COULD HAVE WON!!)" video.

  1. The Americans gave goods, machines, food and everything necessary to sustain the war.
    8
  2. No, the Soviets contrary to popular belief did not have an endless supply of men and material. By 45, Russia was nearing the end of the pipeline of fresh troops and were using boys in the ranks. The Germans also had access to all of occupied Europe in terms of manpower and economics.
    4
  3. Insane idea
    3
  4.  @davidwell686  FDR was the Stalin lover and the decisions were his. It would have been a foolish ask and it would have been rejected immediately. The aid given to the USSR was impressive but was not only to the benefit of the Soviets but the West since 80% of the Nazi forces were deployed in the East. By 44 this figure had changed to meet the anticipated landings in France but, had the Soviets shifted significant forces East, the entire war in the West would have changed and not for the better. Stalin would have had every choice and would have done nothing. Also, the Allies would not have lessened aid to the USSR, that would have been really dumb. Stalin demanded a second front because the Red Army was doing all the fighting, and his losses were enormous. The African and Italian campaigns pale in comparison to the East. The Soviets did not fight the Japanese in China but had border skirmishes in Manchuria. And no, it was not well within their capacity. The Russians famously sent their Siberian Army West in 41 to save Moscow. It did not return East. In 45 when the Soviets did attack Japan it was only after months of movements of troops, tanks, planes etc...Prior to then any similar shift of resources against, would have markedly affected the war against the prime enemy Nazi Germany. No, the US was not hurting in the Pacific War. By 1944, the US was moving decisively forward, with victory after victory in the Island-hopping campaign that culminated in the Philippines, another victory. There was also no shortage of troops in the Pacific, and the US had not suffered heavy losses. Your history is just wrong all the way around here. The Japanese did not reinforce Okinawa until 45, when it sent the 15th Independent Mixed regiment to reinforce the 32 Army and the 9th infantry division to aid the garrison at Okinawa. These additions had nothing to do with any imaginary Russian front scenario. Almost all of the reinforcements to the Philippines and Okinawa came from newly created forces in Japan, not China. Your assumptions and analysis are strange and incorrect. The Russians were doing their part in the fight in their own country. They had no obligation to fight Japan as long as the German threat was still present. I don't think you understand the war very well nor the political, military, and economic realities of it. A Soviet intervention in the Far East in 1944, would have prolonged the war in the West and augmented casualties there, which were far greater than elsewhere and likely have done little to nothing to alter the situation in the East. Also, all things remaining equal, after the war, the Soviet presence would have further complicated relations and made the Cold War more difficult, perhaps with a division of Japan, as happened in Korea and Germany and that would have been a disaster.
    3
  5. Hitler declared war on the USA not the opposite. Your comment suggests the opposite. Hitler thought the US was weak and that is why he went to war against the Americans. He was not afraid of them.
    3
  6.  @davidwell686  Because the Russians were engaged in a far larger and more existential battle against European fascism in 1944. The USA was in no position to make such requests of Stalin and he would not have accepted them regardless. Strategically it would have been a boneheaded idea as well. You don't start a brand new war on the other side of the world, before you have totally defeated and exercised the current one occupying your territory. Also, the Soviets were then demanding that the West open a second front against Germany, because of the continued strain placed upon the Red Army, (which was about to happen in Normandy). Further, Russia was in no position to launch any Eastern offensives against Japan. Lastly, the US did not need pressure lifted in the Pacific, an area it was completely dominating. Finally, such a move would not have aided the US island hopping campaign. The forces engaged were already in place and the Chinese and Manchurian armies were yet to be moved to the home islands. Your idea was impossible, impracticable and ridiculous...sorry.
    2
  7. No, that would not have worked for multiple practical reasons.
    2
  8.  @flakka1685  It was an impossibility with the exception of a Soviet assault on the West which also was a near impossibility. The Allies were still friends until 1947 or so, when things in Greece began to solidify and the Soviets refused honest elections in Poland and of course never demobilized. The idea that the US and Britain were in any way ready to begin a new war pre-emptively against the USSR is simply laughable. Everyone wanted peace and a return to normalcy. War was not an option.
    2
  9. No, the Germans were not doomed from the start of Barbarossa. There are many ways the Germans could have won or at least survived WWII, without surrendering and being occupied by the Allies. Conquering Russia to the Urals was not a realistic possibility. Doing so along the Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad line was possible.
    1
  10.  @oldtrkdrvr  Albert Speer was wrong. There was little value in attacking the USSR but quite a bit to be gained by going into S.E. Asia, especially Indonesia with its oil. The mistake was attacking the USA. Japan should have hit Britain and taken the same actions minus Pearl Harbor and the assault on the Philippines. The USA would not have intervened, and Japan would have enabled the empire to survive.
    1
  11. No, not really. Even the total loss of the British army in France, would not have compelled the Brits to surrender and they could have rebuilt their forces, regardless. Crossing the Channel in the face of the Royal Navy and RAF could not be overcome.
    1
  12. Hmmm, the politics post such a defeat would have been significant and it is possible Churchill's govt. would have fallen and therefore a peace party could have emerged but that all is highly speculative. Also, there were no generous terms being offered by the Nazis. Who were not offering to abandon any of their conquests but merely to allow Britain an exit from the war. I would guess therefore, with some reservations, that the war would have continued and Churchill retained as PM and with him the army rebuilt and renewed. JULY 19, 1940 Hitler offers Britain 'peace or destruction' By FREDERICK C. OECHSNER
    1
  13.  @Kleicomolo  Though there is truth is what you say, I would argue Hitler vastly underestimated the power of the USA, how quickly it could rearm and its military capabilities, moral stamina etc... Hitler viewed the Americans as a fallen race, mixed with black Africans, Jews and others and therefore intrinsically inferior and weak. And though the US was partially engaged in the anti-submarine campaign in the N. Atlantic, and Admiral Raeder wanted war with the US, Hitler preferred peace until after the Russia had been dealt with. However, once Japan was intent on war with the Americans, I would say Hitler's motivations for the declaration had more to do with honoring the alliance with Japan and hoping the Imperial Navy would offer a counterbalance strategically to the US Navy to keep US power divided. All in all, a very flawed reading of the US but I think that is where Hitler was grounded. He continued to view the Americans as worthless fighters and not capable of much. Weinberg, Gerhard L. “Hitler’s Image of the United States.” The American Historical Review 69, no. 4 (1964): 1006–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1842933. Herwig, Holger H. “Miscalculated Risks: The German Declaration of War against the United States, 1917 and 1941.” Naval War College Review 39, no. 4 (1986): 88–100. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44637729.
    1
  14. No, not really. This is a very simplistic assertion.
    1
  15.  @collinleecrawford  Internal security was largely made up of second line forces and though it did constitute a percentage of the total manpower, 20 divisions in Yugoslavia at one point, again these were not front-line forces. I did not say that the Germans could have or should have conscripted large bodies of recently conquered enemies into their ranks. I merely stated that the potential manpower pool was much larger than just the German population. Also, you cannot simply accept/conscript large numbers of hostile peoples into your armies, arm them and let them lose. That would be insane. However, the Reich did attract significant volunteers from every occupied nation, forming entire divisions from them, which generally fought well. Less emphasis on ideology and brutality over practical warfare, probably could have gone a long way especially in the East. NAZI ideology was an issue and in some places like Ukraine and Russia, propelled the native populations into support for the USSR, which was unnecessary. The communists were hated across Europe and this fear and loathing motivated many to join the Crusade against the Bolsheviks. Again, especially in the East, which had been directly under Soviet domination.
    1
  16.  @flakka1685  Not sure. After all we won the Cold War and we avoided communist takeover, large scale war and nuclear annihilation. So, that was quite the accomplishment.
    1